I with The NY Times along with all the other media publications would revise how they cover elections, especially the presidential elections.
You buy into the popular culture of the day in your reporting of the candidates and the events.
Just report on the person, their policies, and their character as it relates to performing the duties of the office.
15
I never have understood Iowa as a barometer for the rest of the country. The entire Asian, Latino population was in that little room. Iowa doesn’t look like America? Iowa doesn’t even look like my neighborhood.
10
Every Biden gaffe supplies the occasion for a self deprecating head-slap and joke. --Than which, nothing is more endearing and entertaining.
2
Don't discount the Iowa Democratic caucuses. I still remember when Iowa Democrats chose little-known presidential candidate Barak Obama over insider Hillary in 2008. Wha-hoo! I thought at the time.
But, I wondered how successful Iowa has been in picking the eventual Democratic presidential candidate:
6 eventual Democratic nominees have won Iowa, including the last 3 (Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore).
2 Iowa Democratic winners became president: Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. (Note IA track record at choosing winers is better than NH's)
See: https://www.npr.org/2016/01/31/465016222/how-predictive-are-iowa-and-new-hampshire
Re Trump: Trump got 51% of the Iowa vote in 2016, to Hillary's 41% (remember, she was not the Dem caucus pick)
So it seems that Iowans like outsiders,
And Good News:
By July 2019, Trump's overall approval rate in Iowa fell 20 percentage points, and in my red state of Utah, his support fell by 24 percentage points. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Also, Iowa is 1 of 9 states where those registered as "Independent" (36%) outnumber those registering Democrat (31%) or Republican (32%). Registering Independent is a growing trend in the U.S.
https://ivn.us/2018/08/08/9-states-registered-independents-outnumber-major-political-parties
It would not be surprising if the Democratic IA caucuses don't pick Biden but chose one of the outsiders. Iowans are only just getting to know who these candidates are as people.
Could be interesting
8
So the measure of a candidate is whether he or she makes utterly inconsequential misstatements occasionally? We’re not interested in their ideas, policies, experience, and character? After Trump, can any “pundit” claim a candidate is disqualified because she misspeaks? Are you serious, Ms. Goldberg? Your hostility to Biden is much too obvious. It detracts from anything you might have to say about him or the other candidates.
12
Michelle: Elizabeth Warren is "folksy"? Senator Warren is many things: bright, professorial, determined and committed come immediately to mind, but I would never have thought to describe her as "folksy".
5
This is what living in a small populace State looks like. You get to meet the Candidates up close and personal. Too bad the populous States do not get the same chance.
5
The author hits on the way successful politicians create momentum: with their charisma.
Who has charisma? Who will find a way to use that charisma best? Which form of charisma will connect with the most people?
Biden’s gaffes undermine his charisma. You hear it, and you shake your head. Warren’s charisma stems from her sincerity and work ethic. Etc.
Obama was able to thrill. You felt uplifted, positive, and powerful. Someone needs to find this quality, and I think it will happen. This is why I do not think Biden can win the nomination. That quality is just not there.
4
Several things to note: Biden and Warren aren't equivalently "in their seventies." Biden is 76 or 77 ( a year or so younger than Bernie) and Warren just turned 70. She's not of the Buttigieg or even Beto generation, but I don't think age is an issue.
I certainly wish Biden wouldn't make those "gaffes" as they've gotten to be called. But they're not a sign of age: he's been doing that all his career (remember when he praised Obama for being a "cleancut" black candidate!). Unfortunate, yes, but compared to Trump whose every word is a lie, an error, an outrage, media folks ought to be less scolding. Biden would, I think, be insulted to be considered once more for the vice presidency. How about we go with Warren-Booker?
5
MOST voters live on the coasts, NOT in Iowa. I'm thoroughly sick of being pushed around by a minority of voters. Iowa voters power should absolutely be put in a perspective that matches the size of the group.
9
"A Warren — Booker or Warren — Harris or Warren — Buttigieg ticket would be a formidable and welcome relief from Republican subservience to America's Enfant Terrible."
Absolutely! We have to move past middle of the road status quo moderates who have allowed the corporatist so called centrist Democrats to weaken our party all down the line for decades.
Stacy Abrams will be on Rachel Maddow tonight. She is smart as can be, with a gigantic heart, and has worked unbelievingly hard. Check out her CV, plus she authored several Romance novels!
The Trump ignorante is digging the country into a deeper hole every day. Yesterday the Endangered Species Act was gutted and a new immigration law requiring wealth to emigrate was put in place.
On another subject I won't be surprised if neither are mentioned in the Time.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. The word "ignorant" is an adjective that describes a person in the state of being unaware, and can describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts, or individuals who are unaware of important information or facts.
4
Get off the "gaffes". Biden will make a very good president.
7
Racist attitudes, or more mildly put, prejudice, is a pernicious thing which affects us all, whether on the receiving end or at the beginning of our belief system.
Mr. Biden is not different from any of us who secretly hold prejudicial attitudes without even realizing it.
This is the case in white folks mentality most of the time. I think other politicians may be more careful about their wording, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they too hold similar attitudes.
If Biden is nominated I will vote for him, ANYBODY is better than Trump as we all know and have witnessed.
But I hope Elizabeth Warren is the nominee.
3
Going back to 2016, look at the other Republicans debating Trump. I don't have any transcripts, but the ones that went down the fastest, were the ones giving the most reasoned responses. Jeb(?) Mitt. Little Marco.
Joe couldn't hold up. He'll gaffe everyday and DJT will get him so flustered. Beto v. Trump will be an exercise in abuse. Beto might have to sleep on paper sheets for a while. Warren will be an Indian pinata, but, she gave the world the stick.
Bernie and Harris could be the most serious. Bernie has the energy but, he is always so angry. If Harris can learn from the Tulsi slap down, she could be formidable. I think Mayor sounds like the most responsible adult in the room. And, DJT will run circles around him.
