In order to win the next election the Dems will probably have to peel off some of those who voted for Trump. Liberal candidates like Elizabeth Warren would seem to have no chance of doing that. — Jake

I'm not so sure about that. One must distinguish two different albeit overlapping populations: those who make up Trump's hardcore base, and those who merely voted for him. Many people who voted for Trump are liberals or centrists, and some even progressives, and they voted for him because they were dissatisfied with establishment politicians and/or neo-liberals and hence couldn't vote for Hillary. Many among them might have voted for Bernie (if he had won the primary) since he also was an anti-establishment candidate and he didn't exhibit Trump's numerous personal flaws. So, many of those people who voted for Trump, but don't necessarily belong to his unmovable hardcore base, might vote for a progressive candidate like Warren.

Extremely dumb post - just delete this thread

Many people who voted for Trump are liberals or centrists, and some even progressives, and they voted for him because they were dissatisfied with establishment politicians and/or neo-liberals and hence couldn't vote for Hillary. — Pierre-Normand

Imho, far too few of such folks to matter. I just can't picture the person who voted for Trump now voting for Warren.

My guess is that all Dems are going to vote against Trump no matter who the Democratic candidate is, though perhaps turnout would be affected by who the particular candidate is.

Another factor, how could Trump demonize Mattis when Trump praised him and selected him for very high office, and never fired him? If Mattis were the candidate, how does Trump do his thing?

I would agree that Mattis would likely alienate some progressives, but where are they going to go? Are they really going to stay home and thus essentially vote for Trump? My guess is that such folks whine and complain, but in the end would pull the lever for Mattis, their hatred of Trump being so extreme.

Another guess is that the Trump henchmen are already digging through Mattis's history looking for some kind of dirt they can sling. If there's any thing there, that could kill this theory. And of course Mattis may have no interest in the job.

Imho, far too few of such folks to matter. — Jake

Before the primaries were over there frequently were heads up polls between possible nominee matchups. Trump against Hillary were usually evenly matched but Bernie against Trump typically showed Bernie having a 10% lead over Trump. You may be underestimating how much the electorate was fed up with the establishment, and not only the Republican electorate: The Bernie or Bust movement was quite intense too.

Before the primaries were over there frequently were heads up polls between possible nominee matchups. Trump against Hillary were usually evenly matched but Bernie against Trump typically showed Bernie having a 10% lead over Trump. You may be underestimating how much the electorate was fed up with the establishment, and not only the Republican electorate: The Bernie or Bust movement was quite intense too. — Pierre-Normand

I updated my quickie comment to add a bit more intelligent analysis above.

Yes, I am a Bernie fan, and agree with what you just said above. I agree that the disenchantment with the establishment was strong, but how does a Bernie voter become a Trump voter?? I voted for Bernie in the primary myself, but in the end had to hold my nose and vote for Hillary because the only other choice was simply too awful. But, maybe my own experience is over coloring my view of this, that could be possible.

Mattis is of course a general, who is apparently not shy about his job of fighting wars. That's going to turn some people off. I can see every battlefield mistake being waved around like it was a war crime, that may be the pile of dirt that will be mined.

On the other hand, it seems Dems are typically having to prove that they can be tough where needed. Obama succeeded in making this case imho, while still being measured and careful and not jumping in to every fight. Can Mattis sell himself as being tough where needed, but not someone who will launch unnecessary wars? I don't know, need more information.

Yes, I am a Bernie fan, and agree with what you just said above. I agree that the disenchantment with the establishment was strong, but how does a Bernie voter become a Trump voter?? — Jake

What happened isn't mainly that potential Bernie voters voted for Trump but rather that, after Hillary won the primaries, they didn't bother to vote at all. So, if Warren would win the next primaries, many of those former Bernie or Bust folks who didn't vote at all might vote for her. Also, many anti-establishment right leaning folks who abhor Trump might decline to vote at all if Trump, or another pseudo-anti-establishment Trumpoid, would face Warren in 2020. The combination of those two factors, it seems to me, precisely is what accounted for the 10% advantage of Bernie had over Trump (in the heads up polls) as compared with the even match between Hillary and Trump. It's important not to overlook who it is that doesn't vote when comparing matchup scenarios.

What happened isn't mainly that potential Bernie voters voted for Trump but rather that, after Hillary won the primaries, they didn't bother to vote at all. — Pierre-Normand

I wonder how happy they are with that decision now? But, I hear what you're saying and don't really disagree.

