US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[butterbumps!]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I mentioned the first in the last thread as one of the few concrete measures proposed by Warren yes. But -maybe it's a quibble- those first two are not laws. The third is, so that's fair. 

My  point was that the difference between Warren and Sanders is messaging though. I don't buy that she's more concerned about race just because she talks about it all the time. 

But messaging kind of is...politics?

I don’t really get the objection.  If messaging of ideas doesn’t or shouldn’t matter, then why do elections consist of anything other than white papers and policy outlines to be read at our leisure?

The difference in messaging shows that these issues as stand-alones are more of a priority for her.  I don’t think that’s unfair to say.  Economic framing is clearly Sanders priority.  It doesn’t mean he doesn’t care at all about them, but they are clearly accenting different issues.

[Raja]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Warren isn't afraid to use a lot of empty words to appear woke and you fall for it.
Seriously, "race-conscious laws" ? What does that even mean? Do you know? Does she? Her website doesn't say. If she wants to fight discrimination she can just say it clearly. If it's about something else she can also be clear about it.
Since she's not, it's all noise.

It says more about you than about the candidates in my book.

If you want to tell us how great Warren is on race, by all means, tell us more about her proposals, her commitments, the support she obtained... etc. I'll be interested, and I might easily agree with you.

'Empty words' 'all noise' 'tell us more about her proposals'

Like, making posts like the one above and saying those words without actually looking at her proposals is lazy ( and here you say proposals & commitments, both of which are in my post, and not just laws.)

Also see butterbumps! above.

 

[karaddin]

I feel Warren is the last candidate you should criticise for just empty words and not having plans to back them up, her having detailed plan is exactly why I think she'd be the best at actually being president - that she'd be more successful at getting her agenda implemented due to her level of organisation.

I also think this planning has her much more aware of all the things that would need to be done to start undoing some of the damage from Trump, I'm not confident that all of them realise there's a lot more to do than just beating him.

Unfortunately that's not the only criteria for being the candidate, and I'm less confident that she's the most likely to be elected. I don't have confidence in any particular candidate being that, nor that the election will be free and fair to the point of it even being winnable but you've got to act like it will be in candidate selection at least.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

The difference in messaging shows that these issues as stand-alones are more of a priority for her.

Does it, though ? Knowing she was going against Sanders her staff had to come up with an angle that would make her seem credible. It wasn't easy to up Bernie of all opponents but her people are quite obviously good.

But does it tell us anything about her sincerity ? I personally don't rely on that kinda stuff to judge. Political messaging has evolved so much you just can't tell anymore.

Edit: and to be crystal clear, she does have some concrete proposals so she's clearly not all talk. I just don't buy that there is a significant difference on the issue between Sanders and her.

BTW the Trump campaign has been going after AA voters hard in the last six months. Of course no one here is buying that he's genuinely concerned about them, right ? 

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Does it, though ? Knowing she was going against Sanders her staff had to come up with an angle that would make her seem credible. It wasn't easy to up Bernie of all opponents but her people are quite obviously good.

Gotta say Ripp, I am quite baffled at your arguments here if you're trying to compare the two campaigns in any type of objective/fair way.  First of all, messaging doesn't matter?!?  As @butterbumps! pointed out, messaging is pretty much the main aspect of campaigns.  MAGA; I'm With Her; Yes We Can, obviously very important aspects on the success or lack thereof of recent presidential campaigns.  Now, those are just slogans and (at least explicitly) not ideologically based.  Ok, but emphasizing issues - via messaging - is still exactly how campaigns signal "where candidates stand."  Moreover, messaging is essential to any MC as well - this is foundational going back to Mayhew's advertising/position-taking and Fenno's homestyle.  Messaging doesn't tell us about a candidate's sincerity?  Of course not - neither do voting records.  This seems a very strange argument to make as an empiricist, there's no way to confidently get into any politician's head.

Second, the other key aspect of any campaign is going to be their platform.  And as @Raja provided, Warren appears to have a clear advantage on emphasizing racial issues there as well.  I'm also not sure why you're dinging some of her proposals for being unilateral action (e.g. EOs, presidential directives, rulemaking) rather than laws.  The former is a hell of a lot easier to implement than the latter!  If anything you should be criticizing how realistic it will be to pass proposed laws, not proposed unilateral action.

Third, ok, let's look at Sanders' record as a lawmaker on racial issues.  I think most young minority activists would not be too pleased with his vote on the 94 crime bill.  Now, he did speak out against the aspects of the bill that would exacerbate systemic racism, but that's just messaging, right?  Even as recently as 2007, he voted to re-up funding for the COPS program, something that is antithetical to his support for Black Lives Matter.  Overall, NAPO rates Sanders at 73% - which is very close to the minimum score (75%) to indicate "tough on crime and police issues."  Notable senators with lower scores include Michael Bennett, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tim Kaine, and Elizabeth Warren at 64%.  Then there is his repeated votes against the Brady Bill throughout the 90s, as well as his 2005 vote for the PLCAA.  Don't think most minority activists would be too geeked about his record on guns.  

Now, again, he has been great speaking out about prison reform, has been a steadfast supporter of affirmative action, and generally emphasizing all the different aspects of institutional racism.  But looking at his voting record on major bills under the "civil rights" and "crime" categories, there's not much there there in terms of specifically racial issues.  It seems incredibly logically inconsistent to value any of that if you're going to dismiss Warren's current efforts.  Further, please point me to any bill on racial issues he's actually shepherded through Congress during his 30 year legislative career.

Look, like I said the other day, I'm not going to assail Sanders' record on race.  And of course his work with CORE and SNCC nearly 50 years ago is a pretty damn convincing argument in and of itself that Bernie cares.  But if you're going to attempt to evaluate Warren vs. Sanders on racial issues in any objective way, it's hardly surprising that such issue voters would favor the former over the latter - both based on their current campaigns and prior recent records.

[DanteGabriel]

You can actually hear the goalposts moving in real time when Ripp gets shown inconvenient facts about Warren's candidacy.

"It's just messaging."

"Okay, there's something there, but not real laws."

"Okay, there are more concrete plans than I thought, but she's not sincere."

And ye gods, you're going to compare her outreach to AA voters to Trump's? Fuck that noise.

Get some self-awareness, dude.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Does it, though ? Knowing she was going against Sanders her staff had to come up with an angle that would make her seem credible. It wasn't easy to up Bernie of all opponents but her people are quite obviously good.

But does it tell us anything about her sincerity ? I personally don't rely on that kinda stuff to judge. Political messaging has evolved so much you just can't tell anymore.

Rip, I think this is a really bizarre and kind of unhinged complaint, like her campaign needed something to set her apart from Sanders’ progressive perfection, so they conjured up insincere messaging about social justice as the one thing to do that.   It’s clear you’re very familiar with Sanders, but it doesn’t seem like you’re nearly as well versed in Warren.   She didn’t need to conjure or spin anything as a difference.  The big thing she points out, and always has, is that she’s a capitalist, while he’s an avowed socialist.  That’s a pretty massive innate difference.   She doesn’t have to weaponize social justice in the way you’re suggesting, because even though they are both progressive and seek very similar outcomes in terms of economic welfare, she’s saying “it’s all broken, let’s fix things,” while Sanders is more “it’s all broken, let’s burn it down” (which incidentally gives me night terrors along the lines of the country being run by the underpants gnome business model).

[Kalbear]

Yeah, I dont get this either. I can see calling Buttigieg insincere, or Biden. But warren, on the grounds that what, she's TOO prepared and has too many actual concrete plans that can work day one and then talks about them when given a chance?

How hard is it to say "warren is better than sanders at dealing with minority issues"? Why is this so hard? This isn't even saying sanders is bad at it. It is acknowledging the breadth and depth of Warren's campaign on this.

It also amuses me that two of the three most vocal Sanders supporters in these threads aren't from the US. It's fine, mind you, but it is amusing. It reminds me of the person on twitter who hates the ACA and supports sanders and said how the ACA kills people...and turns out that they are from France or some shit.

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I dont get this either. I can see calling Buttigieg insincere, or Biden. But warren, on the grounds that what, she's TOO prepared and has too many actual concrete plans that can work day one and then talks about them when given a chance?

How hard is it to say "warren is better than sanders at dealing with minority issues"? Why is this so hard? This isn't even saying sanders is bad at it. It is acknowledging the breadth and depth of Warren's campaign on this.

It also amuses me that two of the three most vocal Sanders supporters in these threads aren't from the US. It's fine, mind you, but it is amusing. It reminds me of the person on twitter who hates the ACA and supports sanders and said how the ACA kills people...and turns out that they are from France or some shit.

Warren's been getting a lot of heat from Massachusetts police unions about her willingness to describe the US criminal justice system as "racist." There was a recent flare-up of butthurt about it from some town near me, so I went to Google "Elizabeth Warren police union" and got pages of results from various cop unions criticizing her dating back to 2018. But sure, let's doubt her sincerity, since Trump is making AA appeals too.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, Darzin said:

I guess vetted is maybe the wrong word my point is Sanders has a lot of old untouched scandals it's not just the socialism thing his scandals go on and on and on. And while Pete gets hit for a wine cave and Warren gets hit for a later medicare rollout everyone is sitting on some huge liabilities of Sanders because his base is prickly and they didn't want to alienate them and because Democrats don't care about some of this stuff.

 

The title of those links are absolutely deceitful. He never wrote an essay about how women enjoy being gang raped. Snopes does a great job providing some context. Is queer theories study and LGBTQ+ advocate Gayle Rubin equally bad for her theoretical essays, one including the position that the lines of sexual perversion (such as pedophilia) are harmful, and should not even be classified as mental illness? Any time you read something like that, you have to understand the greater theoretical context of the piece. 

Either way, one more example. The short clip you linked about bread lines--even that, in its snipped, edited framing--shows Sanders was saying bread lines are an indicator of (good) government wanting to help its people, not being so called evil countries who deny their citizens food. He was clearly not saying bread lines are a good thing.

I mean the stuff people bring up is often so old, so ancient, it tells you a lot about how difficult it's been to find a scandal. He didn't work much until he was 40? What?

[Zorral]

The only thing in that Carville sputum explosion that makes sense is his paragraph in which he instructs the Dems, if they are at all serious about the next presidential election, to beat Beat BEAT the drums that Dr No announced he was going after SS and Medicare 'at the end of the year.'

That's where I agree with another Vox piece earlier this week -- it isn't policies the Dems need to be talking about, but against the laws of political operatives, they need to center him, what he does, what he says, all the time, i.e. they need to run against.  Running for this time around isn't making sense.  And it sure didn't work last time either.

Because all he does is run against.  So people must be told over and over and over what it is that he's really up to -- and use his own words coming out of his own mouth all the time, and do it in and on all the media.

 

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok, but emphasizing issues - via messaging - is still exactly how campaigns signal "where candidates stand."  Moreover, messaging is essential to any MC as well - this is foundational going back to Mayhew's advertising/position-taking and Fenno's homestyle.  Messaging doesn't tell us about a candidate's sincerity?  Of course not - neither do voting records.

Curious. I'd take voting records over messaging any day.

And past examples of political messaging is precisely why I don't believe in it much anymore. The two most recent examples of messaging that were... misleading being Obama and Macron for me. Imho both turned out to be significantly more to the right than their messaging had most people believe.
Not saying that would be Warren's case mind you (dunno enough about her to say such a thing), just explaining that this is part of why, on a personal level, I'm not going to put much faith in messaging alone. The other part being, of course, the professional angle ; ever since I studied Reagan (and a few others) I am of the opinion that very few "major" politicians are going to be genuine, almost every single facet of their image is going to be a construct and it can be tough figuring out what they really believe in, deep down. "Actions speak louder than words," to sum it up.

Like, this is the type of article that gets a smile from me because it touches on such constructs:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/politics/democratic-candidates-dogs-bloomberg.html

Quote

Third, ok, let's look at Sanders' record as a lawmaker on racial issues.

