A House of 12: Debate Four Shows Dems Have No Platform - Biden Stands No Chance by Joaquin Flores!
(2019-10-22 at 10:38:04 )

A House of 12: Debate Four Shows Dems Have No Platform - Biden Stands No Chance by Joaquin Flores

The Democratic National Committee continues to promote Joe Biden despite his not resonating with likely voters, undecideds, and swing-staters. Ms Gabbard shone bright, but appears to have earned her place back by putting in work for Mr. Biden. The DNC must focus on fully socialized healthcare, as Donald Trumps foreign policy record is strong in the eyes of anti-war voters actually paying attention. But the DNC can not, and so Donald Trump will likely win.

It was Round Four of the Democratic debates on Tuesday, with 12 candidates squaring off in Westerville, Ohio.

Staged in the critical swing-state of Ohio, the small town of Westerville hosted Round Four of the Democratic Party primary race debates on October 15th. Democrats obviously are pinning hopes on being able to win a few of the swing states they lost to Donald Trump.

The Democratic Party continues its strategy of maintaining a very high number of contenders in the race. In short, the party realizes that the front runner it wants to win - Joe Biden - really lacks the grass roots support, big ideas, and mobilizing capacity that interesting candidates like Mr. Sanders, Mr. Yang, and Ms Gabbard in fact have.

So they keep these more interesting candidates in the race, so that potential voters are more invested in the process for longer. The idea is to try to transfer some of that Yang and Gabbard excitement and support, onto Biden.

If that seems like a Herculean task and a strategy not likely to succeed, you would be right. But bear in mind that this is the same Clinton controlled DNC that came to believe that Hillary would win by a landslide.

Ms Gabbard was no doubt the real-winner of this debate - because a victory in 2019 is whatever meme, soundbite, or viral clip you can produce from this sort of event. And Ms Gabbards slicing and dicing of Ms Warren was absolutely the highlight of the debate.

By European standards, the Democratic Party is a center-right liberal-austerity party, engaged in an abusive tactic of working against the mandate handed to them by their own more social-democratic constituency.

Their programmatic aim is to reduce and tame the real demands of most of their voters, and present "pragmatic" candidates with a "chance to win".

In reality, they force their own voters to bargain against themselves. The much weakened and diluted program that the pragmatic candidates take with them into office, is then in turn "bargained down" in their negotiations with law-makers on the other side of the aisle.

The result are candidates that no one really likes, going in and beginning negotiations with the position that one ought to arrive at in the end, and absolutely not begin with.

Healthcare

For example, on healthcare - as we saw again in debate number four - Mr. Biden promotes only nominal tweaks to Obamacare, which is a non-starter for the activist base of the party which knows that other developed countries consider healthcare both a right and a necessary foundation that makes all other profitable and industrious parts of socio-economic life possible and significantly more robust.

This base is required to generate excitement and launch candidates to wider audiences.

This is an entirely foolish position for many reasons, for nearly 60% of the general public according to recent Gallup polling, also believe that government must provide healthcare. Assuming that every voting Democrat supports a government mandate on healthcare, then nearly 60% means that about 20% of those are Donald Trump voters, making this something of a non-partisan issue.

Interestingly, that polling data also shows that Obamacare ruined the publics perception of government involvement in healthcare, and support for some kind of intervention dropped from all time pre-Obama high in 2006 of 69% in 2007, all the way down to some 46% in the time period that the travesty of Obamacare was passed into law in 2010. It would take another nine years for the support number to rise to where it is now, still 12 points below its 2007 high.

No Alternative to Donald Trumps Dovishness

The candidates in the Ohio debate took turns posturing tough on the need to beat Donald Trump, but the DNC seems bent on backing any candidate who seems the least likely to.

The reason that Donald Trump will win if this continues - and win "big league" - is that this is not only another "change" election in the eyes of progressive and independent voters, but in fact a larger change paradigm.

President Trumps biggest weakness is his generally conservative position on social programs and healthcare, which is generally unpopular, even though his nominal trade wars with Europe and China were aimed at raising the position of the United States of American worker.

The reality is that even during the administration of Bush 43, the Republican base was growing and voters were trending Republican.

The victory of Barack Obama was made possible around three factors: the unpopularity of the wars, which he promised to end, but did not; the massive new-voter registration campaign that was done through the back-door of ostensible labor organizing campaigns by SEIU in swing-states like Colorado; the massive energy at the base created around the prospect of a paradigm-shifting president, African-American no less, that would open the door to larger social-democratic movement - this also was spelled out in new-voter registration and turn-out.

Ms Clinton attempted to use what the Barack Obama energy had built, despite the 2016 election also having been a change election. But this need for "change without hope" was absolutely at odds with the "hope + change" campaign of 2007.

Ms Clinton was in the position of not being particularly inspiring to anyone, and needing to use the Obama energy and Obama machine to win an election which in all reality was a mandate against many of President Obamas actual policies and failings.

Without new voter turn-out, and without a genuinely populist campaign from the Democrats, Donald Trump does not have a serious contender to deal with.

