(Photo by Gage Skidmore)
I was at Arlington Town Hall yesterday a little after 8am, and there were a fair number of folks taking advantage of the ability to get their votes in ahead of Super Tuesday.
I very much appreciate jconway’s remarks on supporting Bernie Sanders. A time of radical evil demands a bold and defiant response from civilized people — those of us who under different circumstances would prefer to work things out amicably and equitably. There are many excellent reasons to vote for Sanders, and his ability to motivate people — to realize the hole we’re in, and to imagine a better future — is one of them.
The Sanders agenda is stirringly ambitious — all the things we want, including some things we used to take for granted, like affordable college. A Green New Deal is necessary for our survivial, not a moonshot. Genuine 100% universal health care, guaranteed by the government (call it Medicare for All if you like) is a human necessity. A young generation has been abandoned by the “free market”, whose present and future have been irreversibly sabotaged, is demanding its due. Attention must be paid.
But if you want to know why I voted for Warren, here it is in a nutshell, from Tuesday’s debate:
WARREN: You know, but Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie.
And the reason for that is that getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard, and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen.
Bernie and I both wanted to help rein in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance. But I dug in. I fought the big banks. I built the coalitions, and I won.
Bernie and I both want to see universal health care, but Bernie’s plan doesn’t explain how to get there, doesn’t show how we’re going to get enough allies into it, and doesn’t show enough about how we’re going to pay for it.
… I dug in. I did the work. And then Bernie’s team trashed me for it.We need a president who is going to dig in, do the hard work, and actually get it done. Progressives have got one shot. And we need to spend it with a leader who will get something done.
Bernie Sanders is a great story; I’ve been following his career since he was mayor of Burlington. Sanders went from mayor (a good one!) to the US House to the Senate. He has done it right, holding town halls everywhere, being available, and building trust.
But Vermont is a small state: 170 miles from Newport to Brattleboro, e.g. It has no major media markets. It’s easier (I won’t say easy) to be virtuous with respect to moneyed interests, if you don’t have to run a media campaign in a state like, say, California or New Jersey. He’s had his hand in some good things as a US legislator; and also a few things that haven’t aged well in our conscience, like the 1994 crime bill and his vote against the Brady Bill. He has never had to work on the executive level above Burlington, a town of 50,000 people.
If he gets elected, he and his staff and his movement will be in over their heads (if they aren’t already): If all goes well, they’ll be dealing with a Democratic Congress bound to be balky and recalcitrant, every “centrist” pointing to their own constituency and saying, “well, I got elected too.” That’s normal and in the way of things. But I find the idea that he alone can deliver the goods, like the Great Pumpkin to the children in the most sincere pumpkin patch, a little oversold.
I’d rather have someone who has some textured life experience; who has changed her mind when new facts challenged her perceptions; who has entered into complex and bewildering arenas of power, and somehow come out victorious; who went to public colleges and somehow ended up teaching at Harvard Law; a “serious public intellectual” on matters of great consequence for justice; who is esteemed as a kind and genuine person (and funny); who is motivated by deep sense of decency.
She was a debate club champ in high school. She got married at 19. She eventually graduated from University of Houston; she taught special ed for a year, then went to law school at Rutgers. She moved from strength to strength — teaching at University of Houston; then to U of Texas; Penn; and finally Harvard Law School. In the cliquish, credentialing-heavy world of law, this kind of career path hardly ever happens.
Her research found that family bankruptcies were not the result of profligate spending, but usually the result of families trying to afford more desirable communities for their children; and medical debt. She confronted Democratic Party luminaries (like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton) over their support for the shameful 2005 bankruptcy bill. She set up, but was not permitted to run, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which returned nearly $12 billion to borrowers — which the Trump administration naturally locked down.
And as we know, she was drafted into the Massachusetts Senate race against Scott Brown, who was quite popular at the time; and as a complete newcomer to electoral politics … she paddled him good: 54-46%.
She is very progressive, with a boldness shaped by a recognition of the scale of our challenges. She supports the Green New Deal. She supports Medicare for All — and a way to get there. She supports Universal Child Care — and a way to get there. She has proposed an appropriately-ambitious wealth tax. As is well known, she has plans for people with disabilities; for African-Americans; for countless constituencies that finally feel seen, in depth, with care.
So I’d like to have someone who’s already tangled with a few lions, to throw into the arena with special interests. Maybe someone who has come up from not-much; with demonstrable character strengths forged in great challenges.
She is formidable.
I don’t know, folks. I know she’s behind, even in MA, and time is running out nationally. So what? Vote for whom you want. When someone like Elizabeth Warren runs for President of the United States, I just don’t see how you pass that up.
PS: The elephant in the room: She’s roughly the same age, hair color, education level, and gender as Hillary Clinton. If you think that’s not affecting people’s votes, I don’t think you know human nature.
Here’s a thread I wrote a while ago:
What, Charlie, didn’t you get the memo?
We are supposed to vote based on fear, not hope, and thus nominate someone who inspires none of the latter and whom we do not believe would be as good for the country.
I’m voting my hopes. My hope to restore the goodness of the nation and the stability of the world.
Only Joe Biden is assured of being able to accomplish both.
Well stated and well said. I think she wins the long game even if she doesn’t win on Super Tuesday. She’ll be an essential ally in the Senate or an integral member of the administration if Sanders does win the nomination and the presidency. Biden’s best hope of becoming President is to make Warren his VP. And heaven forbid if Trump does win, she might be our last best hope out of the mess that will inevitably follow. If 80 is the new 60 as Joe Biden says, she’ll be younger than the front runners in 2024 and the same age they are today in 2028. She’s not going anywhere.
So much of her bio is compelling and I really wish she started her campaign emphasizing that she came up from being a single mom from a Republican household in the middle of the country rather than igniting the DNA controversy.
I’ve always said just vote for the person you want and not vote strategically or as a pundit. I prefer Biden as people here know, but part of me really wants Warren to post a win in her home state.
Heh — the best thing I can think of for you to do to satisfy that part you is to cast your vote for Ms. Warren on Tuesday.
I know that’s what I’ll be doing. 🙂
It’s more about the movement than the person. He’s not my first choice, but the strength of Bernie’s movement is what will make him the most formidable nominee and President. This goes a long way to explain why the corporate media is panicking over a potential Sanders Presidency, without a comparable reaction to Warren. People power is a real thing and only Bernie has this in a big way.
Bernie’s movement maybe strong, but he has a record of failure as a legislator. He simply doesn’t get things done.
I disagree that the establishment fears him the most. Wall Street put a lot of money on Scott Brown because they knew Warren would be their worst enemy, and their fears have been borne out. Trump is pumping up Bernie’s tires because his people think that Bernie would be easier to defeat. I fear they might be correct.
Politifact’s ruling of the claim that “Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member.”: True
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
I guess that’s somehow a record of failure as a legislator though.
I think that the Sanders-McCain tag team to rescue the VA in 2006 should have silenced the idiots who claim Sanders gets nothing done. It was a massive bi-partisan victory. Alas, they are mostly people who have never worked for one day on The Hill. They are the same people who say “nobody likes Sanders, he gets nothing done,” a trope that is virulent in the Clintonista crowd.
But as Harry Reid said this week, he chose Sanders for Finance Chair because he is good at this job. And as Politico noted this week, he regularly dines with Chuck Schumer and Sen. Sherrod Brown at Hunan Dynasty on the hill, the main man and two of the most important voices on finance in the federal lawmaking universe.
I am mot a Sanders person and already cast my vote for Warren. But the next time some jerk tells you Sanders gets nothing done, ask that person how many hours they have met with even a single member of Congress, and what their lawmaking experience on the hill is.
I already know the answer.
The candidate you voted for is the one making this argument most forcefully in the past week.
Indeed. Last night:
“This crisis demands more than a senator who has good ideas, but whose 30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done, and consistently opposes things he nevertheless fails to stop.”
https://twitter.com/MikePrysner/status/1233945587747192833
Sanders does a lot of good. His ambitions are admirable.. But he does not have the skills of Warren.
Unfortunately she does not have his campaigning skills, or she would be running away with this thing.
Third place in her home state, but her supporters declare that she’s the smartest person in the room and has a plan for everything…
It’s starting to look quite a bit like a cargo cult at this point.
The curse of democracy is that smartest and most popular are not always the same person.
“Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!” And Adlai Stevenson answered, “That’s not enough. I need a majority.”
And both were right, but I’m not going to sacrifice my own vote for smarts to a popularity contest.
I think you need to learn what a “cargo cult” is. Whatever the supporters of Ms. Warren are, “cargo cult” is not one of them.
Interesting…
… More people voted for Mike Bloomberg’s signature on a check than for any of Elizabeth Warrens plans.
Maybe the election, for many people, isn’t about ‘the smartest person in the room’? Maybe any plan for anything is lost on anybody who’d even pause half-a-nanosecond to vote for Mike Bloomberg in the f-ing Democratic Primary.
Maybe the electorate is just plain nuts? Maybe they are shortsighted and sheepish and entirely beholden to the anxiety daily generated by the media hype machine? Maybe stupid still… ahem… Trumps… smart 6 outta ten times.
Of course, this is clearly, plainly, obviously and decidedly the fault of some ‘cargo cult…’ Obviously…
Why does campaigning– essentially marketing– get a veto over administrative competence?
It appears to me that corporate media is FAR MORE worried by the prospect of President Warren than President Sanders.
Mr. Sanders just took a beating in South Caroline, as did Ms. Warren.
I think the corporate media is very happy to see Joe Biden winning big in South Carolina.
I don’t see evidence that the corporate sector caused the SC result, however.
Biden has a deep reservoir of relationships with the SC Democratic party dating back decades. A win was not a surprise, a loss would have been catastrophic. This was not a corporate donor driven campaign but an authentic connection with the black voter base in that state. Clyburn sealed the deal. I do not support Biden but he won this fair and square with little help from corporate donors.
And he only spent about 1 million in the state from what I hear. I hope his campaign strengthens and maybe better funding is what it needs. I volunteered for him a bit in NH and from my perspective the campaign left a bit to be desired.
Joe Biden has raised $5 million online since last night’s South Carolina win.
Dear Christopher, STom never said it was engineered by the corporate sector. Try not to muddy the water with irrelevant points.
Have you seen MSNBC in the last week?
The media narrative has been about who can stop Sanders. CNN had a chyron today that said “Can either coronavirus or Bernie Sanders be stopped?”
Maybe one can interpret non-coverage of Warren’s campaign a sign that the corporate media is worried about a Warren presidency but the constant discussion (and near meltdown, especially on MSNBC) of the media about Sanders and who can stop him seems like stronger evidence about a concern about a Sanders presidency.
I love Warren but the state of the campaign is a decent third followed by distant (and below delegate viability) finishes of 4th, 4th, and 5th.
She’s finished. So is Amy and Pete. Bloomberg should also drop out but he’s too arrogant and pot committed at this point.
Total aside, but this would be an entirely different election if only young people voted. We ran a fun final round of Group Discussion at the Speech and Debate tournament I judged this weekend where the kids could pick any 2020 candidate to advocate for. We had a Warren, a Klobuchar, two Petes and three Bernies. Nobody wanted Biden or Bloomberg. They truly are Yesterday’s Men. I suspect Andrew Yang would still be running quite well with that group, my students love him.
Yes, if even looking at under-45 voters, Biden would not be discussed, and Pete and Amy would be faring poorly.
We’re going to find out what happens, but my heart hurts thinking about the climate, health care, and education and what could have been if certain groups looked at things differently.
People will say, “well, turn out and change it,” and I get that but I wish that some voters heard the ones that are screaming for change and weighed that when considering their own personal comfort. But that’s democracy, so it’s back to calling/texting and donating for me.
Ultimately any Dem will be good on issues like health, climate, and education.
This may be true for some definitions of health and education. Alas many Dems still have it wrong on climate. One tell: Biden’s endorsement of “all of the above” on energy, the industry’s proven stalking horse for doing nothing.
Yeah, and better than Trump doesn’t mean good.
The planet doesn’t have time for “just better than Trump” on climate.
Every Dem has prioritized climate and has strong plans. All of the above is just a way to transition since we can’t flip a switch overnight. I believe Biden has even endorsed the GND.
I think that to many mainstream Democrats —still—climate change is seen like another “transactional” interest that can be ameliorated with half measures and the hope to really really address it sometime down the road.
This attitude can be functional in big-tent coalition building (though I leave it to others to say how well it has served on, say, racism, or economic inequality). It is utterly dysfunctional in terms of problems with actual, physical, real-world parameters.
So you have Biden and others saying “all of the above,” which is basically kicking the can down the road again; you have Robert Deleo, who is all in on public transit except not if it means raising taxes more than a nickle, and so forth.
I am not willing to give Democrats a pass on this issue and lip service does not cut it.
There’s no need to call it a campaign with just a couple days until Super Tuesday. In SC it appears Biden and Sanders roughly split the under 45 set. Bloomberg hasn’t even tried yet so it’s silly to say he should withdraw, though if Biden has a decent ST the raison d’etre for Bloomberg’s campaign is out the window,
The point remains that young people DO NOT VOTE. The age distribution of the exit polls in SC were striking.
Though MSNBC pointed out that distribution was not as striking in other states. SC definitely had an electorate that skewed older.
Not by 71 to 29 percent. That’s well over 2 to 1, nearing 3 to 1.
Here’s an example data point:
From the above table:
15-44: 1,763,046 40%
45+: 2,584,010 60%
Total: 4,347,056 100%
The population splits 60/40. The vote split 71/29. That’s 1.5:1 in the population vs 2.5:1 in the vote. That’s significant!
“Gen Z, Millennials and Gen X outvoted older generations in 2018 midterms” (Pew Research Center)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/
“Younger generations cast more votes than baby boomers and older adults in 2018: Millennial turnout nearly doubled from 2014 to 2018.” (Vox)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/29/18644145/vote-2018-election-gen-x-z-millennials-baby-boomers
“YOUNG AMERICANS OUTVOTED BABY BOOMERS IN 2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS, MILLENNIALS DOUBLED 2014 TURNOUT” (Newsweek)
https://www.newsweek.com/millennial-baby-boomers-2018-voter-turnout-gen-x-record-generation-1438734
“Gen X, Y, Z voters outnumbered Boomers and others in 2018 midterms: New report indicates that younger generations outvoted their elders in 2018.” (ABC News)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gen-voters-outnumbered-boomers-2018-midterms/story?id=63384352
With all due respect, did you look at the exit polling from South Carolina?
Let me be more specific: Young people did not vote in yesterday’s South Carolina Democratic Primary. A campaign that relies on turning out young people is going to struggle in any state similar to South Carolina.
Yes, I did. The numbers out of South Carolina are different than the numbers out of three other states that have voted.
Other big differences from the numbers show that South Carolina Dem voters are significantly more conservative than Dem primary voters in the other states so far.
Is this a comment about the primaries or a general election? The thing is that the states most similar to South Carolina (older, large african american population, not urban-dominated) demographics are states like Alabama. States that no democrat will win in November. It will be very hard for a Sanders campaign to win these kinds of states in primaries.
Early voting in Texas in many counties looks to be twice what it was in 2016, especially in counties that include cities like Austin and San Antonio. We’ll find out what that might mean on Tuesday – as well as from many other states.
Is South Carolina demographics an exception or the rule this time? We don’t know yet.
Agreed.
@s this a comment about the primaries or a general election?:
A bit of both. I’m curious to see how the candidates do in primaries with large urban minority populations — Michigan, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.
I think it will be interesting to see how the results in LA compare to CA statewide.