That's precisely why I think it's odd -to say the least- to say Warren is "different" or "better" based on her messaging when Sanders's weakness is so obviously his record as a lawmaker.

That being said I'll still say Warren's messaging is in fact better not because it tells us much about her character or her priorities but because it works. If people here are somehow convinced that she's more sincere on race than Sanders -of all people- then it certainly means she's doing something right.

I suppose I'm just being a bit too cynical at the wrong moment: expressing skepticism about a candidate as popular as Warren at this time is quite obviously unwise and I'm backing myself (and being backed) into a corner.

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The big thing she points out, and always has, is that she’s a capitalist, while he’s an avowed socialist.  That’s a pretty massive innate difference.   She doesn’t have to weaponize social justice in the way you’re suggesting, because even though they are both progressive and seek very similar outcomes in terms of economic welfare, she’s saying “it’s all broken, let’s fix things,” while Sanders is more “it’s all broken, let’s burn it down” (which incidentally gives me night terrors along the lines of the country being run by the underpants gnome business model).

Well maybe the bolded is precisely why I'll never be able to have complete faith in Warren. This article actually does a decent job of explaining it:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/12/elizabeth-socialist-understand-capitalism-pro-market-leftist/

If I could vote in your elections I'd honestly be torn between Sanders and Warren. I think Sanders's activism is the real deal but that he doesn't do well as a politician (like many old-school socialists). At the end of the day I think I'd rather have Warren elected because I think she'll do better as president. But even though I'd passionately defend some of Warren's proposals I'm a bit wary about what her messaging doesn't say. I can't quite articulate it but I sense that on some level I don't actually share her ideology. I'd go for her for consequentialism's sake, but on a personal level Bernie is clearly my guy, and to me it's a real pity that his theoretical is better than his actual - so to speak. Make of that what you will... At the end of the day we're comparing oranges and oranges here aren't we?

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Hi, I hope everyone missed me.

Speaking as someone who is extremely sympathetic to both Warren and Sanders (and hostile to the rest of the field) I want to chime in to say that I think the premise that Warren has geared her candidacy around racial justice issues while Sanders hasn't is simply not substantiated. The only difference I see is that some are readily extending a degree of credulity to Warren's pronouncements on the subject that they are denying to Sanders. It is trivially easy to find Sanders' proposals on racial justice and if you listen to any of his speeches he regularly addresses the subject.

There is nothing in Warren's political record that suggests a greater interest in racial justice than Sanders' and, in fact, I think it's clear that, like Sanders, she has made a name for herself primarily on questions of economic justice, particularly with regard to abuses of the financial industry during the 07/08 financial crisis. Currently, both are primarily differentiating themselves from the rest of the field not on racial issues but on economic issues, with substantially similar platforms geared towards soaking the rich, attacking monopolies, providing free college, eliminating student debt, passing a robust Green New Deal, and implementing single-payer health care. 

25 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 she’s saying “it’s all broken, let’s fix things,” while Sanders is more “it’s all broken, let’s burn it down” (which incidentally gives me night terrors along the lines of the country being run by the underpants gnome business model).

Hi bumps, I hope you in particular missed me.

While Sanders is perhaps more rhetorically aggressive in some ways which might justify the claim that he is more of a "burn it down" candidate, I do not think there is anything much more radical in his policy platform than Warren's. In some little discussed but important ways this characterization might even apply more to Warren- she has signaled willingness to "pack" the Supreme Court while Sanders is opposed and she supports eliminating the filibuster while Sanders has expressed reticence to do so. 

These last two points are, in my view, very much in Warren's favor. But it should be noted that they seriously challenge established political norms (especially with court packing) in ways that do threaten to "blow up the system" if and when Republicans retaliate in the future and our system of checks and balances/separation of powers is increasingly exposed as an obsolete scheme crafted by 18th century provincial bigots that has no place in the modern world. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Curious. I'd take voting records over messaging any day.

