Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

The idea that centrists would turn their backs on Warren because she went to the center instead of left seems kinda self-evidently absurd?

she was the figure out the details person not the ideologue.

How pragmatic is it actually to have detailed plans for the implementation of policies when the system seems to largely be built around protracted negotiations/compromises/battles between the executive and multiple factions in two houses of Congress?

xps

yes to iatee

Are there any people who've moved from Warren to Sanders here? If so why?

Still like ‘em both, still hope they end up on the same ticket, still wish they were each a lot younger.

my total layperson's guess is that centrist support for Warren was pretty soft, and when she was no longer a frontrunner, they bailed.

Are there any people who've moved from Warren to Sanders here? If so why?

Still like ‘em both, still hope they end up on the same ticket, still wish they were each a lot younger.

+1

How pragmatic is it actually to have detailed plans for the implementation of policies when the system seems to largely be built around protracted negotiations/compromises/battles between the executive and multiple factions in two houses of Congress?

― With considerable charm, you still have made a choice (Sund4r), Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:38 AM (forty-seven seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

-Donald Trump

I mean, no offense, but unless you're proposing the institution of a monarchy I don't quite understand the question.

How pragmatic is it actually to have detailed plans for the implementation of policies when the system seems to largely be built around protracted negotiations/compromises/battles between the executive and multiple factions in two houses of Congress?

You need to clearly define your end goal and prove there is a path to it before going into negotiation otherwise you will end up ceding everything you're trying to do (cf Obama)

my total layperson's guess is that centrist support for Warren was pretty soft, and when she was no longer a frontrunner, they bailed.

― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Wednesday, 12 February 2020 14:40 (five minutes ago) link

This sounds right to me -- she was the preferred candidate of pragmatic center-left types who believed that Bernie's popularity signaled the need for a lefter than usual candidate (but she was still an acceptable compromise compared to Bernie).

Feel like a lot of the rise and fall of various candidates is about elite-driven media narratives, to which voters take cues. Most voters were not rationally analyzing Warren's opinion on M4A, but they did see people on MSNBC say that she fumbled at a crucial moment and looked weak. (And that narrative took hold in large part because she was leading in the polls at the time and thus prime for a fall.)

You need to clearly define your end goal and prove there is a path to it before going into negotiation otherwise you will end up ceding everything you're trying to do (cf Obama)

― totally unnecessary bewbz of exploitation (DJP), Wednesday, February 12, 2020 9:47 AM (fifteen seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

FWIW I completely agree with this generally but I don't see how it applies to Warren moreso than Sanders merely because she's wonkier.

"I don't see how providing a more detailed explanation of how to get the end goal with more supporting evidence makes Warren's plans better than Sanders'" is what you just said here

my total layperson's guess is that centrist support for Warren was pretty soft, and when she was no longer a frontrunner, they bailed

also, it's entirely possible that the initial centrist support was along the lines of "hey she's a smart woman, i dig that", but ultimately they weren't actually all that comfortable with her policies.

watch for this if/ when AOC ever runs for Senate or POTUS.

"I don't see how providing a more detailed explanation of how to get the end goal with more supporting evidence makes Warren's plans better than Sanders'" is what you just said here

― totally unnecessary bewbz of exploitation (DJP), Wednesday, February 12, 2020 9:50 AM (twenty-seven seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

I mean I don't want to go in circles forever, but I truly don't. Because how you actually get to the end goal (or something approaching it) is the part that's subject to intensive negotiation, revision, and compromise.

Are there any people who've moved from Warren to Sanders here? If so why?

I liked Warren a lot because she had a lot of robust progressive policies and I think if elected she would be able to work the system enough to implement more of it than anyone else. But I started being drawn to Sanders due to his hardline stance on war and the fact that he's not gonna spend half his campaign ragging on Trump and pointlessly responding to his attacks, and if elected he's not gonna blow all his political capital on being friendly with Republicans who are gonna stab him in the back anyway, the way I envision a lot of these candidates would. Plus he's polling much higher, so yeah. He's the guy.

🐦[Confirmed via Klobuchar spox @carliewaibel🕸: It’s "Klomentum" not "Klobmentum"
— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) February 12, 2020🕸]🐦

sorry karl : (

I think man alive is kinda otm. Warren tried showing that there actually were clear paths, but centrist voters disliked those paths. So she did kinda fail, imo.

Feel like a lot of the rise and fall of various candidates is about elite-driven media narratives, to which voters take cues. Most voters were not rationally analyzing Warren's opinion on M4A, but they did see people on MSNBC say that she fumbled at a crucial moment and looked weak.

This feels right to me, Bernie's core support stickier? less vulnerable to media variables?

re: man alive's take: yes. also for whatever reason rich people were WAY more shook by her than bernie (prob cause they thought she had more of a moderate sheen/crossover appeal) and she got a lot of negative coverage etc., which may have made her seem even further left than she was. which in turn would have turned off some basically centrist people looking for a moderate who was smart and dynamic and had plans for things. those people are now in mayor pete's column, more or less.

none of that reflects a fair appraisal of warren's positions or strengths but i think it may be what happened. so far, anyway! i honestly think she could still have some kind of rebound or comeback, if the in-person campaign stuff can maintain intensity. it's the narrativized/mediated version where she's fallen out of the center of the story. but like if she takes second or even a strong third in NV/SC the race looks different imo.

