I don't know, man.....Survey says...
Elizabeth Warren surges and Joe Biden fades in close Iowa race, new poll
shows.
Elizabeth Warren surges and Joe Biden fades in close Iowa race, new poll
shows.
M
member 3289
Guest
Survey has Biden with the biggest lead in a potential match-up with Trump.
I agree with Splinty that Warren would be Hillary 2.0
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Again, that's not my point. Iowa vs Joe means nothing.
If the Dems walk in and start on their same shit as 2016 - white, male, ambiguous labels as to who is the gilded evil class (might want to define your target so others don't reject you), whatever, as pseudo-pejoratives -- which play well in this echo chamber -- they will alienate the middle independents and suburbs that they need to win. These needed groups aren't into all this shit. Suburban women want a woman president, but not one they are embarrassed culturally to publicly support. My wife and her friends probably would have voted for Hillary if Hillary didn't come to represent a cultural rejection of them, their sons, and their husbands. Independents, the largest voting bloc which flipped the blue wall for Trump, are in areas that like Dem policies and hate Dem identity politics. They hear Warren's policies and support them...then they have to reconcile their interest in policy with a type of language that rejects them and their concerns. Warren isn't getting knocked out with a single bad one liner. It's the trend. Why did Warren need to add, "we aren't here because of men at all!!!!"? What did that benefit? How does that play when gone viral on social media? Do suburban women, one of the most important voter groups this go around, move towards that or away from it?
Keep it up and 2020 becomes 2016 all over again.
Literally just keep pushing the policy, zinger your competition (ie Trump), not the voters you are courting, and let the fact that you are a woman pushing woman-empowering policies be self-evident. You become the first female president. Warren can win. This isn't the way to do it.
All that is well and good but I'm pretty sure none of what she said is half as incendiary as the current occupant of the white house who made a name for himself with way more pejoratives and shenanigans.
What she said is mild (if not accurate), by comparison. Lets not ever forget that part of Trump's success is due to Russian interference combined with an antiquated electoral college system that favors republicans in close races. I'd worry if she starts calling white men rapists who are bringing drugs and crime. Till then, ... meh.
My man making sense:
US Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang: “Police Officers Should Be BJJ Purple Belts"
I used to say blue, but purple's even better 'cos blues are still in no man's land of disciplined development....
US Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang: “Police Officers Should Be BJJ Purple Belts"
I used to say blue, but purple's even better 'cos blues are still in no man's land of disciplined development....
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Luckily that's different this time around...
Mexicans don't vote for the presidency.
Yes, set the bar for campaign strategy at the highest unlikeability president in history... and turn an easy win into a close race for no good reason.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Bernie Sanders Proposes a Wealth Tax, Taking Aim at Billionaires
A goal of, "you are not allowed to have X" dollars seems less palatable and beyond that an easy political target that will get hammered in the public arena.
That is to say nothing of the fundamental view differences on an arbitrary amount of money suddenly being immoral. Only that the politics of it are easily attacked and maybe not that winning of a plan for independents.
Arguments of fair share, incentives to spend and invest rather than hold, etc are much more palatable to me and everyone I know. I support the economic numbers and moves that come with reducing wealth inequality.
A goal of, "you are not allowed to have X" dollars seems less palatable and beyond that an easy political target that will get hammered in the public arena.
That is to say nothing of the fundamental view differences on an arbitrary amount of money suddenly being immoral. Only that the politics of it are easily attacked and maybe not that winning of a plan for independents.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Yang pimping thorium reactors.
Nice!
Nice!
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Doc, with all due respect, you, your wife and probably most of the people you know aren't the middle class suburban voters in the demos the Dems need to move to win this election. Remember, the median household income is 60k and support for issues like equal pay and opportunity and rhetoric around not being dismissed are what mobilized much of the women's vote Hillary did get. Add in deeper alienation from Trump among women voters since 2016 and you get some folks leaning right staying home and others in the middle actually pushing the lever the other way.
The swing states of this election have some demographic differences from past cycles and also have ensconced themselves in different ways of making politics and interpreting messages than prior times. I think what you're saying about more specificity, focus on policies, and a retreat from what's sometimes referred to as identity politics is a good long form strategy for continuing to build a Democratic Congressional majority and even for flipping some consistently red states closer to purple at least, but I fear this isn't that election. Due in part to Trump's volatility and in part to the economy being in a wait and see mode, with indicators of downturn to come, everything is risky. Passing on the already mobilized identarian coalitions in favor of hard policy wonkism could backfire due to exogenous factors and could give away 2024 even if 2020 works out.
Bottom line, every candidate is trying to mollify multiple constituencies and Dems have more to gain with rhetoric keyed to underpaid mothers in Grand Rapids, Michigan than upper class folks in Texas. That said, beyond the rhetoric, most of the policy planks speak for themselves and are keyed to whether you support a moderately regulated somewhat redistributive theory of state or the alternative we're in now that mostly favors market-based solutionism and deregulation. Also, I guess it depends on whether saying something like women don't need men seems more hostile than literally everything this President says on a daily basis.
I agree with you also that telling people there might need to be a ceiling on their earnings can play poorly because of the whole "temporarily disadvantaged millionaires" syndrome in the US, but the question is whether Americans are more envious (of those they perceive deprive them of wealth) than they are faithful (that they too can be wealthy someday). Since 2016, it seems like the politics of envy has gradually subsumed faith leaving us is a dismal state of realpolitik.
Last edited: