Jump to content
ExPDXer

The New York Times endorses Sen Warren,... ,and Amy too

Recommended Posts

Very surprising. I was fully expecting them to go with Biden.....

 

The Democrats’ Best Choice for President

 

<snip>

Ms. Warren’s path to the nomination is challenging, but not hard to envision. The four front-runners are bunched together both in national polls and surveys in states holding the first votes, so small shifts in voter sentiment can have an outsize influence this early in the campaign. There are plenty of progressives who are hungry for major change but may harbor lingering concerns about a messenger as divisive as Mr. Sanders. At the same time, some moderate Democratic primary voters see Ms. Warren as someone who speaks to their concerns about inequality and corruption.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren is clearly healthier than sanders, even though they're both in their 70s where everything is unpredictable. Still, Warren has an 8-year advantage over Sanders, and a slender frame where he's had a heart attack. Women typically live longer than men. Health-wise, her odds are significantly better.

 

I see Warren as being smarter than Sanders, better able to handle the complexity the presidency requires. Wikipedia says "He has described himself as a mediocre college student" and offers an excuse: it was boring to him.  Warren has a B.Sc. in speech pathology and a law degree; the different disciplines are a sign of mental flexibility.

 

Those are indications, but the following, from the article, describes what makes me prefer Warren to Sanders.  The bolding and italics are mine.

 

<snip>

Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, taking a principled stand is both a virtue, and a liability.

 

What I found interesting was how far down the article you have to go before Biden was even mentioned.

(Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, Buttigieg, Yang, Bloomberg, … then Biden).

 

And, how they slammed Bloomberg:

 

"Mr. Bloomberg’s current campaign approach reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it. Rather than build support through his ideas and experience, Mr. Bloomberg has spent at least $217 million to date to circumvent the hard, uncomfortable work of actual campaigning. He’s also avoided difficult questions — going so far as to bar his own news organization from investigating him, and declining to meet with The Times’s editorial board under the pretext that he didn’t yet have positions on enough issues. What’s worse, Mr. Bloomberg refuses to allow several women with whom he has nondisclosure settlements to speak freely."

 

 

 

 

* This post is the opinion of the ExPDXer, and may or may not be backed by sound data. It is not endorsed by anyone, and should not be used for making political, (or life and death) decisions. Always consult your own conscience. The opinions expressed are solely his own, (and even that is highly suspect).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a brilliant editorial, especially the first part which explained why the NYT settled on two, disparate choices:--- The problem of restoring the effectiveness of national institutions which no longer seem to function properly is reflected in two main lines of thought in the Democratic Party:  One seeks to fix the system through existing channels and the other considers our institutions so damaged that only sweeping change will suffice.  The two approaches are represented by Sen Klobuchar, who would work within the system and Sen Warren who's plans rely more on substantial change. 

 

At this point in the race, Warren stands at about 14.8%, nationally and Klobuchar about 8%. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

However, at this point in past races, some eventual nominees fared no better.  So present rankings do not necessarily indicate final results.

 

My choice is Elizabeth Warren.  We need to join the rest of the advanced nations and switch to Single Payer.  With her understanding of the banking and financial industry, Warren is the right person for meaningful reform.  And Warren has great ideas in a wide variety of areas:    https://elizabethwarren.com/plans

 

But I would enthusiastically support Amy Klobuchar, should she gain a commanding lead in the primaries.  She has tons of experience.  And although Klobuchar would seek to implement her plans through already established channels, her goals are those of a Liberal.  Like Warren, she is strong on tackling climate change ... fair immigration policy ...  narrowing the wealth gap, health care, education and many others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided to vote progressive in the primary, no matter what.

A small concern of Warren, (not ideologically, but tactically):....

She does have a tendency to respond to every critique leveled at her, or her plans by her political opponents. 

I cite 3 very similar examples of self inflicted injury:

  • Trump’s Pocahontas taunt,
  • Pete Buttigieg’s M4A critique, and
  • recently responding to taunts from overzealous Sanders supporters.

In all three of these cases, she elevated the status of her critics, and ended up in a worse position (politically speaking).

 

I don’t know who her campaign strategist is, but all she needs to do to win the primary is to say over, and over:

 

I will work tirelessly to excite, and bring every part of the Democratic Party together.

I will not take big chunks of the Democratic Coalition for granted.

