2020 Presidential Election

[Túrin Turambar]

Biden does pretty well in head-to-head races against Trump. That said, if he gets the nomination over Sanders and then loses, I suspect the Democratic Party might end up going the same way the GOP did after the 2012 election. The safe and electable Mitt Romney got the nomination over more conservative or libertarian rivals but then lost, which led to an angry party base throwing broad appeal out the window and going for Trump in 2016.

While Biden is certainly electable, long-serving legislators have a poor record of winning presidential elections (McCain, Kerry, Dole), perhaps because of their political baggage, and first-term presidents rarely lose. And the U.S. economy is fairly strong now, which is a good indicator for a president seeking re-election. But we’ll see.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There was an astoundingly good job number report today for February. But that was before any impact of the Coronavirus could be reported. It is highly likely that the U.S. economy is going to go into a significant turndown just in time for the election.

If Biden is nominated and loses to Trump, and the party wants to turn to a more radical candidate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turns 35 on October 13, 2024. Just sayin'.

[elengil]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turns 35 on October 13, 2024. Just sayin'.

I suddenly feel so old... and not in a good way...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You're just a babe in the woods compared to some of us, my dear elengil.

[elengil]

You're just a babe in the woods compared to some of us, my dear elengil.

lol

More the comparative "what have I done with my life so far" than the objective "how old am I"...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Gotcha.

[Faramond]

"Warren is objectively the most competent candidate in the 2020 race."

This line appeared in a recent Vox article. What do you think of this line? It stuck in my mind as being bonkers in a pretty entertaining way, as well as being revealing of -- something. Or maybe it seems normal and true to you.

The line was edited sometime after the article first came out. The word objectively was removed. It would seem that it wasn't just me who noticed how strange this sentence was. Now, removing objectively makes the sentence much less insane -- though! -- the meaning of the sentence hasn't really changed that much. That Warren is ( was, now ) the most competent candidate is still presented as fact, not as opinion. You just aren't smacked in the face anymore by the authors' conviction that this is an objective, measurable truth.

Which it really isn't. I mean, there are circumstances in which you probably can measure competence. Or sometimes a comparison is so easy that you don't really need to measure it. If you said "Warren is objectively more competent than Trump" I wouldn't really argue about it, even though -- context might matter a little bit? But is it really obvious or objectively true that Warren was the most competent candidate? To make this simpler, is is obvious that Warren is more competent than Biden? It will depend on what sort of competency you're looking for, won't it? They both have certainly made missteps in the campaign. Maybe Warren has suffered unfairly for hers and Biden has skated past his. Maybe the reason is -- well, I'll get that, I promise, but later. Not yet.

But Warren certainly has had some less than competent moments with her campaign. Meaning -- there is room for debate here about who is the most competent candidate. I would say that it is reasonable to decide that you think Warren is the most competent. It is unreasonable to conclude that everyone should think this. It is baffling and bonkers to decide that it is an objective fact.

There are a lot of articles out there now about the end of Warren's campaign. They are mostly about that -- about the role of sexism in Warren's defeat.

The thing I realized with the help of that Vox article is that for a lot of Warren supporters it was an obvious and self-evident truth that she was the best candidate. I think this extends to some persons in the media, though usually they try to be circumspect about it. ( Sometimes a stray objectively gives the thing away. ) Warren, like Bernie, has a lot of intense supporters. True believers. No, seriously, you have to believe me. True. Believers. They may not be as nasty as some of the more extreme Bernie supporters are, but in their own way they can be just as unreasonable.

The thing is, if Warren is objectively the best candidate, then the only thing that explains her defeat is sexism.

I think this is ridiculous. I think the role of sexism in Warren's defeat was very small, compared with her mistakes.

I am not saying that there aren't voters who will let sexism alter their choices in the Democratic Primary. There clearly are. Something that I have a hard time understanding is there are apparently a fair number of voters who let other persons' sexism influence their own choices. Meaning, they are wary of voting for a woman because maybe a handful of Michigander men won't vote for a woman in the general election. Well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. I remember some liberals saying Obama couldn't be elected because of racism. I just think this kind of reasoning is insane. It's even more insane than dressing up your opinions with the word objectively.

