Feelings on Warren’s electability? Between her terrible handling of the native american thing and the bernie dust up that she steered into, I’m not feeling too great about her chances. I like her as a candidate and she’s rebounded in the polls, although I will say anecdotally that not many people from Mass seem to like her.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
So I'm not terribly informed about the "native american thing" (even though to be honest I probably should be in light of the fact that I live in Massachusetts, but I frankly just didn't care about politics at the time it was brought to the public eye), but my extremely limited understanding of it is that she claimed to be Native American despite only having a very tiny percentage of Native American heritage, is that fair to say or is there more to it that I'm unaware of? Because if that's all it is I don't think it's particularly fair to hold that against her, it could very well be that she was raised believing she was Native American and never questioned exactly how much or where it came from.
I actually have a family member who firmly believes he is Native American and is very active and accepted in certain Native American circles, although to the best of my knowledge Native American heritage exists nowhere in my family's history. I think here we tread on the edge of a debate about whether or not truly believing you are a part of a culture and adopting and adhering to that culture's beliefs and traditions makes you in fact a part of that culture, and I think there's strong arguments on either side of that debate, but either way I don't think it's fair to hold that belief against someone as if they were maliciously appropriating another culture or something. Of course if there's more to this particular issue that I'm not aware of, disregard this.
I actually have a family member who firmly believes he is Native American and is very active and accepted in certain Native American circles, although to the best of my knowledge Native American heritage exists nowhere in my family's history. I think here we tread on the edge of a debate about whether or not truly believing you are a part of a culture and adopting and adhering to that culture's beliefs and traditions makes you in fact a part of that culture, and I think there's strong arguments on either side of that debate, but either way I don't think it's fair to hold that belief against someone as if they were maliciously appropriating another culture or something. Of course if there's more to this particular issue that I'm not aware of, disregard this.
Tbh since I saw her favorability polls and some of her maneuvers such as "I won't go on Fox News as it's a bad network" or whatever, I knew she'd be bad on the electability front.
In short- democrats love her. Independents and republicans? Not so much.
I don't think you have to concede to Republicans policywise to win the general, but you have to at least try and outreach. I feel like a lot of rural or working class voters who lean populist and actually like unions and left-wing economic ideas even if they don't realize they are left wing & will be receptive to a message if people try and deliver it to them without acting like they're deplorable.
This is why I think Bernie and Yang do so well with Obama-Trump voters and independents/Republicans in general. They go on Fox News and advocate for themselves. They speak to people who might disagree with them. They don't go "if you voted for Trump you're a racist." This is also one reason why I think Bernie has a great case for electability.
Additionally, Warren has really harmed herself in the "authenticity" front. Not only was she a Republican previously and very recently jumped on the M4A train, she's been wishy washy on personal life things too. The obvious example if the Native American ancestry thing, but also stories circulating about her being fired for being pregnant or her dad being a janitor when there's information that says the opposite. The cherry on top of this narrative was the whole recent trying to paint Bernie as a sexist thing which massively backfired on her.
I don't think she could rebound from this. She only has support among democrats basically, and even there she's now burned bridges. She could come off as inauthentic, especially to people outside of her largely white, largely educated coalition (which isn't a winning coalition in the first place). She also just doesn't really hold a candle to Bernie imo aside from "being Bernie but younger and a woman." Her policies and ideas are basically less progressive Bernie, Bernie but means-tested, Bernie but more complicated in the details, Bernie but not without the long history of fighting for this, etc.
This isn't to discredit Warren as I think she has done some good in this election cycle. For example, her grassroots movement, although not as big as Bernie's, was another showcasing of the fact that grassroots is a valid strategy for dems moving future and is frankly the future people want. She's also introduced the wealth tax idea which opens up a good conversation definitely about how the 1% and loopholes and capital/assets, etc.
But imo she is not fit to be running for president right now. Especially not vs Trump. Imo she should drop out soon and endorse Bernie. Especially if she underperforms in New Hampshire, she doesn't really have a path to the nom at this point. If she endorses Bernie she could save face with progressives and help unify people behind him despite the blunders of the election cycle. Endorsing anyone else at this point would just hurt her image even further.
I think the thing people are most scared of is how the Republicans will use it against her, since they won't really be looking at the nuance of the situation.
What I know is that while claiming that heritage one of the controversial issues was that Harvard promoted her as a historic woman of color professor and there are questions about whether she used that heritage claim to her personal benefit.
She has since apologized for it and insisted she did not use it for personal gain. I don't think it's a good thing to use against her but again, the worry is how Republicans and especially Trump will use it vs her especially with the nickname he's given her "Pocahontas."
Argue in facts, not emotion.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/196064/trump-seen-less-conservative-prior-gop-candidates.aspx
Exhibit B on winning arguments instead of elections. The same attacks were used by Sanders supporters in 2016 for Clinton crime bill, yet she still cleaned his clock among minorities, especially black voters. Why do you think that is?