Democrats have no real alternative program to offer to Donald Trump, appealing instead to Trump Derangement Syndrome and the "Orange-Man-Bad" mantra.

But none of their supposedly front-runner candidates have anything of substance to counterpoise to Donald Trump, with the exception of Ms Warren on healthcare. But Ms Warren will never escape the tag of being Pocahontas, and like Ms Gabbard and Mr. Sanders, her anti-war positions may resonate against some of President Trumps rhetoric - if cherry-picked - but voters really concerned about war as a priority are more or less informed that it is President Trump, and none other, that has been the first United States president since perhaps President Ford that has not begun a fresh United States military campaign abroad.

We live in times where the entire United States Empire is being dismantled, and being dismantled much to the chagrin of vested interests who may know better, but nevertheless insist on policies that stretch out the inevitable in the most short-term profitable way, to the extreme detriment of long-term thinking along strategic and national security-sovereignty lines. These "neoconservatives-neoliberals-whatevers" have been using the vehicle of the Oval Office to see their plans through since the end of the Cold War.

The policies of Clinton and Obama were practically indistinguishable from their Republican "opponents" from the same era. All Donald Trump will have to do is continue to run against the past Obama administration on foreign policy, deep state and all, since they have been so adamant about controlling and owning the process up to and until now.

The numerous times he has been threatened with impeachment was explicitly aimed at steering him back on track on aggressiveness on Syria, despite that their strategy failed nonetheless.

That means that what differentiates progressives from President Trump is not the actual foreign policy positions as such - in this sense President Trump feels and acts more like a dove than a hawk - but rather domestic policy on healthcare.

Given the real state of inequality, costs, employment, and so forth, healthcare costs are simply out of hand, and too many United States of Americans who have fallen ill have had to mortgage their homes, sell whatever earthly possessions they may have, wind up homeless, or simply die in hospice care.

This is the reality that United States of Americans are facing, and it is therefore strategically "insane", also being unconscionable as an aside, that Democrats continue to push characters like Mr. Biden and Ms Harris who oppose single payer along "tax increase" lines.

Ms Warren, as was on display in the debate, continues to support some kind of Medicaid for all, and rightly points out that any tax increases will be easily off-set by the end of insurance premiums. Everyone apparently knows this but Mr. Biden and Ms Harris, so insurance companies and HMOs continue to bankroll significant parts of the Biden and Harris campaigns.

We live in a "punishment" paradigm, not a "lesser of two evils" paradigm.

Democrats on the fence are not "centrists" as Mr. Biden backers insist, but rather "to the left" of Democrats on foreign policy and healthcare, and will simply vote against any Democrat to punish them the way they themselves have been punished by Democrats for hitherto voting for said Democrats until now.

Democrats in swing states will vote against Democrats, not vote, or vote for Donald Trump for the very teachable moment that such a move creates.

For that reason, we continue to see 12 candidates all on one stage.

Most of what is being written and read this week on the subject has a relatively transparent method and goal: to give a blow by blow of the debate and focus on the "horse-race" angle of it, instead of how the candidates positions reflect things that actually matter to voters, and to promote Mr. Biden, Ms Warren, and Ms Harris as "front-runners" simply by promoting this idea and repeating it until it becomes a matter of fact as a result.

This, despite the fact that these three are among the least likeable candidates, and are indeed very uninspiring people with very little of substance to say.

It has to be said, and must be said again, that it is Mr. Sanders, Ms Gabbard, and Mr. Yang that motivate and inspire the base.

The DNC has no intention in allowing any of them to get the nomination, but need them in the running.

Nobodies like Mr. Buttigieg, whose political experience constitutes being a homosexual mayor of a town of three-hundred thousand folks, are in this race for no apparent reason.

Except as some sort of latent insult to gay voters, implying that gay voters are interested in a gay candidate for their gayness alone, despite not having any political experience in state-wide, let alone national politics. That, and attempting to keep some sort of Democratic Party interest in Indiana, a state that Obama won in 2008, lost in 2012, and that Trump won in 2016. No wonder Buttigieg, in his "tremendous" political experience at 37 years old and mayor of some place no one has heard of even in Indiana, wants to abolish the electoral college. Why is Mr. Buttigieg still in this race? This campaign has to be "fake news" as nobody on the ground is excited about this lad.

Ms Gabbard was the highlight, and she is still in it

In our simulated and scripted reality, Ms Gabbard "made a come-back" after being excluded from the third debate, and qualified for the fourth. She has shown real utility on numerous occasions for being one of the three most interesting candidates on the one hand, but showing a particular acumen for landing punches on Mr. Bidens opponents - punches that Mr. Biden himself can not seem to land.

She is showing herself to be a very important part of this race, because our Kshatriya warrior princess keeps grass-roots Democrats engaged.

The most interesting part of this debate was Ms Gabbard taking aim directly at Ms Warrens inexperience militarily, that she has no experience to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Moderators cut her off right as she landed this punch, a punch which everyone heard nonetheless, and received an audible ovation from the audience. That clip will no doubt be viral for the coming weeks.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.