I'm still good with Friedman's prediction.
2
To quote Jennifer Granholm you all better start figuring out who can win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Forget about anything else or this election is lost.
8
Sometimes it seems actual demographic dividing line is between people who eat fried pork chops on a stick and people who don't.
2
It's too bad that "pundits" don't know much about how our democracy actually works. The book, "Democracy for Realists," by Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, reveals the results of studies by American political scientists that go back more than one hundred years regarding American voting behavior. They provide conclusive evidence that "elections are capricious collective decisions based on considerations that ought to be irrelevant and that will be soon forgotten by the voters themselves." Philip Converse's ground-breaking studies of the 1950s and 1960s--confirmed many times since then--showed that 3% of voters were clearly classifiable as "ideologues," another 12% as near-ideologues, and the vast majority of voters seemed to think about parties and candidates in terms of group interests or the "nature of the times," or in ways that conveyed "no shred of policy significance whatever. Almost 90% of American voters have no overarching political framework by which to cast their vote. The description of how Iowa voters assess the Democratic candidates should come as no surprise when we recall that many people voted for George W. Bush because they thought he would be a "great guy to have a beer with." As long as we think that most voters vote on the basis of ideology, we will only be fooling ourselves.
5
I'm not sure what I am politically any more, except a Democrat who will vote for the nominee.
I was a flaming liberal in Arizona, but it took me a long time to realize here in Oregon that a lot of people truly think we ought to open the borders to all comers. No can do. I voted against giving driver's licenses to undocumented people. I wish I could speak Spanish fluently, I want Medicare as an equal option for insurance, not forced upon anyone. Having served in the military overseas, I think we have a right to be overseas, but socialized medicine should come before socialized defense.
What I am against are litmus tests by various factions who threaten to stay home, vote for a third party, or teach me a "lesson." I sent a lesson in 1968, even when I couldn't vote. It helped cause 28,000 additional American deaths in Vietnam, and the guy who presided over it wouldn't poll 1% today in the Republican Party.
6
It is too bad all voters in the US don't take participating in the electoral system as serious as Iowa voters do, especially the young folks who are too busy on their phones to bother. All votes matter so get out and listen to the candidates, learn their policies, and vote.
7
The problem is that three of the top-tier candidates are in their seventies. Trump is in his seventies. Our time on the stage has passed and we need to recognize it. We need someone younger; someone who will be here in 30 years--if climate change or nuclear war doesn't kill everyone.
In 1960, voters passed "the torch to a new generation" with the election of JFK. Then in 1992, voters passed the torch forward again with the election of the first baby boomer president. Things seemed to be going the right way, then, in 2016, voters passed the torch backward. No more. Younger people are the future. We are the past. Live with it.
7
I'm glad that the people of Iowa have developed a system that forces candidates to prove themselves using criteria not determined by the idiosyncrasies of the punditocracy.
Of course policies are fundamental, but just as important is character - something best judged, challenged, and proven in person, when you can look a person in the eye and see who they are in real time. Coming from a state candidates can mostly ignore, or influence primarily through the media, I appreciate a model that promotes active civic engagement.
4
Michelle Goldberg's observation is true enough, that individual voters are idiosyncratic, and favor candidates based upon their own feelings - personal likes and dislikes - rather than on policies or ideological positions. But she exaggerates the importance of this observation by writing as though individuals determine the outcome of elections. On the contrary, presidents are elected by many millions of voters, whose personal likes and dislikes largely cancel each other out. Some voters still won't vote for a woman - any woman - but others prefer a woman. Some won't vote for a black person, yet Obama won convincing victories. What repels some voters is precisely what attracts others.
Yet Goldberg's observation is truer in Iowa than in the nation as a whole, since the numbers of voters in the Democratic primary will be small. Not only is Iowa a relatively small state, but it is majority Republican, so the numbers of Democrats there who attend the caucuses is a fraction of a fraction of a minority. Moreover, Iowans are more homogeneous than is the U.S. overall, racially, ethnically, and even in matters of religion. So presidential politics there are far more "retail" than they'll ever be again in subsequent primaries. Whether this is a good thing or a bad is hard to predict. But it does throw a monkey-wrench into the whole process, while making it less predictable but more interesting than it would otherwise be.
2
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released a report on the danger to food security resulting from the deterioration of farmland and it's conversion to other uses. This is a good time for candidates to visit Iowa and other farm states. Here is where changes in temperature, the length of the seasons, and rainfall patterns, are having visible effects. It's a good place to make the case for a strong response to climate change.
And here's where Donald Trump's trade war is doing obvious damage. Trump is no friend of farmers unless they live in Russia or Brazil.
Joe Biden? I'm almost the same age, and I empathize with him. It must be hard to miss the brass ring again. But I think it's time for a graceful retirement.
5
When the punditry longs for a centrist, they often point to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. However, those two candidates did not win because they were centrists, they won in spite of it. They have a skill called charisma and that is why they won elections.
6
@Glen Manna, I think both Clinton and Obama were right of center.
1
@Glen Manna That is a good observation. Hillary had none. In fact, she had a force field that prevented any charisma from touching her.
2
"... how idiosyncratic many voters are, and how little their decision-making tracks the ideological battles ..."
As Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an ordinary voter."
5
Not "maddening" Mchelle but wonderful; MN also has caucuses and as a precinct Chair in St Paul for the New Democratic Coaltion and against all odds with some grass roots organizing we were able to win our caucus for Gene McCarthy over the favorite Hubert Humphrey.
The caucus system in MN enabled Somalian women to get their first taste of participatory democracy and they won.
It is harder to vote than standing in line at a polling place for the process may take a few evening hours and your vote is very public.
But I loved it when we lived in MN.
Ms. Goldberg's excellent point is comforting in some ways, but it's also frightening when we recall that tens of millions of people voted for Donald Trump when they had a good general idea of the kind of person that he is.
