Opinion | Finding Democrats who spark joy - The Washington Post

The Democratic presidential field is so crowded and cluttered that it’s hard to keep track, let alone find the favorites. There are so many actual and prospective candidates that it’s hard to remember them all, and there’s at least one so obscure that the pronunciation of his name is for many of us still a work in progress: South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Mayor Pete, as <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pete_buttigieg-36-year-old-mayor-south-bend-indiana-2020-713662/">he likes to be called</a>, joins the “B’s” section of the announced and possible candidates — Biden, Beto, Booker, Brown, Bloomberg, Bullock — on top of the “G’s”: Gabbard, Gillibrand, Garcetti.

I suggested in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/12/31/an-early-tip-sheet-for-2020-democrats/">a previous post</a> that to make sense of the Democratic presidential race we think of it not as a coherent whole, but as a series of mini-primaries that will winnow the field to a much more manageable number of favorites. These contests feature multiple candidates in multiple energy centers in the party vying to emerge from the pack: There are centrist populists, leftist populists, gender-focused candidates and the “new faces” crowd. But the sheer number of possible candidates has now overwhelmed even this simple attempt to impose some degree of order on the process. Some other method must be found.

Perhaps lifestyle guru Marie Kondo, who has built a brand around her KonMari Method helping people clean out clutter and simplify their lives, can help us. Her popularity, now boosted by a new Netflix series, speaks to many people’s deep ambivalence about materialism. We buy stuff we don’t need to feel validated; that stuff often doesn’t satisfy us and junks up our lives, reinforcing the original feelings of lack of control and ennui.

Kondo invites us to reset how we relate to our possessions, suggesting that we keep only those possessions that “spark joy.” She recommends holding the possession in both hands “as if communing with it,” to see if it transmits a thrilling physical sensation. If not, that’s the signal to get rid of it.

What happens if we apply Kondo’s approach to the Democratic primary field? What if our new standard is that a candidate has to give us a thrill, or we put them on the discard pile? While the “holding” part of Kondo’s process might seem a little far-fetched, remember the retail nature of the early primaries, where candidates shake and hold hands with prospective voters, hug, backslap and occasionally kiss them, at least the babies.

I have only met a few of the candidates in person and never actually held any of them. So I will have to rely primarily on press accounts, television interviews and debates to decide which ones to keep and which to throw away. But I plan to keep Kondo’s approach in mind when assessing the field. After all, I hope to keep the next Democratic president in my life for eight years; it would be good to feel joyful about that decision.

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/28/heres-what-democrats-should-look/?utm_term=.4d9921d31e66">Jennifer Rubin: Here’s what Democrats should look for in a 2020 nominee</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/12/31/an-early-tip-sheet-for-2020-democrats/?utm_term=.307d25d38b17">Carter Eskew: An early tip sheet for 2020 Democrats</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-crowded-road-to-2020-will-yield-the-best-democrat/2018/12/11/02e74a86-fd44-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.b9c0cbe08832">Ronald A. Klain: A crowded road to 2020 will yield the best Democrat</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/11/29/democrats-must-follow-this-one-rule-for-2020/?utm_term=.5b51d8ddd9a2" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Jonathan Capehart: Democrats must follow this one rule for 2020</a>

Carter Eskew is a founder of the Glover Park Group who formulates media strategy and advertising for a range of corporate and nonprofit clients. 

Carter Eskew

The Washington Post

Opinions

The Washington Post Opinions section features opinion articles, op-eds, editorials by the Editorial Board, global opinions and letters to the editor on the issues of the day. Offerings include columns by Washington Post opinion writers, political cartoons by editorial cartoonists Ann Telnaes and Michael de Adder and podcasts by Jonathan Capehart.

Opinion | The hermit-in-chief - The Washington Post

The White House announced Friday that there will be another summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It’s fitting: One acts like he wants to lead a hermit kingdom, and the other one actually does.

The term “hermit kingdom” has become shorthand in the United States for North Korea. Notably used by then-secretary of state <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6921007&amp;page=1">Hillary Clinton in 2009,</a> it evokes North Korea’s reclusive, walled-off and isolated nature. It now fits Trump’s vision of the United States as well.