Right. TBH, it’s been known for some time, and is something I’d hope that anyone concerned about electoral distortions (ex. reformers in support of the popular vote) would be questioning: It’s the logic of having conservative Democrats run up wins in delegates during the primaries to clinch the nomination (and stave off progressives) from states where Republicans are likely to win all the electoral votes in the general.
The amount of Democrats over the past 60 years and 15 presidential races who won South Carolina in the general election: 2 (JFK in 1960 and Jimmy Carter in 1976)
(Deleted comment)
I think it’s very hard to compare the 2018 mid-term and 2020 Democratic primary turnout.
Warren’s campaign is now open that their strategy is a brokered convention.
First signs were when last night, a reporter from CNN said she talked to “someone close to the [Warren] campaign,” (Naturally, It’s reasonable to question how authoritative this is, but…) who said that for them, “Tonight, it’s about blunting the momentum of Bernie Sanders.”
https://twitter.com/aishaismad/status/1233899739906813952
This was followed by Warren’s speech in which she explained that the point now was to collect “as many delegates as we can” (and if reports about the rest of the speech are correct, omitted any mention of states that they found promising and looked forward to winning).
https://twitter.com/PatTheBerner/status/1233969664453009409
A reporter from MSNBC said that they’re aiming at “delegates, delegates, delegates,” yet have been failing so far, as she’s not won any since the 8 from Iowa nearly a month ago and 4 contests back.
https://twitter.com/MikePrysner/status/1233969473092083712
This point was driven home as well today in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html):
If there were any doubt left, however, of what their strategy were, it was all made explicit today in a post from Warren’s campaign manager:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/super-tuesday-and-beyond-64c138196562
A clusterf* at the convention is “the final play.”
I am sure every candidate has a strategy for a “brokered” convention. It does not follow that they are rooting for that outcome; conversely, it also does not follow that any of them have the power to forestall it.
Mike, Liz, and Amy have the same power Mayor Pete and Tom Steyer used-dropping our. That ends their campaigns and makes this a two person race. Warren’s campaign manager was very open about putting her own nomination prospects over party unity. Only way she could be nominated is as a consensus candidate at a contested convention. A candidate who has never cracked 10% in a primary wants to be the nominee, and after a divisive convention no less. She more than earned the right to compete on Super Tuesday, but if she continues to compete beyond that she’s playing spoiler.
I do not believe that there is any candidate who, by dropping out now, could guarantee that some other candidate would win on the first ballot.
You could even spin some scenarios where dropping out makes the first-ballot win less likely.
So: It does not follow that any of them have the power to forestall that outcome.
I add that as long as a so-called brokered convention is possible, many candidates have a rational incentive stay in the race.
I agree with your last sentence, but it’s a collective action problem. Pete and Tom need to be joined by the other three also-rans for their dropping out to have the fullest impact. Amy has incentives to get MN delegates. Warren has incentives for..what I do not know. She is below viability in most Super Tuesday states and it is unlikely she will win her home state.
Maybe splitting half the Pete vote with Biden brings her back to viability? The incentives are slightly different in our primary since it is not winner take all and Bernie does not have the kind of momentum Trump enjoyed at a similar point in the race.
Yes, I agree that my “last point” (rational incentive to stay) is unrelated. Except that it describes one of the dynamics of the situation.
But your case for individual action is not that–it is a case for collective action, which is a different beast (and which is not going to happen, see unrelated rational incentive).
And also, it is ironic that what you are proposing is to short-circuit the primary process in favor of the collective action of a few wise men and women. In effect you want to avoid brokering the convention by brokering the primary.
Which is by its nature messy and could produce a clear winner, as it usually does. We won’t know until we get there.
Also Warren has a narrow, but real, path to victory pre convention involving (1) picking up steam from voters who are supporting moderates like Mayor Pete and (2) a real stumble by Sanders or another heart attack etc.