I hope to be a President that every Democrat can believe in.

 

...until the DNC Convention.

 

We all know where this is heading.

After the Convention, the party will either declare itself moderately progressive, or progressively moderate, depending on who wins the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

We all know where this is heading.

After the Convention, the party will either declare itself moderately progressive, or progressively moderate, depending on who wins the nomination.

 

Of course.

 

6 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Yes, taking a principled stand is both a virtue, and a liability.

 

And not something that can work within the system as envisioned by the founders, in the Constitution they made. They made it nearly impossible for principles to succeed unless hedged by compromise.

 

Lots of US citizens hate that. That hate got us Trump. The stupid "fix" for a country that requires compromise is dictatorship. Füçk that. Give me muddled compromise rather than dictatorship, left or right. I'd rather advance in predictable slow ways than disrupt everything in service of some ism. Because no theory is predictive of human whim and trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, laripu said:

The stupid "fix" for a country that requires compromise is dictatorship. Füçk that. Give me muddled compromise rather than dictatorship, left or right.

Nice strawman. I am unaware of anyone advocating dictatorship, other than Trump.

 

I absolutely agree with the principle of compromise. Within the Democratic party. I believe that the highly instigated chasm between the moderate wing, and progressive wing is by no means unbridgeable. Despite the many outside forces, and special interests that wish to divide, one can easily imagine a single-payer system that has an eventual transition to M4A, or a modification to the tax codes that would eliminate the 0% tax bracket for corporations. Both moderates, and progressives can easily find common ground on many, many issues.  I support that, and even believe it is absolutely necessary.

 

But that's as far as I am willing to go at this point  on the issue of political compromise.

 

When it comes to Trump, and the current crop of Republicans, it's a fools errand to continue this charade. With Mitch McConnell actively throwing mustard gas into our foxhole, then it is indeed disheartening to discuss the issue of working with them. 

 

I would argue that we are currently very close to authoritarian-ism with Trump. To me, the idea of continuing to compromise with the party of Trump is abhorrent, perhaps closer to appeasement. We certainly should not yield or concede to belligerent demands of the right wing at the expense of justice, or other principles.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Nice strawman. I am unaware of anyone advocating dictatorship, other than Trump.

 

I absolutely agree with the principle of compromise. Within the Democratic party. I believe that the highly instigated chasm between the moderate wing, and progressive wing is by no means unbridgeable. Despite the many outside forces, and special interests that wish to divide, one can easily imagine a single-payer system that has an eventual transition to M4A, or a modification to the tax codes that would eliminate the 0% tax bracket for corporations. Both moderates, and progressives can easily find common ground on many, many issues.  I support that, and even believe it is absolutely necessary.

 

But that's as far as I am willing to go at this point  on the issue of political compromise.

 

When it comes to Trump, and the current crop of Republicans, it's a fools errand to continue this charade. With Mitch McConnell actively throwing mustard gas into our foxhole, then it is indeed disheartening to discuss the issue of working with them. 

 

I would argue that we are currently very close to authoritarian-ism with Trump. To me, the idea of continuing to compromise with the party of Trump is abhorrent, perhaps closer to appeasement. We certainly should not yield or concede to belligerent demands of the right wing at the expense of justice, or other principles.

 

OK, you're right, that was a straw man. Your post is reasonable.

 

But as far as compromise with Republicans goes, we will have to eventually find some to go along with a moderate left wing agenda. Otherwise, when they get in (and they will) everything gets undone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the NYT did some injustice with these two endorsements. 

 

They covered both avenues of the Democratic Party, but why couldn't they just pick one and stick too it. 

 

Amy and Liz vary greatly in the proposals that they are putting forth. They got one establishment and progressive candidate here. But couldn't NYT do some justice and pick one and stick too it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either of these candidates would be an excellent choice. 
 

The NYT article rightly points out that the overlap between moderates and progressives is far greater than the differences. 
 

Quote

But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became striking.
 

Nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government’s allocations of resources. Where they differ most significantly is not the what but the how, in whether they believe the country’s institutions and norms are up to the challenge of the moment.

 

 

 

I also think the article addressed a fundamental truth in the Democratic Party. Fresh ideas come from the progressive wing. The concern is that the far left can be accused of ideological rigidity and overreach. 