Trump wants to build a wall to keep people from entering the country. He <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/security-concerns-created-by-trumps-disclosure-will-delay-afghanistan-trip-pelosi-says/2019/01/18/b2d61536-1b2f-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.1e4ff1658a1d">cancels the flights of members of Congress</a> who want to leave. He threatens to exit global treaties, like NATO, and global accords, like the Paris climate agreement. He applauds isolationist acts like Brexit.

Why do leaders like Trump and Kim want to isolate themselves from the world? It has to do with fear of losing control. North Korean leaders have long feared that exposure to the outside world would open their population to the alternatives afforded by greater freedom and undermine the cult of personality surrounding Kim. Trump fears change, debate and alternative viewpoints. He fires those who disagree with him and dismisses anyone he can’t fire with insults. He admires those leaders like North Korea’s and Russia’s who brook no dissent.

Increasingly, Trump’s hermit tendencies extend not only to his view of his country but also to his view of himself. He boasts of being alone in the White House, and when he isn’t alone, he isolates himself with a fractious and shrinking group of staff members. As he once said, he seems to increasingly believe that he alone can fix it. But here’s the thing about hermit kingdoms: They only serve the hermits.

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2019/01/17/preseason-is-over-for-beto-orourke/?utm_term=.6c364c00e011">Carter Eskew: Preseason is over for Beto O’Rourke</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2019/01/07/free-airtime-for-trump-not-so-fast/?utm_term=.62fb3ded072c">Carter Eskew: Free airtime for Trump? Not so fast.</a>

Opinion | Preseason is over for Beto O’Rourke - The Washington Post

Beto O’Rourke: Welcome to the National Football League. As a potential top-tier presidential candidate, O’Rourke has arrived at a much tougher level of competition, and he had better raise his game quickly. To continue the metaphor, he is like a No. 1 draft pick, and everyone is looking to see if he’s worth it.

The nation’s best and toughest reporters have his number and want nothing more than to take his measure and knock him down. Now that he is under a whole new burden of proof, he is going to have a more thoughtful positions on national issues than the one O’Rourke gave The Post’s Jenna Johnson, published in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beto-orourkes-immigration-plan-no-wall-but-no-specifics/2019/01/15/f6e36fac-15ea-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.08196af215ec">an article on Tuesday</a>.

When asked about immigration, he said, “That’s a problem when you’re like, ‘It will be a wall,’ or ‘It will be this,’ or ‘We can only do it with this . . . The genius is we can nonviolently resolve our differences, though I won’t get to my version of perfect or I, working with you, will get to something better than what we have today . . . It’s rare that someone’s ever been able to impose their will unilaterally in this country. We don’t want that.”

What the heck is that babble?  Surely, a congressman, especially one from a Texas border region, has more to say on immigration than that drivel and to call for more debate. We have been having a debate for more than 20 years. What people are looking for now, especially from someone bearing such high expectations of leadership, are thoughtful, fearless ideas to resolve the debate.

The love bubble surrounding O’Rourke is leaking. To his would-be Democratic rivals, he’s no longer the scrappy, truth-telling, unifying underdog. He is now an upstart who threatens what they have spent years coveting. He is coming after what they think they deserve and he hasn’t earned. And right now, there are smart operatives with deep media contacts from several campaigns that are talking smack to anyone who will listen.

Sure, O’Rourke was exciting three months ago. He gave Democrats hope that they could beat the oleaginous Ted Cruz and plant the blue flag in Texas. But preseason is over. Beto, time to get your head into a whole new game.