If the Dems were to run a progressive candidate, they will have to find one much better than Bernie or Warren in my view. There's more to winning than just having appropriate policy positions. Both Bernie and Warren are afflicted with the kind of personalities that have alienated people from the left for far too long. All angry all the time with large doses of snotty superiority just doesn't cut it.

There may a winning progressive out there somewhere who I haven't thought of. But until I see one I think can win, people like Mattis retain their appeal. To me, getting Trump out of office is the priority, and I want the candidate with the best chance of accomplishing that all important mission.

Could Mattis win the Democratic nomination? That's probably the big hole in my theory. The fact that he served in the Trump administration may doom him. I suspect that Mattis, a lifelong Dem, probably served in an attempt to save American foreign policy from Trump, but not sure a sufficient number of Dems will be able to see that.

I guess I'm just expressing my fear that the Dems will self destruct by nominating another one of their thoroughly mediocre candidates. So for listening to NPR all day every day has not revealed a candidate that seems to have a solid shot at beating Trump.

"To me, getting Trump out of office is the priority, and I want the candidate with the best chance of accomplishing that all important mission." That is exactly how we vote in Spain; we vote AGAINST and rarely pro. The result is that each new president is way worse than the the other, and the next one might very well be a monkey from Gibraltar. Forget about Trump and think of contributing the best candidate for all the country. If you can´t provide that, why should not partisan people vote for Dems? Real Madrid won the last three Champion leagues. They did so partly because is a team´s motto that what others do is not important, but what we have.

Forget about Trump and think of contributing the best candidate for all the country. — DiegoT

In my view, the best candidate for the country is anybody but Trump. I hear what you're saying, generally wise advice, but this is an extreme situation. If Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse is the Democratic ticket, that's who I'll be voting for.

As you probably know, General Mattis just resigned as Secretary of Defense. I don't know a lot about him, but it popped in to my head that he might make a good presidential candidate on the Democratic Party ticket. Let's explore that together. — Jake

I'd just as soon generals stayed on base. Civilians are supposed to be in charge of the government.

The problem isn't whether Bernie Sanders (who will be 80 years old in 2021) or Elizabeth Warren would be better than Donald Trump. We currently have a junk yard dog in office, so the list of candidates who would be better than Trump is exceeding long. The problem is the practice of politics has entered a new stage.

The problem is an unrecognized, unstated, unspoken class war.

The Republican Party's policies--instantiated in the federal office of the president and in a number of state governments--is un-democratic and is carrying out class warfare against working class people. [Here's a relevant slogan to tattoo on your body where you can see it: Class war is the only war.] The Democratic Party is not all sweetness and light, of course. They would be, should be, and are opposed to the Republican's crude methods, but they look good only because the Republicans look so bad. Neither party is in favor of any significant redistribution of wealth, and with it, a redistribution of power, away from the oligarchy and favoring the working class (who are about 90% of the population).

But the real problem is, again, class warfare. It isn't a new thing in this country. The Gilded Age, located in the later third of the 19th Century was a period of class war. The Progressive Era was a counter reaction, followed by an intense and vicious Red Scare attack on the working class brought on by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The 1930s produced another braking of the class war in the form of several New Deal programs which conservatives in the Republican Party would very much like to destroy (80+ years later) along with Medicare and several other minor reforms like the ACA (aka ObamaCare).

White working class people enjoyed a boom, and a fairly generous economy after WWII. The tide began to turn against the working class in the 1960s, and picked up speed in subsequent decades. The economic slide of working people was subtle, but steady, in the form of a slow, continuing fall in wages and purchasing power from the mid-1970s forward, along with a steady accumulation of the percentage of wealth among the oligarchy (both of which were helped along by tax law). Whether the Democrats or Republicans were in power between 1968 and the present has mattered little.

So, what we have right now is a more savage Republican attack on both democracy (which is most useful to the working classes -- the oligarchy can get along quite well without it) and state services. Look at Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Republican Party managed to bust public employee unions, retrench state services, and then to frost the cake, passed several laws on their way out which will hamper the next governor (a Democrat) in governing.

Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse — Jake

Before you vote for the poultry and vermin characters, better check out Walt Disney's politics. Bugs Bunny (Warner Brothers) has a deep irreverent streak which commends him more than the duck and rat.

Currently the USA military spending is so enormous, we could instead tell every single active soldier just to hand out $5,000/hour to anyone they want. I just want to point out, if we did that, no one would ever attack the USA again and we'd be the most popular nation in the world. the entire planet would rush to our defense if we ever needed it. That's simply to say how absurd it is to think a general should be president too. The inanity has already exceeded all bounds of reason.

Mattis can retire very happily as I think he's the only person that has served in the Trump administration that hasn't gotten a stain on his career from serving in this highly inept, dysfunctional and corrupt administration.

He's going to be missed.

Dems won the general election popular vote in 2016 even with the split in the voting community after bernie's loss. I don't think they'll have a problem voting a candidate in because there won't be the same kind of situation this time round and, from the house results, it's clear there's been an uptick in dem turnout.

I'd just as soon generals stayed on base. Civilians are supposed to be in charge of the government. — Bitter Crank

There is some precedent for ex-generals becoming President, and pretty good ones at that. I can in fact think of 3 off the top of my head (viz. Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower). Presumably, one must resign one's military commission (or already be out of the service) before becoming President, so they are technically civilians when elected.

That's true, and I thought of Washington, Grant and Eisenhower. They were good generals and were at least adequate presidents. The military contains many an effective executive; it isn't for lack of competence that I prefer civilians (though Trump manages to be an argument against civilian presidents). I also wouldn't have selected Michael Bloomberg to be Mayor of New York on the basis of his being a multibillionaire, but he did a reasonably good job of running New York.

I would still just as soon the generals stay on base, but I'll grant you that generals are not inherently unfit for Hail to the Chief. Government (and its personnel) ought to be honest and competent. Good and bad presidents prove that it is the character and ability of the individual in the office that counts. Our system don't need more Hardings, Nixons, Reagans, Bushes and Trumps. What the US needs are more of are Lincolns, Roosevelts (both), and Kennedys.

I'm against it. I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. I'd rather another Bernie-type, although I'm not sure who would best match that criteria or what their chances would be.

Good and bad presidents prove that it is the character and ability of the individual in the office that counts. — Bitter Crank

Someone with good character would be nice. :up:

I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. — S

Why? I don't.

You see Mattis is your basic general who basically represents the normal US geopolitic strategy. And these strategists typically want to avoid escalations and put a lot of emphasis on the status quo, just like other countries normally do.

It is the politicians with an agenda who crave for escalation and change, it the people like the neocons that after seeing that the US could form a formidable alliance during the Gulf War, could get a green light from the UN and even from Soviet Union and have a short war to liberate Kuwait, they then take it as free pass that the US can do absolutely anything totally indenpendently of others.

Generals are typically risk avoiders and do understand the role of the military just to be a deterrence: that actually your whole foreign and security policy is a success when you don't have to deploy your troops in a war. The exception to this rule is general Flynn, who totally went into the political bullshitting of the Trump campaign. Needless to say few if any other general has been fired from his positions so many times. Yet usually it's not the generals, it's the politicians who want to show that they are tough guys and get the US into some foreign quagmire.

And I believe Mattis has no intention to get into politics. I will just wait that he will write his memoirs after the Trump debacle and give an insight to this most chaotic and deplorable administration lead by the worst President in US history (at least until now).

Why? I don't. — ssu

Did you read the Wikipedia page? Look at his political views regarding Iran and Middle Eastern allies, Japan, Russia, and China.

Did you read the Wikipedia page? Look at his political views regarding Iran and Middle Eastern allies, Japan, Russia, and China. — S

And what on Earth is wrong with those views? First of all, He's the secretary of defence of the Trump administration. It's his job to talk about possible security threats.

Ok, let's really go through what that page says about Mattis:

Iran:
Mattis believes Iran is the principal threat to the stability of the Middle East, ahead of Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Middle Eastern allies:
Mattis praises the friendship of regional US allies such as Jordan, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates.

Japan:
Mattis emphasized that the United States remains committed to the mutual defense of Japan

Russia:
Mattis said he believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin's intent is "to break NATO apart." Mattis has also spoken out against what he perceives as Russia's expansionist or bellicose policies in Syria, Ukraine and the Baltic states

China:
Mattis called for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and criticized China's island-building activities, saying: "The bottom line is [...] the international waters are international waters."

And we should also add here his view about the Palestinian question:
Mattis supports a two-state solution model for Israeli–Palestinian peace. He has said the situation in Israel is "unsustainable" and that Israeli settlements harm prospects for peace and could lead to an apartheid-like situation in the West Bank.

S, what above do you find so incredible here? That above is basically your foreign policy consensus. And goes in many cases against especially Trump (on Russia and the Palestinian question).