 

Quote

AT THE DAWN OF 2020, some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left wing of the Democratic Party. That’s a testament to the effectiveness of the case that Bernie Sanders and Senator Warren have made about what ails the country. We worry about ideological rigidity and overreach, and we’d certainly push back on specific policy proposals, like nationalizing health insurance or decriminalizing the border. But we are also struck by how much more effectively their messages have matched the moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 8:26 AM, zkyllonen8 said:

I think that the NYT did some injustice with these two endorsements. 

 

They covered both avenues of the Democratic Party, but why couldn't they just pick one and stick too it. 

 

Amy and Liz vary greatly in the proposals that they are putting forth. They got one establishment and progressive candidate here. But couldn't NYT do some justice and pick one and stick too it? 

Maybe as out there as it may seem they might be suggesting a ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Bernie a lot. I have always agreed with his ideals. Heard Ezra Kline talking today on NPR about the polarity or division we have in the country these days. I really like Ezra's take on politics and policy. He mentioned Bernie and how his long held ideals appeal to so many of our youth. Yes, we should have a healthcare system that works for all people, most especially here in the richest country in the world. The mission should be idealistic, and I think much the same way about doing something big about climate change while at the same time doing something integral about bringing more folks out of poverty.

That being said, the Republican right is much farther right than the Democratic left is leftist. Warren has the same ideals as Bernie but she is far more policy oriented. I think she is clearly the best choice. I also know as most that getting most big change accomplished takes a united congress backed by a majority of the people. 

 

 

The hard part as Ezra was saying is that the Democrats have a much broader group of people to appeal to. This includes immigrants, folks of color, all sexes, the centrists, as well as those who are much more progressive. And this is a much taller order than just falling in line with those who share your political polarity which may or most likely does not have anything at all to do with actual policy. 

 

I think Warren is more pragmatic than Bernie and because of this she is my first choice.

Maybe Elizabeth and Amy would make a great ticket indeed!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 12:48 AM, fourputt said:

Maybe as out there as it may seem they might be suggesting a ticket.

 

On 1/24/2020 at 12:48 AM, fourputt said:

Maybe as out there as it may seem they might be suggesting a ticket.

Go for broke with an all woman ticket? If now isn't the time when is?

I think it would massively restore the Democratic majority! We need more women in the congress, and I think this would inspire more talented women to run for office.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheOldBarn said:

 

Go for broke with an all woman ticket? If now isn't the time when is?

I think it would massively restore the Democratic majority! We need more women in the congress, and I think this would inspire more talented women to run for office.

Peace!

I think it would either be a phenomenal victory for democracy and a definite shift of the needle  towards fair representation or a further setback in an effort to create a more perfect union. Undeniably Warren and Klobuchar are different in their respective methods of how they would lead the country but do agree in principle on many other issues like global warming, income inequality and many other problems in the country. I don't know how the party would embrace a ticket of where they are not on the same page completely. Republicans were able to for the most part accept Bush back in the 80's after accurately describing Reagans economic policy as "VooDoo economics" and even elected him in 88' but then ditched him after 4 years. I do feel though Amy can definitely help garner votes through the "rustbelt" part of the country and thats critical in the upcoming election, Trump needs to pick off at least 2 of these states that he won by the most narrowest of margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, fourputt said:

I think it would either be a phenomenal victory for democracy and a definite shift of the needle  towards fair representation or a further setback in an effort to create a more perfect union. Undeniably Warren and Klobuchar are different in their respective methods of how they would lead the country but do agree in principle on many other issues like global warming, income inequality and many other problems in the country. I don't know how the party would embrace a ticket of where they are not on the same page completely. Republicans were able to for the most part accept Bush back in the 80's after accurately describing Reagans economic policy as "VooDoo economics" and even elected him in 88' but then ditched him after 4 years. I do feel though Amy can definitely help garner votes through the "rustbelt" part of the country and thats critical in the upcoming election, Trump needs to pick off at least 2 of these states that he won by the most narrowest of margins.

Actually, I think Amy Klobuchar is fundamentally in line with Warren, it's just that she is more pragmatic in thinking about what can be accomplished.

I have always respected AK, she tells it like it is. I think Warren should be president because we need to more forward - and we know this won't be easy. 

The ticket would motivate not just a lot of woman to vote. Let me tell you, we need to get rid of you know who, that's no secret, and we need a big time turnout.

It should not even be close. It needs to be a landslide and we need the Senate too.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...