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/18/beto-orourke-invites-you-his-kitchen/?utm_term=.7f7867363f28">Molly Roberts: Beto O’Rourke wants you to see his kitchen</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/08/betos-beginning/?utm_term=.62b514c401d0">Jennifer Rubin: Is this the beginning for Beto?</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive-texan-cant-get-excited-about-beto-orourke/2018/12/05/641c7f0e-f8b9-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.4e085ffd1b09">Elizabeth Bruenig: Why this progressive Texan can’t get excited about Beto O’Rourke</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/09/beto-rebuts-trumps-fear-mongering/?utm_term=.1aba074a7357"> Jennifer Rubin: Beto O’Rourke rebuts Trump’s fearmongering</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/05/can-beto-make-leap/?utm_term=.90d35f5e725c">Jennifer Rubin: Can Beto O’Rourke make the leap?</a>

Opinion | Free airtime for Trump? Not so fast. - The Washington Post

Monica Akhtar

Trump on southern border: ‘It's a national emergency'

Politics

The president plans to deliver a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-visit-us-mexico-border-amid-shutdown-stalemate/2019/01/07/114fc580-129d-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html">prime-time address Tuesday</a>, with the expectation that the broadcast television networks will break into their regular programming to air it. But those networks have no legal obligation to give President Trump free airtime to speak about his border wall. Indeed, they have a journalistic responsibility not to do so.

We already know what the president will say, because he’s been saying it for weeks, and some cases, for years: There is a crisis at the border; thousands of terrorists are trying to enter our country; drugs are pouring through a porous southern border.

We face a national emergency in that the president is willing to shut down the government until he gets the money for his wall or fence. There is likely to be nothing newsworthy in his speech to the nation. If there were, he likely couldn’t contain himself until Tuesday, and if there is something newsworthy, the networks, and every other outlet, would disseminate it immediately.

If the networks have offered Trump free time, they should put two conditions on it immediately. First, he should be questioned by a pool of anchors, say three: a broadcast anchor, one from Fox News and one from Telemundo. Second, the networks should give a Democrat equal time in the same format (just as most networks air a response to the State of the Union from a member of the opposite party).

The networks, even Fox News, have begun to question Trump’s policy on the wall and the shut-down much more vigorously, pointing out the many inconsistencies and outright falsehoods.  Now is no time to back down.

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/07/trump-wants-networks-carry-his-speech-live-they-should-look-these-charts-his-lies/?utm_term=.08f05a001004">Greg Sargent: Trump wants the networks to carry his speech live. They should look at these charts of his lies.</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/07/who-wants-broadcast-trumps-border-crisis-speech/?utm_term=.0562ee1b80f6">Erik Wemple: Who wants to broadcast Trump’s border ‘crisis’ speech?</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/10/trumps-lies-disinformation-require-new-kind-media-response/?utm_term=.12ced3a9ca92">Greg Sargent: Trump’s lies and disinformation require a new kind of media response</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-immoral-about-a-wall-speaker-pelosi/2019/01/07/c7553220-12b6-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html">The Post’s View: Democrats can use their leverage on the wall for a truly moral purpose</a>

Opinion | An early tip sheet for 2020 Democrats - The Washington Post

With the Democratic presidential primary about to start and with so many candidates about to declare, what should we look for as the race unfolds? It may be useful to think of the Democratic contest not as one long, sequential event, but as a series of mini-contests with multiple candidates fighting to win key “pre-primaries” before the actual voting begins. This has long been true: In years past, there was the “money” primary to lock up key financial backers; the “operative” primary to win over the hottest consultants; the labor primary to secure that key group of Democratic foot soldiers and monetary support, and so on.

These mini-primaries still matter, but new ones will emerge. The Democratic Party has changed dramatically since 2004, the last time there was a crowded primary field. Today’s Democrats are less white, more college-educated, more suburban and, perhaps most relevant, more liberal.

The mechanics of campaigning have also changed; candidates such as Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke have shown the power that online organizing and fundraising have to level the playing field. Finally, as a direct result of Donald Trump, the energy and passion within the Democratic Party are at a peak not reached since 1968, when Democrats were riled and riven by the Vietnam War.

Today’s possible and likely Democratic candidates fall into certain categories. There are the progressives — Sanders, Warren, Sen. Kamala D. Harris and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii; the “executives” — Michael Bloomberg, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, whose candidacies will be based in part on a claim of having governed successfully; the “political transcendentalists” — Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Cory Booker, Howard Schultz — who will run as outsiders with a post-partisan approach; the “female majority” candidates — Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar, who will make equality for women the central economic platform of their campaigns; and the “traditionalists” — former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Sherrod Brown, who will speak to that shrinking, but still important, constituency in the party, the working class.

