2020 Elections

[namazu]

WTF was on the back of Steyer's left hand in last night's debate? It was a grid with just four quadrants, and a large cross in each one.

Nobody seems to be asking this crucial question.

The BBC asked and answered: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51118025

[Parasaurolophus]

WTF was on the back of Steyer's left hand in last night's debate? It was a grid with just four quadrants, and a large cross in each one.

Nobody seems to be asking this crucial question.

The BBC asked and answered: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51118025

Aha, thank you! (And thank you, BBC!)

[kaysixteen]

Random thought s

1.  The dems need to stop actually using the term 'socialism', which, like it or not, is a cancerous term for most Americans, and nowadays almost meaningless as well, and replace it with something that more accurately explains what their progressive economic policies would be, why they are good, and why Republicans have engineered lots of socialism for the rich policies today which are emphatically not good for the average bloke.
2. Marshy is right of course.  Emphasis on secular left social policies coupled with still not uncommon contempt for Trump country working class whites, especially evangelicals, especially in light of the sadly ongoing electoral college, is a recipe for disaster.
3.what strategies does anyone have for getting the folks I refer to above to actually consider those political facts that run contrary to the prevailing neoliberal narrative many of them have been consistently fed by various propaganda and religious sources that they regularly consume?  For instance, how to convince them that some serious public health insurance really is the best and most moral policy going forward?
4. What do you all think is the real likelihood the supreme Court will effectively reverse Roe, especially when ultimately most establishment folks in both parties really want it to continue?

[nebo113]

Random thought s

I often disagree with you, but I appreciate your very thoughtful points above....Good to ponder.

[marshwiggle]

Random thought s

1.  The dems need to stop actually using the term 'socialism', which, like it or not, is a cancerous term for most Americans, and nowadays almost meaningless as well, and replace it with something that more accurately explains what their progressive economic policies would be, why they are good, and why Republicans have engineered lots of socialism for the rich policies today which are emphatically not good for the average bloke.

Absolutely. As many have pointed out, what most on the American left call "socialism" isn't remotely socialism; it is basic social democratic policy. The countries they admire don't refer to themselves as "socialist", but the left would rather use a one word slogan "socialism" to contrast with "capitalism" rather than admit the nuance that doesn't fit in a tweet or on a placard. (The countries they admire are all pretty capitalistic, just with more social programs.)

2. Marshy is right of course.  Emphasis on secular left social policies coupled with still not uncommon contempt for Trump country working class whites, especially evangelicals, especially in light of the sadly ongoing electoral college, is a recipe for disaster.
3.what strategies does anyone have for getting the folks I refer to above to actually consider those political facts that run contrary to the prevailing neoliberal narrative many of them have been consistently fed by various propaganda and religious sources that they regularly consume?  For instance, how to convince them that some serious public health insurance really is the best and most moral policy going forward?

Even though I'm a Canadian, and in favour of public health insurance, having seen the tumultuous debate over Obamacare, I think realistically the most that can be achieved is much more modest than any sort of widespread (let alone universal) public healthcare.
If it is something that people can opt into, it may have a chance, especially if it (like Obamacare) makes it easier to obtain by people who don't have employer-sponsored healthcare.

[Anselm]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-bernie-sanders-cnn-kass-20200116-avuaiaxbfvdkbb2w6y4yoiafuq-story.html

What CNN did to Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential debate — stabbing him with the gender card on behalf of a weakened Elizabeth Warren — was cheap and unfair.

And it was shameful.

This is why I prefer "fake news" bloggers over CNN.  They could have spent this time talking about budgets, defense, education, healthcare, science, etc.  Instead they want to be more like The View.

[mamselle]

But it is important to sort out.

We already have a "lie and don't tell" figure in the White House...

M.

[mythbuster]

The NY Times is publishing a series of interviews with all the Dem candidates prior to the announcement of who they endorse. I've been working through them, and found them much more illuminating than the debates. Things I have noticed so far.
   Andrew Yang may actually have the best grasp of the underlying economic issues that are transforming our society. While I don't think he has a shot in h## at the nomination, I do think we should all pay more attention to the issues that he raises. Universal Basic income isn't the only solution to these problems, but it is an interesting idea.
   I could barely make my way though the interview with Elizabeth Warren.  She seems to be incapable to explaining any of her plans succinctly. She also has multiple plans for each problem, so I can't tell which is actually Plan A. She's also VERY argumentative, and comes across as defensive much of time- even in writing. These are HUGE problems for the general electorate. BIG weaknesses.
   I just started the one for Mayor Pete this morning, but I was impressed with how he presented his time at McKinsey. He's someone who knows how to crunch numbers and manage a database. Of course that would appeal to the academic. - I haven't finished his yet, so other issues may weigh in.
   The one I've found most convincing to date (No Uncle Joe yet), is Amy Klobuchar. He has a real knowledge of how to govern, an impressive record of getting bills passed, and a list of really realistic actions that could have real effects on America. She's the only candidate out there who has said that not every American needs to go to college, and we should better train early for jobs that don't need a 4 year degree. AMEN! I hadn't given her much thought prior to this because I find her personality, and all the jokes in the debate, off-putting.
  So I'm just waiting for the one on Uncle Joe, and need to see if they have one for Bloomberg.
   

