2020 Elections

[mahagonny]

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.

I agree with this ^^. But I meant this ironically:

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.

Meaning, you would have to be a misogynist to notice the things Elizabeth Warren has done and said that are not above board, then comment on them. I think writingprof knows what I mean.

[marshwiggle]

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.

Has there ever been a candidate anywhere who has attributed a loss to their not having the leadership qualities people were looking for? As far as I know, every failed candidate ever has ascribed it to smears, misrepresentations, voter manipulation, etc.
(The number of  women didn't vote for Clinton limits the scope of the "sexism and misogyny" claim, for instance.)

[Anselm]

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.

Has there ever been a candidate anywhere who has attributed a loss to their not having the leadership qualities people were looking for? As far as I know, every failed candidate ever has ascribed it to smears, misrepresentations, voter manipulation, etc.
(The number of  women didn't vote for Clinton limits the scope of the "sexism and misogyny" claim, for instance.)

They usually don't blame others in their concession speech.

[bioteacher]

All I want is someone more qualified than a broken stapler that doesn't have me logging in to my computer every morning and doing a Captain Picard imitation where I bark out "Damage report" when opening my primary news sites.

[writingprof]

All I want is someone more qualified than a broken stapler that doesn't have me logging in to my computer every morning and doing a Captain Picard imitation where I bark out "Damage report" when opening my primary news sites.

So, not Sanders?

[mahagonny]

Klobuchar, Burttigieg and especially Biden are taking money from 'labor management' (union avoidance) legal firms. Is it surprising? Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders  picks up a big endorsement from the nurse's union. The guy I remember who was most antagonistic to teacher unions was Chris Christie. Even more so than Trump, perhaps. Regarding the future of collective bargaining rights, would there be any difference between another term with President Trump versus President Biden? Trump has a ruthless side in business, but also a practical one.
I suppose the growth of union avoidance firms means that union drives have been picking up steam.

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/31/joe-biden-donors-anti-union-lawyers/?fbclid=IwAR3xtHGKU5TV-oz1bPGrzdKvEF5m0kDTIFbdx4032f-yTWtsiHqxrSneF0M

[hmaria1609]

In this Sunday's "Washington Post Magazine" print issue (2/2/20), there's a drawing featuring Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg walking through a cornfield. The artist's explanation is the 4 candidates emerging as the leads going into the Iowa Caucus on Fed. 3rd.

[Parasaurolophus]

As things stand in Iowa right now, it looks like a vote for Warren is a vote for Biden.

I really hope that's not how it plays out.

[marshwiggle]

I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

[mahagonny]

I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

If Trump is reelected in 2020 and his health is looks pretty good for the time being, I expect him to act to get the two term limit repealed.

[spork]

I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

I wouldn't be too sure about this. While Trump is an imbecilic version of George Wallace, he has been just as successful, if not more so, at making the bigotry and willful stupidity that exists in much of U.S. society more acceptable than it used to be.

[backatit]

I've been thinking that the interesting election will be in 2024.  The Republicans will be having the kind of existential crisis that the Democrats are having now. Trump is a one-off, whether you love him or hate him. Any candidate that is popular with the party establishment will have limited appeal, and anyone appealing to the fringe voters will get lots of attention but not appeal to the mainstream.

If Trump is reelected in 2020 and his health is looks pretty good for the time being, I expect him to act to get the two term limit repealed.

He doesn't even have to. He has versions II and III waiting in the wings...

[mythbuster]

I agree with Mahggonny. Regardless of the 2020 outcome, Trump will try to run again in 2024. He will not go quietly. And I think Don Jr. is being groomed to be his heir.

[mamselle]

"The Atlantic" has an interesting article on censure...

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

I agree with Mahggonny. Regardless of the 2020 outcome, Trump will try to run again in 2024. He will not go quietly. And I think Don Jr. is being groomed to be his heir.

Doesn't he hate Don Jr. and think he's pathetic?


For my part, I'm undertaking a total news blackout today, so that I can have a look at the Iowa results when I get home tonight (I assume most of the results will be in by then). It's a lot harder than it sounds, given how much of a political news junkie I am.