These categories are, of course, somewhat arbitrary. Most of the candidates and their handlers would, with some justification, bitterly resist this typecasting and narrowing of their appeal, but they are useful, nonetheless. With so many candidates, voters themselves are going to default to archetypes to try to make sense of the field, and there is simply isn’t enough political oxygen for multiple progressives, executives, traditionalists and outsiders to last beyond the New Hampshire primary. The winnowing will be rough. For the next year, the goal of each Democratic candidate for president will be to become the leader of a power source within the party and win the right to compete in South Carolina and the slew of primaries soon after.

Opinion | A lesson for Pelosi and Schumer: Never wrestle with a pig - The Washington Post

Patrick Martin

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), as they fashioned their political strategy on the government shutdown, ignored George Bernard Shaw’s wisdom: “Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

The Democratic leaders may regret their sloppiness. Schumer and Pelosi seemed triumphant <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/schumer-pelosi-set-to-meet-with-trump-on-wall-but-house-gop-stands-firm/2018/12/11/2604b1ae-fd56-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.35ac64e665d5">after their meeting with President Trump</a> this month in the Oval Office, happy that the president had so emphatically welcomed ownership of the shutdown.

But be careful what you wish for. Every day that goes by with the government shuttered and shutdown clocks clicking on the cable channels is a distraction from Pelosi and Schumer’s ability to make a new and better impression — not just on the people who increasingly control and energize the party and who bitterly oppose the wall, but also on those more “soft” or swing voters in the suburbs and rural America. It is those voters’ continued support following the midterms that is essential to winning the White House and possibly the Senate in 2020.

Instead of assuming their new authority in the new year by setting an affirmative agenda on health care, as well as shining light on the Trump administration’s corruption, Pelosi and Schumer find themselves in a showdown with a president who seems to relish the fight as a welcome distraction from his increasing political precariousness, and as a way of spoiling the Democrats’ fresh start.

Dare we say it: Trump is being clever. He is not only insisting on funding his border wall to appease his base. He is also doing it to box in the Democrats with theirs. Trump is betting that neither Pelosi nor Schumer can afford to appear weak in their first encounter with the president after their midterm victories. The wall is an anathema to progressives, and the last thing Pelosi and Schumer want is to sully their fresh start by caving into Trump’s demands. But the longer the government stays closed, the less chance for Democrats in Congress to get off to a strong start as both sides in the dispute appear feckless and blameworthy.

The president has lured the Democrats’ leaders into his very sloppy barnyard and he figures he has nothing to lose. After all, he can claim he is fighting on a popular principle: protecting Americans from illegal immigration. And what can Pelosi and Schumer claim: that the wall is a technically stupid and unnecessary construct, or that that the days of being bullied by Trump are over? Both arguments seem weak and diffuse compared to the president’s.

Trump may not be enhanced by this fight, but he no longer cares. Like Shaw’s pig, he just wants to make to make his opponents look as bad as he does. And he may well succeed.

Schumer: ‘President Trump is plunging the country into chaos’

Opinion | Democrats missed an opportunity in the Oval Office - The Washington Post

Democratic leaders Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) missed an opportunity in their <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/this-has-spiraled-downward-democrats-introduce-trump-to-divided-government/2018/12/11/f832b92e-fd6e-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.971edbd2540c">Oval Office meeting</a> with President Trump yesterday.

The leaders came ready to make the president own the potential government shutdown, and Trump was only too happy to oblige, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/12/12/daily-202-five-implications-of-trump-s-oval-office-clash-with-pelosi-and-schumer-over-the-border-wall/5c10851d1b326b2d6629d444/?utm_term=.4fdd7b3ee2c5">saying he would proudly claim responsibility</a> for closing the government in order to build his border wall and protect the American people from the criminals and drugs he claims threaten them. The exchange was like so many political skirmishes these days: a bloody split decision in which both sides claim victory. Supporters of Democrats retreated to their corner feeling pumped, and Republicans did the same. But Democrats in Congress can play a smarter and longer game with Trump by fighting him in less predictable ways.