[ciao_yall]

This is an interesting quiz by WaPo. Klobacher won for me, but most of the others were actually pretty close.

WaPo: Which Candidate?

Great point made at the debate - the two women on stage had more political experience than all the men except Biden. Yeah, Bernie talks a lot but he's from a tiny state, and what are his legislative accomplishment?

[apl68]

Wait, there were candidates in the past for whom this wasn't true, as far as you're concerned?

Yes.
I know that I will be asked for examples. However, I refuse to provide any as I dont want to divert this into a 'get clean' thread, and dont want to dredge up the past elections for the 35+ years I could vote in the various local, state, & national elections across the four states I have lived in!   

But yes, there have been elections were both candidates were strong and good picks, and elections were there was but one clear choice (IMHO anyway), and like now it seems anyway, where there are no good choices at all.

What clean said.  When I look back at the 2016 election I keep being reminded of Spain in 1936.  Whoever wins, society and the nation will lose.  Unfortunately it appears that 2020 will be the same.

[Parasaurolophus]

But it is important to sort out.

We already have a "lie and don't tell" figure in the White House...

M.

CNN had no interest in finding out. If they did, they would have asked Sanders and Warren to explain what was actually said in that conversation (and they would not have assumed, in all their questions, that Sanders is lying). The most likely explanation, to my mind, is that Sanders commented on the misogyny a female candidate will face--just like all the pundits have done for the last four years, and just like Clinton did in her book on what happened in 2016--and that Warren either (1) misunderstood what he meant as being a comment to the effect that women could never be President, or (2) has misrepresented the content of that conversation now, when it's politically expedient.

Frankly, I'm sorry to say that of those options, I think (2) is most likely. I think that for several reasons:

(1) Warren has a history of self-serving misrepresentations (e.g. saying she opposes elite fundraisers but having them herself, saying her campaign is 100% grassroots funded, claiming she's Indigenous [for 70 years!], misrepresenting her corporate law record, claiming to support Medicare for All, claiming her children went to public schools, claiming--with zero evidence--she was the first nursing mother to take the Jersey bar, taking credit for Occupy Wall Street, saying her supporters are the "most diverse" (in the last debate!), etc.). A lot of these are relatively small misrepresentations that turn on misusing quantifiers or exploiting ambiguities. But that's just like what I think most plausibly happened here, so...

(2) Warren pulled a similar trick in the last debate when she was answering (and pivoting from) this question: she said only the women onstage had defeated incumbent Republicans at any point in the last 30 years. That's false, since Sanders beat an incumbent Republican for Congress 29 years and 2 months before the debate. It's basically true, but not literally true--and it was clearly a move designed to elicit the response it did, which makes it look like Sanders doesn't believe women and cares more about tiny, unimportant details. Witness her fake-counting the years between 1990-2020. This is exactly the same kind of misrepresentation which I suspect of having happened with respect to that conversation.

(3) The Warren campaign's claim that Sanders has been attacking them for the last several weeks is total bullshit, and exactly the kind of misrepresentation that I think is at issue here. Even if Sanders personally authorized that campaign script, it merely points out differences between the candidates--which is especially relevant given that for almost a year, everyone has been saying they're basically 'identical' policy-wise (which they aren't). That's not an attack by any stretch. It's not even being especially critical.

(4) Sanders has a long and public record of saying and doing the exact opposite of what he's being accused of saying (including encouraging Warren to run in 2015, and encouraging Gabbard in 2018). People don't always practice what they preach, but I think all the evidence here indicates that we should believe Sanders does, by and large. And that motivates the conclusion that if this conversation happened, there was either a miscommunication, or it's being misrepresented. (1)-(3) have me believing it's being misrepresented for political gain.


Warren is not doing well, and hasn't been since she distanced herself from Medicare for All and abandoned the left ground to Sanders. Her move to the centre has not paid off, and it's squeezed her between Sanders and Buttigieg. This is a transparent (and desperate) attempt to move back left and try to recapture some of that support. I don't think it's a good move (I think she'd be more successful if she ate into Biden and Buttigieg at this point), but it's a rational bit of politicking. Warren has absorbed staffers from a lot of the other failed campaigns (Gillibrand, Harris, etc.--though why you'd do that is a little beyond me). This is exactly the kind of tactic those campaigns were into.

[mahagonny]

But it is important to sort out.

We already have a "lie and don't tell" figure in the White House...

M.

CNN had no interest in finding out. If they did, they would have asked Sanders and Warren to explain what was actually said in that conversation (and they would not have assumed, in all their questions, that Sanders is lying). The most likely explanation, to my mind, is that Sanders commented on the misogyny a female candidate will face--just like all the pundits have done for the last four years, and just like Clinton did in her book on what happened in 2016--and that Warren either (1) misunderstood what he meant as being a comment to the effect that women could never be President, or (2) has misrepresented the content of that conversation now, when it's politically expedient.