Raikou lover is such a better political strategist than the rest of you it hurts. It’s like playing chess and most of you are arguing about the move that serves you best one move out and he’s thinking forward to ten or fifteen move combinations but getting shot down because it’s not best RIGHT NOW.
did u read ur source because it says clinton and trump were roughly perceived as equally moderate so it doesnt even say what u were initially saying. anyway the whole "moderates do better" line of argument is kinda stupid anyway, to my knowledge a lot of americans are pretty inconsistent where it comes to political ideology so unless u can give us actual proof that ideological likeness is predominantly what determines who people vote for, ur not making a terribly great argument. btw here is an academic study showing some evidence that lack of trust in government is what caused people to vote sanders in the primaries of 2016, not his perceived ideological extremeness (apologies if u cant access the full article, academia is unfortunately held hostage by publishers). considering the fact that americans' trust in government is abysmally low it might be exactly the right time to run someone who is not part of the political establishment (it worked for trump!)
i could also show u how sanders performs well on issues voters consider important like health care and shit cuz im p sure he does well on that (this is all irregardless of ideological likeness because again most americans do not have much in the way of a coherent ideology) but im lazy and you're not worth wasting much time on anyhow. do some research, maybe you'll find something interesting altho considering your general disposition towards anything resembling the truth i doubt it
brilliant analysis
Thanks. The frustrating thing about the “left” is not having a concrete blueprint for how to get to big structural change. Incrementalism has become a pejorative to progressives.
The argument from less progressive Democrats for incrementalism is that small victories achieve tangible improvements in people’s lives. Those marginal improvements reinforce to people that government can deliver. The opposite (promising big structural change and not getting it) causes vicious backlash and cynicism, turning off voters from future participation on the political process.
Single mothers and working families are more worried about their monthly bills going down (or paycheck going up) in the short term than punishing billionaires for corrupting the political process.
I don’t disagree with any of Sanders’ positions or concerns. How we get there is what is in question.
ah yes the brilliance of this strategy is hard to see because the ppl he's arguing against are saying moderates get attacked from the left and lose and he's tryna say moderates get attacked from the left and lose, but apparently they depress the vote turn out enough to win the senate or smthg. yah we're not on that level itt where we can sell campaign strategies that sound good to the DNC, because most of the ppl posting itt actually believe voter suppression is 100% real sorry, and so none of those senate races are in play in 2020 just look at the margins ffs.
it's extremely likely that dems lose 3 more seats in the senate in 2020 no matter who they run. at best they can hope to gain 2 seats: Colorado and North Carolina. that still leaves ur boi mitch as majority leader of the senate, so sorry, next genius strategy plz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_elections#Pre-election_predictions
true so whats the path to the dems taking back the senate in 2020?
this is kind of word salad, incrementalism is impossible to distinguish between structural change barely delivered. look at what you've written. People are still wondering whether or Obama ran on progressives ideals and was killed by the senate or if he was just a neoliberal maintaining the status quo. And that confusion is where trump gets elected.
yeah but, again, the more progressive politicians have a much better offering for ppl concerned about their personal finances regardless of their feelings about economic structures.
There is an external progressive grassroots campaign that Sanders and Warren are under pressure from, which was not the case during Obama's years. There were no progressive congressmen when Obama tried to implement a progressive agenda. no strategy in other words. so while yall talk big talks about strategies and move combinations you seem pretty unaware of actual strategies used to implement institutional changes. the key is not an ideology and whether it's moderate or gradual or incremental, but the actual substance of movements external to it. A progressive agenda requires outside pressure to keep it in line, if it is to be implemented at all. instead the dems keep delivering the agenda of their corporate backers, because that is their external pressure: corporations not social movements
"95% of your murders -- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, sixteen to twenty-five. Thats true in New York, thats true in virtually every city.... You've got to get the guns out of the people that are getting killed.... Put the cops where the crime is, which means minority neighborhoods.... And the way you get the guns our of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."
peepeepoopoo lets just vote for this fucking oligarch because orange man so bad that i'd rather have all minorities be subjected to this instead of just at the border
and yea sam this guy is a real bobby fischer man just loves the status quo of this shit ass country so much. its all just fucking aesthetics to democrats.
The Senate is certainly in play. Colorado and Arizona have Democratic candidates outpolling their opponents today. Collins in Maine is unpopular in a blue state Presidential year. Doug Jones is a popular incumbent likely to face Roy Moore again or Jeff Sessions (the man Trump turned on). Joni Earst of Iowa is extremely unpopular.
That’s just wrong.
Republican House 6/8 years. First two, go look at the legislation passed.
I don’t disagree. Unfortunately, voters only benefit from what you can get through Congress.
That’s revisionist history. Obama was the activists candidate in 2008.
Unraveling like a ball of yarn. It’s amazing to see Sanders supporters hate Democrats so much yet their legislative votes coincide over 90% of the time.