I mean, it's one thing to vote for someone other than your first choice because your first choice just isn't going to win and you need to stop the really crazy candidates from winning. Or is it? Well, that's what I did. Now, to be fair, if I had been able to vote on election day rather than by mail I would have already known my preferred candidate had dropped out. I could see what was happening. My first choice was Klobuchar. I think she was the most competent candidate. I think she was the most qualified too. But I knew she wasn't going to do anything in South Carolina and beyond, so I had to vote for Biden.

That reminds me -- here is that word objectively again in a Vox article: For the second time in four years, an exceptionally qualified female candidate lost to her male counterparts — some objectively far less qualified.

Now, this isn't as bad as the first one. But still, qualified is a rather subjective measure. Not everyone has the same way of viewing who is qualified or not. If the sentence had substituted politically experienced then I would agree that it was reasonable and very true. But that wouldn't carry the same weight as qualified, would it?

There is in fact one way to objectively show that Klobuchar has done better than Warren, and this is in the 2018 Senate races. They literally won by the same percentages (up to one decimal place). They each won 60.3 to 36.2 over the Republican. The difference is Warren won in a much more Democratic state. Klobuchar's victory was more impressive, at least by the measure of the political environment of their states.

I find all the Warren love bizarre. I do not understand it.

How can Warren be the darling of the woke sector of twitter when she pretended to be a Native American and then thought that a DNA test showing 1% ( at highest! ) would make her one? How does this not get her cancelled, which is the usual penalty for infractions way more minor than this? It's like it never happened, or something. It reminds me of how some Trump fans seem to see him through a reality-distorting-filter.

How can we take all her plans seriously when she puts forth these ambitious and costly plans and then pretends that it can all be paid for by only taxes on those above the middle class. It's ridiculous. It's bullshit. This is the opposite of competence. And this, more than any amount of sexism, is what defeated her.

Klobuchar was realistic, and she had the kind of positions that could have beat Trump in the general election. But Warren was the Great Female Hope. It just drives me nuts.

But no one talks about Klobuchar being the victim of sexism in her defeat, except as a footnote in the myriad articles about Warren.

[yovargas]

As someone who thought she was easily the best candidate out there (and I believe you'll find that opinion amongst several here), the love for Warren should be obvious - it may be something that ultimately became a running joke, but, no, really, she does have a plan for that. Like, it's not just the empty sloganeering stuff like "I want to strengthen the middle class" like pretty much everyone says because she has clearly put the work and research and thought in detail about how to accomplish that. Every damn candidate says they want to make everything better, but she's the one that has the most real, tangible ideas on *how* to make things better. And showing up to this whole thing with a stack of well-researched plans instead of a stack of slogans is hugely impressive to a certain kind of voter.

But ultimately that was probably her downfall. Showing up and saying "I want to improve health care!" is an easy way to get applause. Who doesn't! But showing up and saying "here's my full, in depth plan for fixing the huge variety of issues with health care in America" is a much tougher appluse line, and, unlike the simple "make stuff better!" slogans, leaves you much more open to actual criticism.

(PS - who the $#@! cares about the G.D. indian ancestry stuff??? Argh!!!! It's nuts to me how these stupid petty little controversies stick around sometimes. But her emails!!)

[RoseMorninStar]

Breaking a glass ceiling of any sort is difficult, be it in business, politics, sports, etc.. It takes someone exceptional who is better/more than the average status quo and a bit of luck/just the right circumstances. I'm not advocating for Warren, just making a general observation.

As for Warren's heritage I will not comment on her situation in particular but it is VERY tricky to have native American heritage 'proved' via a DNA test, ESPECIALLY if the ancestor in question is than a few generations back. Some Native American Eastern tribes are in the European DNA Haplogroup, for example. I have always been told my great-grandmother was half Potowatomi. We have old letters stating such, but I've been told that is too far back to show up conclusively on DNA results.

Warren's DNA results showed that she had a Native American ancestor 6-10 generations back. Trump had said that if Warren took a DNA test which showed she had native ancestry he would give $1 million to a charity of her choice. He never did so.

Yov.. I agree that the Native American DNA was used as an manufactured controversy/excuse. The person currently in office had far more egregious and numerous issues that have been brushed aside.

[River]

Yov.. I agree that the Native American DNA was used as an manufactured controversy/excuse. The person currently in office had far more egregious and numerous issues that have been brushed aside.