Pelosi and Schumer came to the White House locked into the narrow mind-set of the latest legislative standoff. Their goal was to offer Trump some money for his border wall (all-but-knowing it would not be enough for him) and then make him look petulant for demanding a government shutdown instead of accepting their compromise. In other words, they tried to win the news cycle.

But in the Trump era, that’s old-fashioned thinking because there are separate news cycles now; one on news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, and another for conservatives on Fox News, etc. Democrats need to adapt to this reality and work to not only knock Trump off his game by winning the news cycle his supporters see but also to surprise him and the American people with a more future-oriented agenda.

For example, what if Pelosi and Schumer had presented the president yesterday with an agenda “for the people” (that was their <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/house-democrats-midterms-campaign-slogan-730907">midterms slogan</a>) that included much of what they just campaigned on: lowering health-care costs, infrastructure investment, tougher government corruption laws and voting rights protections?

They could have used the meeting to push that agenda, and if they wanted to add a zinger, they could have asked the president if he would commit, for good measure, to allowing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to finish his job without interference and to promise that he wouldn’t pardon Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn or Michael Cohen. On the subject of the border wall and government funding, the supposed topic of the meeting, the Democratic leaders could have been more subtle and even playful: “Mr. President, the American people are confused: You said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Why punish the American people because you can’t keep your promise?”

It has been more than a month since Democrats made significant gains in the midterm elections, and they haven’t given their supporters, especially the ones who flipped from Trump and will be essential to further gains in 2020, much of a reason to feel confident about their switch.

Battles over leadership and government-shutdown brinkmanship sap political enthusiasm. Democrats should get back to talking about and doing the things that people left Trump for and want from them. A pool spray in the Oval Office may not be the best setting to lay out a message, but Trump got his through. Let’s hope Democrats take better advantage of their next opportunity.

Opinion | The end of Trump - The Washington Post

When Donald Trump’s political autopsy is written, the exact time of death will be uncertain, but it will be fixed sometime around the 2018 midterm elections when enough of the country decided that it had had enough.

Cause of death, somewhat unexpectedly, will not be a single event, not his racist reaction to Charlottesville, or his siding with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence branches, or his obstruction of justice, or his threatening to cut off federal aid for the burned-out citizens of California’s fires, or any of his other misdeeds, but rather the accumulation of all of them. In medical terminology, the cause will be “death by misadventure.” This accident of democracy will have politically expired, due to “deliberate assumption of unreasonable risk by the victim.” In other words, he came too close to the edge too many times and finally fell.

How can we be so certain that Trump’s political days are numbered? First, now we can see more clearly that the blue tide kept rising as many of the closest races, especially for the House, flipped to the Democrats as the final votes were counted. Democrats are now <a href="https://www.axios.com/democrats-2018-midterm-elections-house-congress-20ad294d-c608-4f70-af89-97d683757ed0.html">set to gain nearly 40 seats</a> in the House — their biggest gain in decades.

Second, we have the smart <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/opinion/sunday/trump-is-beginning-to-lose-his-grip.html">analysis this past weekend</a> from Democratic pollster Stanley B. Greenberg that the shift away from Trump in 2018 was more profound than many initially believed. In fact, Greenberg makes a strong case that the election was “transformative” with Trump losing support, not only with suburban, college-educated women, but all women. And Democrats gained ground in other areas, too, including working-class men and in rural areas.

Kate Woodsome

The likelihood that Democrats will maintain these gains though the 2020 election is very promising. Unlike many incumbent presidents who have retooled their approach in the face of stinging midterm rebukes, Trump has signaled he’s sticking with his risky behavior. The attack tweets, the latest <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-uses-derisive-nickname-for-rep-adam-schiff-in-tweet/2018/11/18/676a03be-eb6e-11e8-8b47-bd0975fd6199_story.html?utm_term=.9060edb1a00a">puerile joke about a congressman’s name</a> and indefensible behaviors, such as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-he-wont-listen-to-khashoggi-suffering-tape/2018/11/18/445cc5c0-eb53-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.fd05ac8c2b05">believing a foreign power instead</a> of the CIA about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, will continue.