This fanfic is weird. Not only do neither Warren nor her campaign manager say there’s a possibility she’ll be victorious before the convention. But, the real chef’s kiss is channelling HRC’s callous scenario in which she pointed out that Bobby Kennedy got shot.
Can we stop using the phrase “brokered convention?” It is a contest, not a deal made in smoke filled back rooms. Please do not let the media corrupt our democratic process. There certainly are some politicians who control votes on the floor if there is not a clear first ballot majority. There are some who might threaten delegates who are elected on their own local popularity. If you have been even to the lowly MA DSC, you know that second ballot votes involve delegates choosing alternatives to their first choice with internal dialog and pressure from friends and neighbors factoring in. STOP CALLING IT BROKERED. It is a contest.
There seems to be some rooting for Sanders on MSNBC. The frontrunner always gets “who can stop” treatment at this point.
Never in my life have I seen these horse race questions of who may stop a frontrunner equated to a virus on the verge of being classified as a pandemic that may kill countless people across the globe nor after the success of a candidate in 2 races, having it be equated to Hitler’s troops annexing Poland. Both of those were via MSNBC (and I’m excluding quite a few others).
Well, if you just escaped one of those Central Park firing squads, jotaemei, you’d be a little nervous, too. (sigh)
?
The reference for Christopher
Jconway, thanks for the clarification. You offer evidence of why watching Matthews is a waste of your time that could otherwise be better spent cooking or reading.
Don’t have to worry about that anymore!
Matthews retired last night. It was some sexual harassment allegations that did it.
Did anybody notice that Chris Matthews retired on-air last night? Steve Kornacki had to step in to finish his segment.
It is worth watching his signoff. He was a classy guy with genuine insight, and I’ll miss him even if I often passionately disagreed with him.
@a frontrunner equated to a virus on the verge of being classified as a pandemic:
Actually that offensive comparison was brought to you by CNN, not MSNBC.
Smerconish seems to be suggesting that the coronavirus might be an unknown factor in the outcome of the election rather than comparing any particular candidate to it.
If it’s this years hostage crisis maybe Bernie is our Reagan to Trump’s Carter?
@maybe Bernie is our Reagan to Trump’s Carter?:
I reject the comparison, because the Iranian hostage crisis was a specific act. It was intentional, concrete, and well understood within a few hours of happening.
I watched Don Lemon interview Elizabeth Warren about the issue last night. It was the first time I’ve seen any elected official of any party respond effectively and intelligently to thorny questions.
Mr. Lemon is an excellent interviewer, by the way. He asks tough questions and then actually LISTENS TO the answers.
If Bernie or Warren are able to win, they could represent a Reagan-like change of progressivism. I would give Bernie the edge on that both from primary results and general polling and the movement focus. Warren is more competent manager than movement leader (that’s why I want them both in power!).
But the election of either would represent a sharp break in the Reagan era that has dominated our politics for 40 years. And maybe it would be a temporary reprieve and not a new era. I hope it can be a new era.
Of course, a Biden presidency secures the Reagan era for longer, as does another Trump term, but a Trump term could also be the chaotic sputtering end of the era.
The end is coming, the question is whether it will be now or in a decade, and also whether our planet has enough time left once it does come.
Six sixes and an amen for this.
Well done!
…because there’s someone else in this race who, in this particular year, has a better chance of beating Trump by a wide margin.
That’s why.
She is fantastic. I have nothing but the deepest admiration for the senator. But you asked.
Maybe she’ll run again in 2024 if Biden doesn’t. I’ll support her in a heartbeat.
You could support her today, just saying.
Matt Yglesias at Vox gave a stab at answering your question yesterday.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/21162527/what-happened-to-elizabeth-warren
Matt Yglesias is an idiot.
Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Peter Buttegieg, Amy Klobuchar and Mike Bloomberg are all equally well educated white people. As are Hillary and BIll Clinton, Mitt Romney and both Bushes. If ‘demographic similarity’ were ever, and at any time, predictive of electoral success then Donald Trump would still be firing people for money on TV.
This line of logic (sic) is just reasoning in search of an argument.