And what on Earth is wrong with those views? — ssu

They risk escalating tensions, as I said. You seem to be in denial here. The article made clear his hard line approach to those countries that I mentioned. I would be concerned about someone like Mattis jumping on a situation in the Middle East, especially to get at Iran, or in the South China Sea regarding disputed islands, or with Russia. Fighting fire with fire, bare knuckle diplomacy vs. bare knuckle diplomacy. That's a risky game to play.

I never mentioned the Palestinian question, with good reason, because I think that that's an exception. So that's a red herring.

I'm against it. I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. I'd rather another Bernie-type, although I'm not sure who would best match that criteria or what their chances would be. — S

Right, that's the thing, what are their chances? Having a particular philosophy doesn't matter if one doesn't get elected, such as the last Bernie type.

Right, that's the thing, what are their chances? Having a particular philosophy doesn't matter if one doesn't get elected, such as the last Bernie type. — Jake

But with the last Bernie-type - that being the man himself - the biggest obstacle to not getting elected was the Democratic party itself, which chose the wrong candidate.

I hope they'll find someone like Bernie who has a good enough chance, and only if that fails would I consider supporting someone like Mattis so as to prevent someone worse from the other side. So, for me, Mattis would be the new Hillary. Potentially more popular and with a better chance of winning, but he would have to match or beat the kind of stuff that Hillary was saying, especially on things such as taxation, or else in my opinion he would be a worse candidate in that sense. I'm guessing that Mattis leans further to the right than Hillary, which would count against him for someone like me.

They risk escalating tensions, as I said. You seem to be in denial here. — S

There is nothing escalatory or basically different as those views do not differ from past administrations. It's you that is in denial here or simply ignorant about US foreign policy, of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Just look at the following quote:

We share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf States, about Iran’s support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region. Meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. We will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel’s security — efforts that go beyond what any American administration has done before.

That was a direct quote from President Obama. I don't see a huge difference on the stance and what Mattis has said. Above all, if you would have a Clinton administration rather than a Trump one, the line that Mattis takes would extremely likely be the foreign policy stance too.

I would be concerned about someone like Mattis jumping on a situation in the Middle East, especially to get at Iran, or in the South China Sea regarding disputed islands, or with Russia — S

Except that he, just like the military leaders in your country, think that attacking Iran is a really bad move. And "jumping" on the other two countries is the last thing the US military wants to do. First of all, is it so difficult to understand deterrence? That you have a firm stance and that decreases the chance of escalation? And having a firm stance doesn't mean you want war. Si vis pacem, para bellum

And I don't understand why calling the situation with Russia how it is, is escalatory. Because Russia's objective is to break apart NATO and make Atlanticism a thing of the past. It's a bit confusing why Americans don't see the hostility towards them in this. Perhaps it's because of this ignorant self centered attitude that because you don't have anything against Russia, then Putin doesn't have anything against you. Hence the best way forward then is to appease Putin and give him what he wants as a "gesture of friendship" and not to "escalate" things. One can be self critical about the actions of your own country, but that self criticism can get carried too far away, when one starts to think that every problem happens because of US actions.

I'm guessing that Mattis leans further to the right than Hillary, which would count against him for someone like me. — S

Right, but you're going to vote Dem no matter what, right? Me too. So we don't count.

Right, but you're going to vote Dem no matter what, right? — Jake

If I could vote, then yes, that would probably be what I'd do.

So we don't count. — Jake

I'm not fully onboard with your analysis. The tactic of trying to find a middle-of-the-road candidate to capture swing votes might work. Or it might not. A better tactic might be to embrace a more radical position and capture momentum, like Bernie did and like Trump did - and the latter was successful. Hillary was more moderate than Bernie, and Hillary failed. There is evidence to suggest that Bernie would've done better than Hillary and would've perhaps even beat Trump to win the presidency. So maybe they were on to something.

I think that unorthodox is popular right now. Not just in the US, but look at France, Germany, and the UK, where unorthodoxy has gained political prominence.

Trying to find the right candidate from what's available is like trying to find one's chewing gum in the chicken coop. The choices are distasteful.

A better tactic might be to embrace a more radical position and capture momentum, like Bernie did and like Trump did - and the latter was successful. — S

Good point. Bernie was remarkably successful too, for a guy who calls himself a socialist. Yes, if we could identify non-voting Dems and get them off the bench, that might work.

On the other hand, ideally we want a President who most people feel represents the country as a whole, and not just the nutzo wing of one of the political parties. You know, after the election there is governing, which can be hard to do if the election totally polarizes the country.