Trump will not pass from our politics suddenly from a single dramatic cause, but rather from the accumulation of self-inflicted wounds. It has taken much longer and done more damage than many hoped, but the end of Trump is finally in sight.

PostPartisan

Quick takes by The Post's opinion writers.

Opinion | The Florida fraud redux - The Washington Post

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) is accusing incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson (D) of voter fraud as the votes are being recounted in their <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/11/12/daily-202-rick-scott-prepares-to-join-the-senate-as-florida-recount-continues/5be906601b326b3929054733/?utm_term=.79817bfd263a">very close election</a> for <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/florida/?utm_term=.9d13af00f4a9">a Senate seat</a> from the Sunshine State.

Yes, this is the same Rick Scott who served as CEO of a health-care company that agreed to <a href="https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/mar/03/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-rick-scott-oversaw-largest-medicare-fra/">pay $1.7 billion in fines</a>, both criminal and civil, after a federal fraud investigation. And, who as governor, made it harder for Floridians to vote by cutting early voting days, making registration more onerous and <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article1940542.html">purging mostly minority voters</a> from the rolls. Scott’s approach comes from the standard Republican playbook in close elections in Florida: First, do next to nothing while in power to strengthen the voting infrastructure to assure confidence in close elections. Then, follow these steps when election results are, in fact, too close for comfort: claim victory; decry the legally mandated process of a recount; flood the press with accusations of fraud; and run to the courts as a more reliable venue than the democratic process.

Forgive me if, as someone worked in Al Gore’s presidential campaign, this all sounds <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075252/florida-recount-midterms-nelson-scott-gillum-desantis">depressingly familiar</a>. I remember all of it: Gore taking the high road and asking for the time to do the legally mandated recount; and the George W. Bush campaign, ginning up borderline-violent crowd protests, delegitimizing the process through the press; pointing to phony issues such as accusing Democrats of not wanting to count the absentee ballots of service members; and turning to the courts for relief as the vote totals started to move against them. (For those who don’t remember, <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20001211monday.html">the Supreme Court stopped the 2000 Florida recount</a> with Gore gaining votes and Bush’s lead down to less than 600 votes.) Of course, one thing is different this time; while President Bill Clinton in 2000 respected the recount by remaining silent, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-calls-for-halting-recounts-in-florida-races-for-governor-and-senate/2018/11/12/15a7c98a-e628-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.daa938ab9918">our current president has echoed Scott</a> by saying that Democrats are trying to steal the elections.

Jenny Starrs

Florida authorizes recounts in three key races

Reuters

In 2018, the Republican playbook may not work in Florida. But if it does not result in the election of Scott and Ron DeSantis, then Plan B will go into effect: Millions of Floridians will believe that neither Nelson nor Andrew Gillum hold office legitimately. And that is what is so disgusting and dangerous about this Florida election redux: Republicans want to win by stopping the votes from being accurately tallied, or they want to “win” by neutering their opponents if they should prevail. Either way, democracy loses. Again.

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/11/11/two-gop-senators-one-grown-up-one-stooge-for-trump/?utm_term=.7a645bef35c4">Jennifer Rubin: Two GOP senators: Flake defends democracy, Rubio undermines it</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/09/trumps-authoritarian-response-to-florida-shenanigans-hints-at-worse-to-come/?utm_term=.417eada9a000">Greg Sargent: Trump’s authoritarian response to Florida shenanigans hints at worse to come</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaigned-to-protect-himself-not-help-republicans/2018/11/09/a2f50fa2-e441-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html?utm_term=.9fe2a0bfc303"> Anne Applebaum: Trump campaigned to protect himself, not help Republicans</a>

Opinion | Buck up, Democrats - The Washington Post

Gillian Brockell

Opinion | Democrats have hope, but GOP will get Trump-ier

Last night Democrats met reasonable standards of expectation. In the face of the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 50 years, they handily <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/midterm-elections-democrats-flip-house-as-gop-expands-senate-majority/2018/11/07/94d62430-e27d-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.dc5311b00965">won back the House</a> and brought some potential new stars to Washington, many of them women. Outside Washington, they gained governors’ mansions and state legislatures and regained ground in key presidential electoral states. Once again, they <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/07/election-results-america-rejects-trump-protects-democracy-popular-vote-column/1913892002/">won a lot more votes nationally</a> than Republicans.

So why do so many Democrats I’ve talked to in the past 12 hours feel so down?

Well, let’s start with <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/06/b7836736-dfa8-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.b97bd45e6622">Andrew Gillum</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-texas-beto-orourke-loses-the-race-for-senate-but-still-makes-a-mark/2018/11/07/b3ff967c-e23f-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.e4749952ab8c">Beto O’Rourke</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/georgia/?utm_term=.ed51e6272597">Stacey Abrams</a>. If just one had won, many Democrats would feel a lot better today. And in the states of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/midterm-elections-democrats-flip-house-as-gop-expands-senate-majority/2018/11/07/94d62430-e27d-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.db7f36a3d394">Tennessee, Missouri and Indiana</a>, where Democrats had strong incumbents or challengers, they suffered tough losses, some by large margins. For example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/tennessee/?utm_term=.3a9f935c3d45">Phil Bredesen</a>, a popular, centrist, two-term former governor got crushed in Tennessee. Many of these losses came in areas where President Trump made himself the central factor in the race, and he has every reason to take credit today. In an off-year election with high negatives, the incumbent president can credibly claim that he personally stopped Democrats’ chances of making history by electing African American governors in the deep South and a liberal senator in Texas.

Yet I suspect Democrats’ post-election malaise is not rational but emotional. Some Democrats had hoped yesterday would deliver a stinging rebuke of a president they despise, and they have a hard time swallowing that almost as many Americans came to the polls to praise Trumpism as came to bury it. After all the norms Trump has violated, after the ugly nativism, narcissism and gleeful sowing of division and anger, Trump still seems strong today, reveling in his victories and about to unleash his next two years of hell on Democrats.

For Democrats who wanted revenge or vindication on Tuesday, they should accept partial victory as a consolation prize and a building block. Remember the women who are coming to the House of Representatives and the new majority. Remember the new governors, and even more the local victories that help make up the political fabric of the country.

Democrats should note and remember the gains in states that gave Trump his 2016 electoral college victory despite losing the popular vote. And, most of all, remember that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-forecast.html">more Americans are voting for Democrats than Republicans</a> these days. If that trend continues one more cycle, Trump will be gone, and history — which seemed so close in some places yesterday — will be made.

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/11/07/three-of-trumps-biggest-fables-died-last-night/?utm_term=.d133529fc355">Three of Trump’s fables died last night</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/11/07/heres-what-did-and-didnt-work-for-democrats/?utm_term=.eda22660b484">Here’s what did and didn’t work for Democrats</a>

<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/11/07/democrats-won-the-house-but-trump-won-the-election/?utm_term=.e5b841912ab4">Democrats won the House, but Trump won the election</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-aftershock-of-hillary-clintons-defeat-has-finally-arrived/2018/11/07/d6d348e0-e214-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html">The aftershock of Hillary Clinton’s defeat has finally arrived</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/11/07/texas-i-see-now-that-you-love-me-and-despise-this-beto-and-i-embrace-you/">Texas, I see now that you love me and despise this Beto, and I embrace you</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/both-democrats-and-republicans-are-losing-this-culture-war/2018/11/07/72feb93e-e24c-11e8-a1c9-6afe99dddd92_story.html">Both Democrats and Republicans are losing this culture war</a>

Carter Eskew

Washington, D.C.

Finding Democrats who spark joy

The hermit-in-chief

Preseason is over for Beto O’Rourke

Free airtime for Trump? Not so fast.

An early tip sheet for 2020 Democrats

A lesson for Pelosi and Schumer: Never wrestle with a pig

Democrats missed an opportunity in the Oval Office

The end of Trump

The Florida fraud redux

Buck up, Democrats