On the other hand, it was an excuse she had a role in giving people. But, then again, she brought out more of Trump's ugly for everyone to observe and, depending on their inclination, add to the pile or wave away because people hold Trump to a lower standard than they hold their children to.

[Griffon64]

How can we take all her plans seriously when she puts forth these ambitious and costly plans and then pretends that it can all be paid for by only taxes on those above the middle class. It's ridiculous. It's bullshit. This is the opposite of competence. And this, more than any amount of sexism, is what defeated her.

Donald Trump promised that he'll secure the southern border with a wall that Mexico would pay for. Wouldn't cost a single taxpayer a single cent! His supporters ate that up and there he is, President of the United States, beloved by most Republicans, adored by most conservatives, while us blasted and benighted taxpayers pay for the damn thing. Ridiculous bullshit, swallowed wholesale by his supporters who like his noise. ( Sidebar: I betcha there's some underhanded croonie "let my buddies contract to build this thing" going on to boot, Trump is Trump the Builder after all. ) While all the business owners, farmers, meat packing plant owners, construction company owners and the like who help illegal immigrants in the first place by employing them, can keep pocketing their profit from employing illegal workers at cut rate wages while that taxpayer funded wall does nothing but get blown over in the wind. Right off the taxpayer's back and you won't find a single Trumpist squawking about this use of tax money.

Privatize profit, socialize losses - most conservatives love soaking the taxpayer just as much as they claim liberals do. They just want the money for themselves. Liberal ideas of applying taxpayer money towards the greater good is a toxic idea to most conservatives - but subsidizing businesses with taxpayer money so some private citizens can make bank off of public money is an awesome idea. Trump was just better at lying about how he "won't use" taxpayer money. Say what you want about the man but he sure knows how to make most conservatives believe ridiculous bullshit.

To quote the wise Toomgis: The Heart Wants What The Heart Wants. If Warren isn't your jam, her talk about taxpayer impact is ridiculous bullshit. If she is your jam she's talkin' sense. Ditto Trump. Ditto every politician out there. All just looking to soak the taxpayer for their own pet projects, dancing in costume and playing a flute at the head of a long line of followers turning a deaf ear to anything they don't want to hear.

Summary: A politician pretends their plans won't cost taxpayers anything and they get elected despite this ridiculous bullshit. Or if you want a different order of magnitude, claims that massive tax cuts and increased spending would somehow shrink the deficit. Another politician's proclamations about only raising taxes on the rich causes a sunk campaign - the campaign sunk because of ridiculous bullshit. What's different between the two? One just a better liar than the other? One electorate more discerning than the other? What mistake did Warren make that Trump didn't?

Tell ya what. For the next presidential election & primary I want The Masked Politician. They're just holographic projections on the stage and they look and sound the same. You gotta listen to the ideas and you have no clue what they look like or who they are. You vote for their ideas, their appearances are completely normalized. Only when one wins the presidency do you know what the person looks like.

[yovargas]

So when is Griffy's bid for the presidency starting?

[Inanna]

That’s how they fixed the gender imbalance in orchestras, blind auditions.

[Faramond]

If the only way for Warren's plans to look good is to compare them to Trump's border wall plan then they are not very good plans. It's easy for Warren to look good compared to Trump. It's easy for any candidate to look good compared to him. How a candidate compares with Trump is really not the point and I don't think it's relevant.

My point is that many people out there act like Warren was obviously the best candidate and that the only reason not to go for her was sexism. It's simply not true. Of course it is legitimate to think she's the best -- it's just not legitimate to act like it's an objective fact and that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. I do think that people who loved Warren for her plans were not casting a critical and realistic eye on her plans. In any case, being President is not about shoving your plan into congress and telling them to pass it. It's always going to be a collaborative effort. And frankly I think Biden ( as flawed as he is ) is more likely to master this part of being President than either Sanders or Warren.

Warren did not lose because she had too many plans. She lost for many reasons, but the reason related to her plans was that her plan for health care was full of holes. Because it really is an objective fact that you can't have universal health care ( or even extend Medicare down to age 50, as Warren initially proposed ) without either having it all be deficit spending or raising taxes on the middle class. People always overestimate the amount of money that is out there to be taxed or even outright confiscated from the rich.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, to a large extent I agree with that. I think that sexism did play a role in Warren's downfall, and obviously I have a higher opinion of her policies than you do, but I can't fault the logic of what you say.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Túrin Turambar]

Americans spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as citizens of every other OECD, and Medicare and Medicaid are more expensive per capita than many universal programs, so in principle I think Sanders and Warren are correct that it should be possible for America to have universal healthcare without extra cost. I don't know how that would be managed in practice.