Frankly, I'm sorry to say that of those options, I think (2) is most likely. I think that for several reasons:

(1) Warren has a history of self-serving misrepresentations (e.g. saying she opposes elite fundraisers but having them herself, saying her campaign is 100% grassroots funded, claiming she's Indigenous [for 70 years!], misrepresenting her corporate law record, claiming to support Medicare for All, claiming her children went to public schools, claiming--with zero evidence--she was the first nursing mother to take the Jersey bar, taking credit for Occupy Wall Street, saying her supporters are the "most diverse" (in the last debate!), etc.). A lot of these are relatively small misrepresentations that turn on misusing quantifiers or exploiting ambiguities. But that's just like what I think most plausibly happened here, so...

(2) Warren pulled a similar trick in the last debate when she was answering (and pivoting from) this question: she said only the women onstage had defeated incumbent Republicans at any point in the last 30 years. That's false, since Sanders beat an incumbent Republican for Congress 29 years and 2 months before the debate. It's basically true, but not literally true--and it was clearly a move designed to elicit the response it did, which makes it look like Sanders doesn't believe women and cares more about tiny, unimportant details. Witness her fake-counting the years between 1990-2020. This is exactly the same kind of misrepresentation which I suspect of having happened with respect to that conversation.

(3) The Warren campaign's claim that Sanders has been attacking them for the last several weeks is total bullshit, and exactly the kind of misrepresentation that I think is at issue here. Even if Sanders personally authorized that campaign script, it merely points out differences between the candidates--which is especially relevant given that for almost a year, everyone has been saying they're basically 'identical' policy-wise (which they aren't). That's not an attack by any stretch. It's not even being especially critical.

(4) Sanders has a long and public record of saying and doing the exact opposite of what he's being accused of saying (including encouraging Warren to run in 2015, and encouraging Gabbard in 2018). People don't always practice what they preach, but I think all the evidence here indicates that we should believe Sanders does, by and large. And that motivates the conclusion that if this conversation happened, there was either a miscommunication, or it's being misrepresented. (1)-(3) have me believing it's being misrepresented for political gain.


Warren is not doing well, and hasn't been since she distanced herself from Medicare for All and abandoned the left ground to Sanders. Her move to the centre has not paid off, and it's squeezed her between Sanders and Buttigieg. This is a transparent (and desperate) attempt to move back left and try to recapture some of that support. I don't think it's a good move (I think she'd be more successful if she ate into Biden and Buttigieg at this point), but it's a rational bit of politicking. Warren has absorbed staffers from a lot of the other failed campaigns (Gillibrand, Harris, etc.--though why you'd do that is a little beyond me). This is exactly the kind of tactic those campaigns were into.

So, you're a misogynist?

[Ruralguy]

It might be that a gruffy guy like Sanders joked "A woman won't win because I'm going to win, and I'm a man." That could have been misinterpreted as him think that a woman *couldn't* win, even in principle.  But yeah, I'm no Sanders fan, but I'd be willing to bet that some sort of statement to this effect or the one previously stated by a poster here was mischaracterized, possibly purposefully. 

[mahagonny]

I would predict (though I'm not expert) a woman who wants to talk about patriarchy, male privilege, misogyny, mansplaining, and the like, would lose when running against a woman who mentions these things much less often. And all other qualifications being equal, I would prefer that the second woman would win.

[Parasaurolophus]

So, you're a misogynist?

I'm a feminist. That doesn't inoculate me from error, of course--in fact, sometimes I say things that are sexist, or act in ways that are rooted in misogyny. Not often, but it does happen. And maybe that's the case here, too, although I rather doubt it.

Look, I think it's important to believe women when they talk about their experiences, and I think that belief is a useful default, especially when it comes to public revelations. I also think it's a defeasible stance, and I think that the circumstances here are sufficient to defeat it absent more significant corroboration. In particular, I think that it's clear that Warren and her campaign think they stand to gain from this accusation, and so it's significant that they're the ones who leaked it. Likewise, it's significant that Warren has a long history of misrepresenting the truth when she stands to gain politically from that misrepresentation. And it's significant that she has misrepresented the truth for political advantage (and to Sanders's detriment) not just in the last two weeks, but that she did so during the debate itself.

These are not things that are generally true of accusations of this kind (or, indeed, of the more serious ones we've become accustomed to seeing over the last four years). Those women don't just not stand to gain from their accusations, they stand to lose quite a lot (and, indeed, they have).

If we really want to get to bottom of this allegation, then someone needs to ask Warren and Sanders to report exactly what was said in this conversation, rather than vaguely gesturing to the gist of it. And as I've explained, I rather suspect that the details (as long as they're true--but I suspect their stories would basically converge here) will point to what is at best a misunderstanding. And, honestly, it would be a pretty small-potato misunderstanding, considering that it's been a favourite pastime of the punditocracy for the last five years to opine about whether the US is ready for a female President, and considering that the last female candidate attributes a major part of her loss to widespread sexism and misogyny.