The point is voting records are a type of position taking, which Mayhew treats the same as advertising and credit claiming.  They're all "messaging," one way or another.  And I don't think there's any credible empirical argument to assert one denotes a politician's sincerity any more than the other.  If it's just based on your own personal perceptions, well, ok, can't really argue with that.

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The two most recent examples of messaging that were... misleading being Obama and Macron for me. Imho both turned out to be significantly more to the right than their messaging had most people believe.

I'd view this almost entirely based on the distinction between governing and campaigning.  At least for Obama, don't know enough about Macron to have a strong opinion.

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That being said I'll still say Warren's messaging is in fact better not because it tells us much about her character or her priorities but because it works.

Well sure.  Isn't that the point of politics?  I haven't commented on the Carville piece yet, but that's his key thesis which is just basic Gov 101.  The entire objective of political parties and campaigns is to gain power.  Nothing else ultimately matters.  And, ironically, right now overall it's very clear Sanders is doing a better job of that than Warren - within the Dem primary.  The question is how it will translate to the general.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Yea, I had been thinking of the Times Iowa data.  It had shown only a modest increase in that age demographic.

On the Rogan thing, I’m not really sure how much impact, or how sustained an impact, something like that will bring him.

Yes, and while Sanders is sharper than Biden, neither at all looks like they could handle the rigors of the job, or gives me confidence they’d get all the way through the campaign and inauguration without incident.   Adding to my Sanders angst, should he get the nom, I’m furious that he in particular adds an additional layer to my already growing election stress regarding whether he’ll have another cardiac episode or some other health issue in the 5-6 months between getting the potential nomination and the general, as well as during the next two months until he’s sworn in.

The heart attack, at his age, should have been disqualifying, and the fact that he didn’t gracefully bow out gives me panic that he is still very much not thinking about what’s best for beating Trump and the overall good of the country.

Or you could see this as super important to him. That he's fought this battle for his entire life and finally movement is happening, and his is that if he how's out now the movement could be squashed in the interim of the younger party members leading the fight. He believes what he's doing is best for the country. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Edit: Double post or something, I can't effectively write on my phone. 

[Zorral]

It's hysterical, isn't it, that in the US people are terrified of the label 'socialist' while perfectly ok with labels such as rapist, criminal, bigot, racist, fascist and nazi.

As the great poet, W.B. Yeats wrote, concerning the coming global storm called WWII, "the center does not hold."  And the Dems and voters are terrified because it's clear this is the case again.  What will they do now?  They don't know, so they clutch pearls, scream at the sky, "Socialist!"

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

Silly yes. But that's the way it is. Socialism is a four letter word. If it was a different year and a different opponent I'd say go  for Bernie and see if you can change people's minds. But with the Republic at stake,  I hope New Hampshire goes for someone different.

[Zorral]

The first question Bernie was asked in the first debate back for 2016 "Do you really think America will vote for a ... SOOOSHHHHahLIST???????"

But nobody asked the rapist is he thought America would vote for a rapist.

And the inquistors must have been right not to because America did vote for a rapist, a criminal, a thug, a gangster and someone who threatens and beseeches all the time to have people killed -- and proudly declared he could kill anybody and not go to jail.  (Though evidently he's not so sure that's possible to pull off in NYC, on 5th Ave., now, like he was then. But anywhere else, he's home free.)

[Fragile Bird]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The first question Bernie was asked in the first debate back for 2016 "Do you really think America will vote for a ... SOOOSHHHHahLIST???????"

But nobody asked the rapist is he thought America would vote for a rapist.

And the inquistors must have been right not to because America did vote for a rapist, a criminal, a thug, a gangster and someone who threatens and beseeches all the time to have people killed -- and proudly declared he could kill anybody and not go to jail.  (Though evidently he's not so sure that's possible to pull off in NYC, on 5th Ave., now, like he was then. But anywhere else, he's home free.)

Bernie is an admitted socialist. Trump is not an admitted rapist. 

No news organization running a debate is going to ask Trump if he thinks America will vote for an accused rapist. He'll destroy them through twitter and ginning up his base against them.

Besides, the answer is obviously a resounding yes.