That said, I agree with Faramond broadly on Warren. When Australia's first female prime minister was forced from office after what was generally seen as a lackluster term, she said that sexism "doesn't explain everything, but it doesn't explain nothing". I thought it was a sensible observation, and I hadn't been a fan of hers by any means. The truth about Warren's campaign might be similar.

[yovargas]

It's probably fair to say that claiming she could do universal health care without raising most people's taxes is doesn't look too realistic, and bad messaging on her part. But I also think it's fair to say that she got hammered on that way, way harder than politicians usually do considering how often politicians make overly grand claims. And her claim wasn't all that grand considering just about everybody else does provide more health care for less money than we do, so in the end it should be a minor thing. But it became a huge thing. Much like the native American thing should have been a minor thing that became a huge thing.

[River]

I think sexism was a bigger factor in why Warren was less popular than Bernie among self-described progressives than the self-described progressives are willing to admit. Her lack of popularity among those who aren't self-described progressives is another story. Sexism can't be ruled out, but I'm pretty sure her downfall among those outside the self-described progressive circle had more to do with her ideas than her gender. If you genuinely don't like those ideas it won't matter who's delivering them. So, in short, if you're not into liberal, progressive politics in general, take the comments about sexism and the Warren campaign with a lot of salt. They aren't necessarily directed at you. Especially if coming from me. If you think Warren's out to lunch but Bernie isn't I have some tough questions. But if neither is you cup of tea, that I can get my head around.

[Griffon64]

River summed it up right while I tried and failed. If Warren's policies isn't your jam it don't matter if she gal, you won't like. So the rumblings about sexism definitely do not apply to any conservatives - conservatives just don't like her policies, period. And it makes sense to me that conservatives would be flummoxed at the sexism talk goin' round because as far as they're concerned, the policies are bad and the gender doesn't matter.

Now, that said, back to the "ideas" for a moment. I grubbed through Warren's published healthcare plan since all the media tells us is that she was going to tax the rich and somehow pay for it. I think that is a reasonable representation of what most people think her plan is.

The $11 trillion in household insurance and out-of-pocket expenses projected under our current system goes right back into the pockets of America’s working people. And we make up the difference with targeted spending cuts, new taxes on giant corporations and the richest 1% of Americans, and by cracking down on tax evasion and fraud. Not one penny in middle-class tax increases.

That's what her plan actually says. The only thing she outlines outright is to not raise taxes on the middle class ( whatever that definition is. ) Spending cuts, new taxes on corporations and the 1%e'ers, and enforcing existing tax laws gets lumped together to pay for it. Mind you, that 11 trillion figure is the cost to American workers of their health insurance ( "in the form of premiums, deductibles, copays, out-of-network, and other expensive medical equipment and care they pay for out-of-pocket" according to her plan ) over the next 10 years. So the claim is that spending cuts ( which are not defined ), taxes on corporations and one percenters, and enforcing existing tax laws better can raise the money. The total cost of health care over the next ten years is $52 trillion according to her plan, and she keeps that the same. Medicare, Medi-aid and employer premiums make up the funding for the rest of it, I assume. And she's not axing any of that. Employers would still pay premiums for their employees.

So, is it feasible to shift 11 trillion dollars over 10 years from the public to the one percenters, corporations, spending cuts and better enforcement of tax evasion? I don't know. Sounds optimistic. I just know that what the plan actually says seems to be different from what most people believe it says: that she claimed she can do it just by raising taxes on the rich. That was not her claim.

It doesn't matter now though. The power of taking a handful of words out of the stated plan and claiming it was the whole plan was enough to bring out the mockingbirds and down she went.

I'm still wondering: why can Warren be sunk by a couple false claims ( health care plan, the whole Native American flap ), while Trump rides high despite a hell of a lot more false claims? What is she doing wrong that he's doing right?

[River]

If you're basically clean, a few smudges show up big. When you're basically covered in crap, a few more smudges don't show up. I think that's why Trump gets away with it. Now why people like and admire him for being covered in crap is something people are and will be writing books about for ages to come.