Its almost like I don't share the exact same opinions on everything with the candidate i support.
collins is not unpopular enough in maine and doug jones would be lucky to run against moore but might still lose if sessions ran. iowa doesn't look like a flip at all, the republicans are dead set behind trump and there are more of them
as for obama's first 2 years he spent it flipping off occupy wallstreet and letting the republicans negotiate to keep from implementing the public option on health care, both occupy and a public option were central articulations of
during this same 2 year period Obama told progressives in speeches to start putting more pressure on him if they wanted to see change, clearly he understands how outside political pressure is the key for progressive politicians to implement their agenda but did not see himself as the agent of implementing that agenda due to the lack of external pressure. but who's rewriting history and saying Obama was 'the activists candidate' when there is scant evidence to support that analysis? did he have a huge grassroots fundraising apparatus, yes, is that apparatus a social movement, no.
Maine is a blue state. She’s hugely unpopular and the generic ballot this cycle is Dem +6. Collins is gone.
The degree of bitterness on display is telling. What did you do to hold Obama accountable?
The senate is absolutely in play for Dems in 2020. Only one of their seats (Alabama, which admittedly is completely gone) is seriously contested, with Michigan and New Hampshire being Republican reaches that they’re unlikely to win.
On the flip side, Dems are nearly guaranteed to pick off Colorado, are at worst a tossup in Arizona, and have strong chances in Maine, North Carolina, and both Georgia seats (there’s a special election for Isakson’s seat due to his resignation). They also have feasible reaches in Kansas (thanks to Kris Kobach being the worst political candidate in the country), Texas, and Iowa.
They can for sure net three pickups on a good night, even if they’re not favored to do so by any stretch of the imagination.
On the flip side, Dems are nearly guaranteed to pick off Colorado, are at worst a tossup in Arizona, and have strong chances in Maine, North Carolina, and both Georgia seats (there’s a special election for Isakson’s seat due to his resignation). They also have feasible reaches in Kansas (thanks to Kris Kobach being the worst political candidate in the country), Texas, and Iowa.
They can for sure net three pickups on a good night, even if they’re not favored to do so by any stretch of the imagination.
I would quibble with your description of Maine. There’s no indication as of yet that Gideon is even close to Collins in horse race polling, and most of Collins’ weak approval figure stems from the fact that Hardcore Lepage Rs in Maine dislike her (but will obviously vote for her over a Dem anyway). Her approval among independents and, somewhat shamefully, Democrats is still quite strong.
Bernie now 3 points the Frontrunner in RCP National Average ahead of Joe Biden:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
I think fair to say we can now call Sanders the frontrunner.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
I think fair to say we can now call Sanders the frontrunner.
Alabama is not even close to gone. Republicans this cycle in Alabama have bad candidates. Democrats have a popular incumbent in a pro-Democratic (D+6 generic ballot) Presidential year. Tester and Manchin held on, there’s no forgone reason why Jones can’t.
I agree with the rest except North Carolina and Georgia aren’t really toss ups. They are very inelastic states (no swing voters in either direction) with extensive voter suppression. Kansas is probably in play, yes.
Jones is more of a mainstream Dem than Manchin or even Tester, and Alabama is less elastic than WV or MT. Unless specifically Roy Moore (who is polling in third or fourth) wins the primary, Rs will have a decent enough candidate. Sessions or Tuberville would crush Jones by double digits.
you gotta be kidding me, i protested piles of his policies in the 2nd term (mainly around droning american citizens) and was uh lets see in high school during his first 2 years
The Buttigieg supporters I've met strike me as mini-Buttigiegs: wealthy, college-educated whites from a very narrow range of religions (leftish mainstream protestants of some type). I find they present themselves as the platonic ideal American, and have difficulty understanding how others can have different perspectives.
I'm just not sure how he expands his appeal. Left or right, to minorities, anywhere. What about him is going to appeal to Republicans who voted Trump (who clearly don't care about military service or religion)? Who is the type of person that would vote Buttigieg over Trump, but Trump over Bernie? Trump over Warren?
All these electability arguments confuse me, especially arguing that Bernie would receive too many republican votes that he would swing the presidency but not the senate.
I think Bernie and Klobuchar have defined their paths to victory very clearly. (Whether they will achieve them or not, is another story.)
Warren hasn't really, but seems to be presenting herself as a possible unity candidate maybe. Also seems to be pushing identity politics to create a coalition.
Buttigieg and Biden though seem to think their path to victory is obvious simply because they'll sit to the left of Trump, but I don't see it.
I'm just not sure how he expands his appeal. Left or right, to minorities, anywhere. What about him is going to appeal to Republicans who voted Trump (who clearly don't care about military service or religion)? Who is the type of person that would vote Buttigieg over Trump, but Trump over Bernie? Trump over Warren?
All these electability arguments confuse me, especially arguing that Bernie would receive too many republican votes that he would swing the presidency but not the senate.
I think Bernie and Klobuchar have defined their paths to victory very clearly. (Whether they will achieve them or not, is another story.)
Warren hasn't really, but seems to be presenting herself as a possible unity candidate maybe. Also seems to be pushing identity politics to create a coalition.
Buttigieg and Biden though seem to think their path to victory is obvious simply because they'll sit to the left of Trump, but I don't see it.