Also fwiw, while I wouldn't say I "moved from Warren to Sanders," I certainly had a considerable period of time when I was legit waffling between them, and she's still of course my second choice. To the extent I came back to Sanders, it was because he seems to be more of a movement builder and I thought that would be powerful both in the general election and in pushing his policy agenda if he gets elected.

also for whatever reason rich people were WAY more shook by her than bernie

I can attest to this anecdotally. I was at a dinner with my boss and his friends and they went OFF about how "crazy" Warren was and how scared they were of her. These are basically moderate dem voters, but rich ones, and it was kind of shocking to me to hear how genuinely worried they were about her becoming president.

smart women scare the shit out of a lot of people

my wife had a bunch of neighbors over last week and she heard the same thing, Bernie is too much of a "socialist", whatever that means. "I don't wanna pay for other people's stuff"

these people aren't rich per se but they're doing pretty well

theyre definitely already paying for “other people’s stuff”—it’s just the people who are already richer than god

Lloyd Blankfein “hates” socialism

Sanders has very clear end goals, many of which are in place in other countries, and it is pretty simple to see how they could be achieved (raise taxes on those who can afford it, spend less on wars, in general). Probably clearer than any other candidate's, actually. It's the 'figuring out the details' part I'm wondering about, since the details seem very subject to factors outside the candidate's control, as man alive notes. That said, comparing their websites, I'm not really seeing how e.g. this is more detailed than this.

Also, there are very widely-used democratic systems where the governing cabinet does have much more direct control over the details of policy implementation. Admittedly, these are often constitutional monarchies.

bunch of xps

the theory (which ended up being only a theory) was that warren was gonna appeal to both the progressive wing and the clintonites, and I think the powers that be are a lot more concerned about the clintonites permanently shifting to the left than they are about a temporary factional coup.

It’s totally possible that sanders ends up converting the rest of the party over time as trump has, but with warren that was more obviously the goal - she was the bridge candidate.

My 14-year-old is worried that Sanders isn't electable

One of my most left-wing friends is now all in for Bloomberg because he thinks he's the one who can beat Trump

I have other left-wing friends who say they'll sit it out if it's Bloomberg-Trump

My wife thinks America won't vote for a woman

All the people in these anecdotes are Jewish FWIW

the theory (which ended up being only a theory) was that warren was gonna appeal to both the progressive wing and the clintonites

I think her support authentically is a pretty good mix of these, just not enough of each.

Is your 14-yo Tom Friedman?

(sorry, that's over the line)

srsly read today's Friedman column for bellylaughs

theyre definitely already paying for “other people’s stuff”—it’s just the people who are already richer than god

yea I push back on this every chance I get. I hate the idiotic talking point that this election is gonna be about "capitalism vs. socialism". like there's a switch you can flip. we just gave out like $1,000,000,000+ to farmers because Trump's dumbass trade war fucked them over. billionaires and corporations just got one of the biggest tax windfalls in history. funded by your paychecks. but you bring up student loan forgiveness and they're like, "whoa that's way too far, there are consequences for your actions don't ya know"

that poll showing Bloomberg beating Trump by 9 is baffling to me, who are these people going in for Bloomberg who wouldn't support the other candidates? is there really a subsection of voters who are like, "I'll just vote for the richest guy"???

the fact that the democratic party can't--or won't--articulate this is enraging

xpost

it seems Sanders' plan for the general is "corporate socialism vs democratic socialism"

the fact that the democratic party can't--or won't--articulate this is enraging

doing that would empty the wine caves

now the Beltway consensus rests on Sanders' inability to 'break his ceiling.'

I would like to ask some of these 'I don't wanna pay for other people's stuff!'-ers how they feel about laboring at a deflated wage to pay for their CEO's fifth yacht.

doing that would empty the wine caves

i'm inclined to say it's weird that they wouldn't just say it anyway. just like the GOP did to the evangelical rubes for 40 years...

but hell, maybe they're smarter than we give them credit for. the rubes eventually took over the GOP.

It's the 'figuring out the details' part I'm wondering about, since the details seem very subject to factors outside the candidate's control, as man alive notes. That said, comparing their websites, I'm not really seeing how e.g. this is more detailed than this.

which is to say positioning oneself as the competent/technocratic/wonky/intellectual candidate (e.g. by talking a lot about numbers that will never be realized or perhaps by speaking Norwegian well enough to read a book but not well enough to ever use it in negotiations with the Norwegian PM) often seems to me to be itself about a kind of ideological branding as anything else.

warren didn't put on some glasses and position herself as a 'wonky politician' for branding purposes. she was an acclaimed academic who happened to get into politics.

ice-cold rick perry shade

shall I link to that NRO column

That thing the other day where Warren said she'd "lead the parade" if someone else adopted her policy positions -- that is a humane thing to do. It is not a political thing.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) February 12, 2020

which is to say positioning oneself as the competent/technocratic/wonky/intellectual candidate (e.g. by talking a lot about numbers that will never be realized or perhaps by speaking Norwegian well enough to read a book but not well enough to ever use it in negotiations with the Norwegian PM) often seems to me to be itself about a kind of ideological branding as anything else.

― With considerable charm, you still have made a choice (Sund4r), Wednesday, 12 February 2020 15:43 (twenty-five minutes ago) link

OTM -- it signals that you're "one of the smart kids" and therefore appeals to people whose identities are wrapped up in being "one of the smart kids."

she’s gonna endorse the klob, ensuring that the bros have another good betrayal narrative to work with

xp

i hope that fantasy works out well in yr dreamlife

have to say, of all the female candidates we initially had, I did not expect Klobuchar to be the last one standing.

she's the Pet Shop Boys candidate

"being boring"