4
It is hard to understand how Democratic voters can ignore the split between moderates and progressives and the battle for the soul of the party. These two wings of the party largely differ on how they see their relationship with the corporate world. The moderates are willing to take corporate money although they say that they want to get money out of politics and are willing to accept some role of corporations when it comes to something like health care insurance. The progressives see corporations as the source of all problems and do not want to accept any corporate money. While many are not outright opponents of capitalism they prefer a significant role of government in dealing with economic issues. Democratic voters who ignore this spit appear oblivious to what is going on.
1
Let me repeat the same sentiment that many readers have already expressed. Are we choosing a candidate for the presidency of the USA based on an event in a small state fair??? The focus on Iowa is incomprehensible to me. Remember Iowa, the state of Congressman King??!! I think that the major blue states need to demand that all primaries are held the same day.
5
If the people in Iowa or anywhere want their voices heard, they need to elect State legislators first, then Federal congressional delegates, and only then worry about the absurd beauty contest that is the Presidential election. Get the legislatures sorted out and the occupant of the executive office doesn't matter nearly as much.
1
I continue to find it maddening that, in the media at least, the narrative is Biden is the only guy to beat Trump. He surely is not.
I believe any one of the crowded Democratic field can beat Trump if they stay on message and don't take his baiting.
I applaud the Iowa voters for listening to policy and judging personality and capability. While I find it mildly frustrating the disproportionate weight given to Iowa in deciding our nominee, I'm happy to see them use that responsibility well.
7
If we think of the 2020 elections as just Democrats, we, our nation, and the world will be doomed to another four years of Trump.
And there is no point either in hoping to break into Trump's 30% base. There is nothing any candidate can say or do that will alter their support from Trump.
The key to the 2020 elections, and this also will include downstream elections like those for the Senate and the House, will be for those that voted for Trump and in their hearts would like to vote differently this time, given a Democratic (or Republican) candidate they can vote for.
Biden is killing himself with gaffes that are either showing his age or more of the same that cost him earlier bids. Either way, it is not becoming and not "presidential". I wish he would fix that and fast.
Bernie is on the way down and Warren is moving up. Good news for Warren is that she is less scary to Democrats than Bernie. Bad news is that she most likely scares swing voters in swing states.
By now, most candidates have staked their positions and are working on delivery. More intense polling data is required but not from Democrats in Iowa. We need information from key Electoral College states and specifically, districts that went for Trump but might be now looking for an alternative.
Now I know that polling data is questionable. But if the public is going to defeat Trump, then we need to know what the public will vote for.
Warren is bright and coherent. But can she win where winning will matter?
1
@It Is Time!
They are not gaffes and his decline is not fixable.
1
We Iowans are not idiosyncratic at all. We just like to befuddle the media and string out the suspense as long as we can lest the national attention fade earlier than necessary. One thing I learned from 2016 is the risk of opting for electability (the reason I caucused for Hilary). Who thought she'd be running against Trump and prove to be his dream opponent? I have a favorite right now but also have many months to reconsider.
3
Biden constant gaffes, the latest ones about the "poor kids" are really quite strange, and reminds me of the saying that someone has a "senior moment".
He obviously doesn't think before opening his mouth. I do like Biden very much, but in my opinion he should not become the man at the top of the Democratic ticket in this extraordinary large field of candidates.
There are plenty of others who do think much faster on their feet without a script and destroy both Trump and the holier-than-thow-Pence - if the latter is the R-Ticket again - during the debates.
3
@Sarah
Biden's "gaffes" are actually quite revelatory of how he views the world.
His "poor kids" comment is on a par with his 2007 observation, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. . . . I mean, that's a storybook, man."
These gaffes do not register in the same way as his "senior moments," which he is experiencing more and more frequently.
Biden would do well to maintain his silence--and allow his handlers to speak on his behalf--but he cannot as a Presidential candidate.
2
"There are no lanes, only the irreducible and hard-to-measure quality of human connection."
Well, not if Michelle Goldberg has anything to do with it!
Did you bother to ask an Iowan voter who connects with Biden and doesn't think the gaffes have any bearing on his assets or his electability? NO!!! Just focus on one person who "seemed livid about Biden’s repeated gaffes."
Based on this opinion piece, it seems Ms. Goldberg is not a fan of Biden.
5
California, New York, Illinois, Texas. These are states that should vote early in the primaries. Nobody cares about Iowa, except Iowans. What a joke that Iowa is so important.
5
Elizabeth Warren ( a fine Senator) is too far Left for president- almost a caricature. Bernie Sanders is a proud Socialist and I don’t trust Socialism for one second and don’t trust Bernie. If I, an out gay progressive, find Warren and Sanders a little scary, what in the world do you think the average voter in the mid-west or Florida or Texas thinks?
4
I appreciate Michelle's self-reflection as too often the media approaches politics from a bubble far removed from the lives of average voters who have neither the time or interest to engage in 24-7 political punditry.
The column also raises the issue of Iowa's over-sized influence on our political process. Serious candidates ought not live or die based on "Iowa" or any other early primary/caucus state.
Finally, her concluding lines seem to reveal her underlying wish to see Biden fade in favor her bias towards more left-leaning candidates. Fine, but the media's overkill on Biden's "gaffes" is getting old fast. We've known Joe for years; he is who he is, but his "gaffes" in no way disqualify him, diminish his fine character, or will lead to an imminent crash in the polls.
168
@Steven Dunn
A comment that agrees with my thinking. I like opinion pieces. I really am interested in the opinions of columnists--as long as they're on the Opinion page, which I turn to first--and not labeled as News. Again, it's the opinions of pundits and how they arrived at them that I'm interested in; their wishes or what they hope to see happen, not so much. Michelle wants to see Biden gone. Fine, say that. Don't try and manipulate the public to abandon someone because he is obviously going to fade. I'll deal with that when it happens. If it does, it won't be Biden's "gaffes" or Michelle's wishes that does it.
36
Steven: Mr. Biden’s statement about poor children being as bright as white children is not a gaffe. It is a dated viewpoint and a concerning ignorance of the large number of poor white people in this country. He’s a lovely man but his comments reflect those of a man too old in his thinking to lead us effectively.
61
@Steven Dunn
Is it overkill, or is it highlighting something that could make or break a general election campaign?
11
Thank you for this. I've long said Biden and Warren are similar. Plenty of people, especially on the left, have acted as if I said something terrible about Warren. However, beyond Warren's and Biden's similar backgrounds which allow them to connect to so many people, is ideology. Despite very substantial differences, both are Institutionalists.
Institutionalist has, largely thanks to Trump, quickly become a dirty word, but it's important to realize that every great Democratic president, like FDR, was an Institutionalist. Like President Obama, Warren and Biden seek to repair, (and in the case of Warren, also heavily reform) our institutions at a time when Americans trust in them is at an all-time low thanks to Trump and the GOP.
Institutionalists see declining public trust in institutions as a terrifying trend threatening worldwide democracy, and the economic wellbeing of all.
Sadly, the Justice Democrats you advocate for are actually radical insurrectionists with far more in common with Trump than either Biden or Warren. It's precisely why Ilhan Omar claimed Obama was no different than Trump, insisting he only got away with "murder" because he was "pretty" and a sweet talker.
Insurrectionists desire plummeting trust in public institutions as it brings about the destruction they crave. Institutionalists seek to save, preserve, rebuild, and build.
Radical insurrectionists, like Trump, just want to blow everything up.
It's the opposite of what Biden and Warren want.
152
@Robert B
I believe there is a fundamental difference between being cynical of public institutions and wanting to do away with them. Supporters of Trump want to do away with many governmental institutions whereas many progressives want to enhance or improve them. The key difference is the desired end result of their objectives. Without criticism, there is no way to know where to start to improve upon.
You criticize Omar for her statements about Obama. I'm not a proponent of Omar to be quite honest with you, however, Obama was not perfect either. He may not be Trump, but let's not forget the countless innocent lives that were lost overseas because of US military intervention under his presidency. Progressives are critical of the right and the center left because they know we can do better. Stating "at least we aren't like the Republicans" isn't exactly a good rallying call to get democrats and swing voters to the polls.
The Democrats need a bold policy platform to regain the levels of support that they have had in decades past. The only way to do this is to be critical of institutions as they stand and to advocate for change. They aren't some group of anarchists seeking to tear institutions down, they are seeking to improve them.
6
I would hope that ANY Democratic voter (in the primaries) would vote for policy/platform FIRST, and then candidate second. (which closely associates to said policies they prefer)
THEN, if the candidate that does get the nomination is not necessarily close to some of your policies that you like, that you STILL support the party (by voting), and then work from within over the next 4 years to get them closer to the policies you like.
This is supposed to be how it works - not an all or nothing strategy, where you stay home if you do not get absolutely everything your way.
It is supposed to be a simple up and down vote in the primaries, in the general, in the House of Congress, and then ultimately the Senate. (if the President does not agree and does not want to sign on, then you take another vote to override)
It is a simple concept that too many do not grasp.
98
@Funky Irishman. You said everyone should vote for policies before personalities. In this case, I somewhat disagree. The policies they back are part of their personalities. But with the political landscape we have now, do you think any of their healthcare policies will go through the political sausage grinder and come out anywhere close to what they espouse on the trail?
On the other hand, their personalities do matter, as we’ve learned from the dysfunctional we have in office right now. It determines how our country will be perceived by others.
The main policies I will look for are those that belong to the Executive branch, like foreign policy.
20
@Scott Keller
Thanks for the nod to foreign policy, not many others have mentioned it. For me, that’s most critical for a Democrat president since I don’t see the Dems taking the Senate, even if they do keep the House. In that scenario, not one piece of legislation will pass with McConnell still in charge. That leaves to the Dem president the task of resetting our position in the world by re-engaging with our allies and blunting whatever antics Putin will be up to if his puppet Trump loses. Biden has deep and wide foreign policy experience and he is known across the world, no learning curve here. As to HC, I don’t support MFA and criticize any candidate pushing it. One issue not mentioned is that many on Medicare will have to change doctors, I was one and wasn’t happy. Not all doctors participate in Medicare because reimbursement rates are lower. Do we want to suffer thru the blowback Obama got when he told the country we could keep our doctors under the ACA? Another issue is the continued attacks on the social safety net by the Rs. Medicare has already experienced cuts under TRump and with the deficit/debt rising, Medicare will again be in the crosshairs. What happens to Medicare costs and covered services with further cuts since out-of-pocket costs will rise for certain? There’s also a Medicare surcharge tax that isn’t being discussed. I support strengthening the ACA and adding a public option. I also wish candidates would concentrate on revamping our tax code!
14
@Charlene and Scott
Thank you for your responses, and I do understand where you are coming from. I am coming from the point of view that the policies (and as an extension the framework of government itself) are far more important than the personality.
I want a candidate (and then President) to be the smart person, and then when in office, to surround themselves with even smarter people than them. Of course they have to start from a certain line of intelligence.
I also have stated often, that it will much more of the same if Democrats do not take back the Senate. I think it is possible this election cycle, and more than probable within 2 years. We shall see.
As far as foreign policy, I want ANY Democrat to bring ALL of the troops home from everywhere. That means closing bases, and that means turning over the declaration of any hostilities back to Congress. The reset will come from restocking the government and diplomats. That is an easy undertaking, because this republican administration has alienated essentially the entire world. Countries are just on pause, waiting to be brought back into the global fold.
We cannot continue the way we are going (that is EXCLUDING this administration's radical and extreme policies) I am talking about more of the same republican lite policies which some of the Democratic candidates push forward. You know whom I am talking about. We can do better. We will do better.
We shall see.
7
I am learning quite a bit by reading the comments here. Most glaring is the notion that people in Iowa do not share the concerns and viewpoints of the nation as a whole.
I know that Iowans get cancer, go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills, are buried in student loan debt, serve proudly in uniform, work hard but have trouble keeping up, are already affected by climate change, are already suffering as a consequence of an ill-conceived trade war.
I'm just surprised that the rest of the country is not at all burdened by those concerns.
Keep in mind too that, without the Iowa Caucus, Barack Obama would not have been president (yet). With 3% in polls going into campaign season, he would have never mustered enough support to win a one-day national primary. It was only after Mr. Obama convinced Iowans of his sincerity, intelligence, and energy that other states like South Carolina believed sufficiently that, in fact, Yes We Can (win).
So we'll again do the best we can. You're free to heed or ignore the outcome.
223
@Cornstalk Bob
I agree with you...I don't think it's a problem in our system that the Iowa Caucus can make or break a candidate...from everything I've read, I'm impressed that the voters of Iowa spend so much time listening to each candidate which I don't think most voters actually do. Also, I think most people are ignoring the fact that you may not be able to vote in an early primary but you can support your candidate financially which allows them to better stay in the race for a longer period of time.
24
This past weekend, my husband and I drove from Chicago to the Iowa state fair to hear from some of the candidates. Warren was definitely great, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if she got the nomination. She has an unbelievable ability to explain policy in a relatable way. I also feel that she is trustworthy because she goes out, does research, puts together a policy position and then defends it. I don’t think she ever panders to people or just says what she thinks they want to hear. If she says it, she believes it.
Another standout was Jay Inslee. His focus on climate change is something I really agree with and his record in Washington State is impressive. His speech was a great mixture of explaining his climate priority and talking about his accomplishments (both climate policy and other policy) in Washington state. He had clearly taken the time to talk with Iowa voters and he talked about how Iowa specifically has been affected by climate change. He also seems like someone who can work with other people to get big goals accomplished. I donated some money to his campaign when I got home because I want him to get enough donors to make the cutoff for the next debate. The longer he stays in the race, the more climate change be a part of the conversation. And maybe he will even win! I think he would be a great president.
326
@E
Kudos to you and your husband for trekking to Iowa to hear/see candidate first-hand/first-ear for yourself. I will do that myself next Presidential election primary season!
Truth be told, reading Goldberg's article made me jealous that the early primary states like Iowa, NHampshire, and SCarolina get extended, up-close engagement with most, if not all, of the candidates. By the time primaries roll around to my state, the choice has narrowed to a pretty much done deal.
33
@E
You just described what an academic does - research, put a plan on paper, and explain it so it can be understood.
That's great for an academic. What does that have to do with the leadership skills needed to be president - or any executive position? You need someone who knows what they're doing in government. And that's not Warren.
Interesting that the only other person who appealed to you was Gov Inslee. Someone with a wealth of executive experience and likely has the leadership skills to be president.
6
" No one knows what’s going to happen at the caucuses, which is maddening, since so much is at stake."
Actually, it is quite the opposite: it means the people decide and not pundits or donors.
At the end of the day candidates have to win votes: that process tells us far more about who they are and whether they are electable than the endless speculation does.
It is called democracy: the people are sovereign.
4
We need to support the smartest person in the room on the topic that matters most across the board (and around the world) and that's economics. That person is Elizabeth Warren. No one else comes close.
* Knows intimately how Wall Street brought us to our knees in 2008
* Championed consumer advocacy to keep us informed and to add transparency to prevent shady deals from banks
* Experienced a working class upbringing where hard work was her road to success and not a fat check from daddy
* Has taught bankruptcy law at three different universities including Harvard. She knows all the reasons why people are sinking financially and it's almost never for just frivolous reasons
* We need a 180 degree turn from male leadership and the dead end roads they've lead us down since 2016
Elizabeth Warren has the economic chops and detailed comebacks to corner Trump on any debate. Almost every issue has an economic impact for the country and while issues do have other talking points, our future prosperity should be the last point we hear from her lips.
621
I hope everyone reads this comment. This is exactly why Warren is much better than many other candidates.
58
@Sherrie
I used to admire her until that DNA test. Talking about gaffes. But no question she would have my vote if she is the nominee.
9
@Sherrie The environment tops economics though they are intertwined. In simplest terms no environment no life no economics. But Warren knows this.
25
Perhaps this barnstorming in a very small mostly rural state is good for the media, but what about the rest of us who live in demographically larger states with considerably more people.?
The more populated states, particularly in the West seem to get the short end of the stick when it comes to covering politics.
Our caucus in Washington State falls barely a month after the Iowa caucus, but no candidates are scheduled here prior to the first of next year. Some will eventually come to Seattle, but will avoid the second largest city, Spokane. Are we negligible in the system? Why do only the midwest states matter.
2
Policies and positions are important, but they can -- and do -- change. What's more important is the core of a human being, who the person is, which doesn't change much. Iowans tend to pay attention to both, with more emphasis on the fundamental person -- intellect, empathy, civility, insightfulness, inclusiveness. A swath of the electorate overlooked that with Trump and we ended up with less than half a person as president, a man who assaults women and thinks it's strategic to cage children and emulate dictators. The person matters more than nuances of policy. I think most Iowans are looking for the right person more than the right policies. I hope everyone else will too.
3
This past weekend, candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination roamed the Iowa State Fair, eating corndogs, posing for photo ops, and "connecting" with the Iowa voters. The NY Times had a photo of Elizabeth Warren meeting with a dozen or so people in someone's backyard. The idea that Iowa voters are getting to know the candidates as people is absurd. Each candidate has a stump speech that is repeated at each stop.
It is time to get rid of this quaint tradition where candidates for the Presidential nomination of either party tromp around Iowa for a year to gather votes for the caucuses. The Iowa caucus process needs to go away.
Iowa's demographics are farther away from the U.S. demographics than almost any other state. The population is 91% white versus 77% for the U.S. Hispanics are 4% of Iowa's population versus 18% for the U.S. Iowa is more rural that the rest of the country. And the nail in the coffin is Congressman Stephen King, who represents western Iowa, was censured by the House for making comments supporting white supremacy.
5
And, as you say, "this thing could go anywhere"....and it does, beautifully.
As a Des Moines resident at 70, I will never forget the thrill of watching a majority of older White caucus goers in our junior high auditorium stand for Obama. I knew then that he would be President.
We are a passionate state about our caucuses, devoting hours to attend and do our civic duty. And yes, most of us see the candidates if possible. I attended a standing room gathering for Tulsi Gabbard Saturday, and with the enthusiasm there, you would've thought she was a top tier candidate. But it's the sincerity Iowans sniff out. We might be called "Iowa Nice" for our politeness and old fashioned RESPECT, which is in short supply these days with demeaning name calling, but we are taking time to look for that same kind of human being that will represent our country and lift us up.
17
Thank you, Michelle Goldberg, for reminding us that if we have to let Iowa dictate the early shape of the presidential primaries, at least Iowa voters are serious about their considerations and their choices. I appreciate reading a piece that isn't just about horse race politics, and I appreciate that Iowa voters don't let the horse race determine their preferences.
9
So on the one hand we have a former Vice President who has always made cringing gaffes. Ever since I can remember. Call it what you will....sloppy, careless, goofy, or just 'Joe Being Joe'. But intentional? Nope. So when he is left to his own resources, Biden goofs up. Kind of like the uncle at dinner. Who happens to run a very successful business. Contrast that with Trump. His 'gaffes' are intentional. And he piles them up at exponential rates. The difference. Biden, as president, would be surrounded by experts and people he trusts. People who have given their lives to making the country better. Tons of experience. People who will help clean Biden up and make him a good president. If he had all the gaffes as a Senator and Vice President and did those jobs, climbing one more rung should be no different. Trump, on the other hand, surrounds himself with people whose job it is to stand behind all the gaffes. Make sure Trump's lies are truths. Enablers. Not Handlers. I am not saying Biden should be the nominee. Just saying the voters are smart enough to know the difference between a gaffer and a liar. The difference between a guy trying to back track an embarrassing statement. Maybe not exactly apologizing. And one who stands behind provable lies. Over and Over and Over again. And NEVER willing to say "I misspoke". Never back tracking. Hitting the gas and driving over the truth instead.
14
The reason Biden is ahead in the polls is he is just a likable person besides his experience and name recognition. . Only a very few read every detail about the views of each candidate.
5
Whether they vote for moderates, progressives, or people, IA and NH have a too-outisized, too-early role in winnowing the field.
7
Finally, a political reporter who takes voters at their word instead of claiming those voters are actually thinking something different than what they say. I'm an urbanite with family rooted in bright red rural areas. Now when I visit those family members, I hear them, their friends, and neighbors discussing which Democratic candidate will get their vote. Up and down the ballot. Their disgust with trump, his corruption, criminality, and hate have driven them not just from him, but from the entire Republican party. And not into a centrist or a moderate, but to Democratic candidates that are honest, intelligent, and uniting.
11
Maybe, Michelle, because voters (Democratic at least) care about character and leadership and intangibles, especially in contrast to the current occupant of the White House? Get out of your policy minutia myopia for a minute. All Democratic candidates are for expanded health care coverage and think it is a basic right. No Republicans do. All Democratic candidates want to preserve a woman's right to choose. No Republicans do. All Dems want sensible gun control. No Republicans do, All Dems want to address climate change. No Republicans do. And so on. The platforms have never been more starkly at odds. Step back from the trees and see the forest.
14
I think what really matters is what swing voters think. And I don't think it really matters if it is progressive or moderate ideology, but rather the personality of a candidate, a forceful candidate who can energize these voters. While I'm not so confident in the salability of some ideas, I am somewhat confident in the salability of a candidate and his or her ability to do so. Likewise, it seems that Trump's strategy of late seems to isolate anyone outside of his base. Iowa seems to personify this.
Goldberg makes some good points here. I think Biden's verbal gaffes are becoming his most identifiable, characteristic quality. And while a little bit peculiar to understand at first, Biden can be compared to Warren, in that "Both candidates are folksy, white and in their seventies. Both speak of the searing childhood experience of seeing their fathers lose their jobs, and both make economic security for the middle class central to their stump speeches. They are sincere and unscripted and have the comforting aspect of benevolent parents"...
1
As you've dismissively noted – or counted, without even having to take off your shoes – the mere 4% in this land that are centrists...
As it turns out, 87% of those 4% are citizens of Iowa...
Or at least say they are – when the census-taker knocks...
W in the Middle
NY State
Aug. 1
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/04/03/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-2020-history
Whether or not Biden-Warren becomes the 2020 ticket – the only slate possible from the current pool of candidates that doesn't self-destruct or get blown apart by Trump, while taxiing to the runway...
Been watching Biden's usual gaffes – but also watching his polls...
Someone that half the electorate thinks has lost it – or will, in the next month or debate or presser...
Except, someone that the other half of the electorate sticks with, through the miscues...
...
(you can read the rest in the original comment, unless my stuff is getting shadowbanned)
2
Iowan farmers received $1,478,431,003 in farm subsidy welfare last year.
https://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=19000&progcode=total&yr=m2018
Have you hugged an Iowa welfare queen today ?
Regrettably, every Presidential candidate has to pander to Iowa corn and soybean welfare junkies every four years.
Nothing quite like pulling yourself up by your federal welfare bootstraps, Iowa.
Sad.
54
@Socrates Great point, as usual from you. I anxiously await reading each candidates reply when asked about subsidies for ethanol production, as well as about farm subsidies generally. Ethanol is an especially egregious
boondoggle, however, and federal support (read taxpayer extortion) needs to be deep sixed.
5
@Socrates
I hear what you are saying, but consider what these midwest farmers have been through in the past two years. I was in Iowa last fall having been raised there. I had never seen the corn in such a wet condition, let alone the beans. It seemed as if the rain would never stop. Couple the weather with the tariffs, and you get a failing farm economy which affects many others besides the farmer. With less money in the system, businesses which rely on consumer spending also suffer.
You might also want to remember there were 60 major American corporations who paid no Federal income tax last year. Amazon was one of them whose founder Jeff Bezos in the world's wealthiest person with a net worth in excess of $140 billion.
10
@allen roberts I understand what you re saying. But just because our tax system is a disaster and Amazon and other corporations (and wealthy individuals) which have smart lawyers and accountants are able to manipulate this system does not mean that farmers should be treated as unique and special. One of the reasons for the immigration crisis, among many reasons, is the subsidization of large corn producers, which under NAFTA drove many small Mexican corn farmers to have to leave their farms. Farmers, many of whom are now large corporations, should have to be part of the free enterprise system (which by their long and proud tradition of voting Republican, have indicated that they wish to be).
5
It’s quite ironic how a pundit manages to convince herself of her own wishful thinking in a column about how pundits don’t understand anything.
The author has been crystal clear that she dislikes Biden, and she’s now managed to parlay that into a belief that not only does that mean Biden can’t possibly win, but that her preferred candidate, Elizabeth Warren, will ultimately triumph.
WaPo and NYT continue their months-long streak of publishing ZERO pro-Biden pieces.
As for his supposed gaffes, he gave possibly the best speech of his career just a few days ago, but sure, let’s rediscover that Joe often misspeaks and it’s terrible, just terrible.
8
@Mercury S, WaPo and NYT are reporting, Michelle is giving her opinion, which is based upon chillin with the crowd. I feel the papers mentioned here are doing a fine job of reporting and giving opinions. I also watch Fox ...
2
What is the outcome of the corn kernel in a jar vote, and we're Putin's agents kernel stuffing?
1
It doesn't matter how many polls show that Bernie beats Trump, and that Warren is in a dead heat with Trump, and that Mayor Pete loses to Trump. Even if Bernie won the nomination the corporate Dems and their hacks at the NYT and on MSNBC would make sure he lost the general. He represents real change, and how would they fill the air time without obsessing over Trump's subliterate tweets?
2
Biden gaffes are no big deal. Everybody not looking to bust his chops knew his last goof was meant to “call out white privilege.”
5
Thought #1: The most interesting polls are the ones that capture who a person's second choice is. It's probably a better "tell" as to where the voters are.
Thought #2: Michelle points out that Biden is the only real "Moderate" choice. This is Kamala Harris' big miss. She was better positioned to challenge Biden in that lane. She's never been far left and she would be incredibly well positioned to make the moderate case (that's what she's trained to do!) and possibly be respected by the GOP (it's a stretch I know) the way Hillary was when she was a senator. Instead she's to tried to position herself between Biden and Warren/Sanders and there is no lane there.
2
I often think that making "sense" out of our Presidential selection process is like rationalizing evolution . . . perhaps it wasn't the oft-cited hunter gatherer survival rate that shaped our brain development as much as a successful virus or an untreated bacterial infection that randomly shaped a gene . . . our "system" is a reality that we can redesign, but as we've learned, every modification comes with it's own unintended consequences. Trump and the gutting of Republican conservatism shows the vital importance of electoral reform at every level, but it also gives us a malignant infection that will undermine our noble designs at every opportunity. Most importantly, no matter how imperfect our current process, we must vote every Republican out of office at every level in the next election - that's the antibiotic- that is the purge.
5
It is so unfair and undemocratic that every election the residents of Iowa have an outsized say into who is going to "make the cut" in running for president! This has got to change! They are not any greater or more interested or more informed or American than any other citizens. This year - again - the candidates have oto skew their messaging and those with truly innovative ideas and experience and concern for urban dwellers are often weeded out. It is time to change this system and it is up to the Democratic National party to do it!
3
Excellent column, Michelle. I live more than half the year in Iowa, volunteering on Democratic campaigns. Some observations: women are on FIRE about this election. Like during 2018 midterm campaigns, women who never before were active are making politics a priority. This past week, I've spent many hours in the Democratic Party's state fair booth, which is right across from the Republican's. As at last year's Republican booth, which also featured a life-sized cutout of Donald Trump, very, very few women are stopping there. The gender gap among Republicans looks to be enormous. (Of course, they might also be turned off by the negativity of the Republicans' climate-denier banner -- "The Green New Steal" -- in their booth. Our booth, on the other hand, has a banner welcoming Iowa's newest citizens who were photographed at their July 4 naturalization ceremony, and is registering voters.) The Democratic presidential candidates, some of whom run into each other at the fair, seem genuinely happy to see each other. (Kirsten Gillibrand surprised Amy Klobuchar in our booth and they hugged like sisters.) Fairgoers seem pleased to have so many terrific choices, and many comment on what an excellent cabinet the next Democratic president will have. Iowans are interested in listening to as many candidates as they can at the Des Moines Register's soapbox.The eventual candidate will have support from the other camps, it seems safe to say.
14
I support Warren on the basis of her ideas. That said, am I the only one here to feel discomfort for her general election prospects on the racial reparations, ammo tax and budget busting proposals? If the goal is getting the electoral votes of Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, then I am concerned. If the goal is bust out of the pack In a crowded Primary season, I get it. Just don’t lose sight of the fact that the nominee must recapture some blue collar and rural voters. I have a bad feeling that Warren won’t visit Wisconsin, so to speak..
5
@John, John, John! I think Elizabeth Warren will do a ton of campaigning in those states that narrowly gave the EC to trump. Can we be united to support the candidate opposing trump? This can be an opportunity to make the changes, (pick your issue!)
1
Kudos to Christopher Lee and those really GREAT photos! We often forget about the photographers in these well-written articles.
8
May I suggest that the picture of Elizabeth Warren standing there, microphone in hand, very likely tells us why she must be our choice over Biden.
I am sure she is speaking coherently, demonstrating her grasp of some key policy as few of the other hopefuls, if any can.
I read today of more of Biden's memory lapses or worse which is to say untruths or false recollections. We already have as president someone who is a master of that kind of talk or tweet.
Elizabeth Warren must be our choice. See Sherrie CA Reader PIck 1 for the details that I need not write here.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
15
I have a visceral reaction to Donald Trump. He must be replaced but I am not in the "who can beat Trump" camp. There is no reason, none, why Trump should not go down to defeat on his own. He is loathsome and very bad for this country. I consider myself a very well informed voter but this time around emotion is playing a part in my decision. If we don't have a woman candidate then I give up on being a life long Democrat. If its Warren I am fine with that even though she elicits no emotional reaction in me. If it is Harris I will jump for joy because to me she represents getting back to America -- not only is she a very smart, tenacious, funny, don't mess with me woman but her mixed race heritage combined with being married to a white Jew -- come on, that's the new America. Bring it on!
4
Biden will fade, Michelle? Looks like your biases are showing. And you let the endless repetition of his gaffes drive them. Watch Joe press the flesh and give speeches - he's every bit as vital as Trump [talk about gaffes!] or Warren. And don't forget to mention Iowa [and Minnesota] nice when describing your interview subjects' reasoning.
7
We understand, Biden is ideologically unacceptable.
In "The Wrong Time for Joe Biden", you used a rhetorical trick, "he's not a sexual predator", so you could argue he basically is one.
In "Twitter Isn't Real Life (if You're a Democrat). The online left doesn't like Joe Biden. Voters seem to", you argued that voters were wrong as "The future of the Democratic Party is still with left-wing social media dynamos like Ocasio-Cortez".
In "'I Don't Want an Exciting President'. Joe Biden makes his supporters feel safe, but nominating him is risky." You argued no one wants to vote for Biden.
In "Joe Biden Doesn't Look So Electable in Person", you took Trump's "Sleepy Joe" to a whole new level, asserting Biden's demented.
I heard Biden speak 10 years ago. Gaffs galore. He's the same guy today.
Beyond your blatant bias, your fundamental criteria is irrelevant to most Americans. Biden, always a middling debater, held a substantial lead after a poor performance in the first debate, and gained after an average performance in the second.
In 2016 you ignored the scope of Trump's nativist/racist appeal, clinging to a narrative that only a small minority of voters could support Trump because of his toxic rhetoric. Now you refuse to accept that Democrats support Biden knowing, yet not caring, about his gaffs.
If Democrats chose candidates using your criteria sharped tongued duplicitous Bill de Blasio, who you inexplicably think is great, would be in the lead, not polling at zero.
10
Michelle Goldberg. The hardest working journalist in America. Thank you.
@Bill in VT She is not a journalist but a column writing pundit. She does not deal in facts or truth but opinion. Much of what she writes I agree with but this last piece she fails on so many levels of objective journalism. She takes a small sample and tries to blow it up to be the trend. I have yet to see her explain how come it was moderate Dems who took back the House not the Squad, Bernie and Warren folks. The later two have almost invisible folks of color support. They can win in NYC, Boston, Philly, DC but not the inner ring and burbs. My district would probably turn back red with a Bernie or Warren at head of ticket even if they somehow beat Trump. That would tick me off as I worked hard to turn our district blue. HRC could not get the same minority turnout that Obama did. What planet does Ms Goldberg live on where either Bernie, Liz, or Kamala improve on HRC's minoarity turnout? Kamala is a Jamaican/Indian/ Candadian edcuated one trick pony. Every interview she gives she mentions at least 3 times that she was AG of largest state. That is not governing that is being a lawyer. Her Senate record - she questioned whomever hard, ie was being a lawyer. I had hoped for more from her but Tulsi Gabbard had her shaking her head and quaking in her boots.
1
Biden's "gaffes" pale to white when compared to Trump's flat-out lies. To me, they are unimportant and do not detract from his sense of decency and moral character. Biden, like Obama, has heart and that is something we desperately need right now. Warren likes to demonize and blame and tries to separate. This is just the kind of rhetoric that we do not need right now.
7
Warren is folksy, sincere and unscripted? Absolutely. "I'm gonna get me a beer."
2
If I were never to hear the word "Iowa" again, it would be just fine with me.
9
@Peter Aretin AGREED! this system is unfair and Iowa has outsized influence.
5
Biden's gaffes somehow do not seem to come from a place of malign or racism. Maybe I am wrong....but I have tried to convince myself about his softcore racism that people are talking so much about, especially after the "children...bright" comment, but they seem to be senior and rather unmitigated moments of communication. He is not a very sophisticated person, but he is educated and values education, he is not undisciplined and he understands the seriousness of the job, very much like Elizabeth Warren. So....I don't know....
7
I don't care who the nominee is.. I just want to know what our platform is... Does anybody know? It would be nice to have this information.
2
Biden is proven entity, honest, likeable, trustworthy and what you see is what you get. A mirror image in reverse if Trump who now is also a proven entity, crooked, disliked, liar. Here are many other uncomplimentary monikers that go with Trump that in reverse work for Biden. We hope he's there to get the Iowa nod.
4
Pete Buttigieg’s speech at the Wing Ding dinner on Friday night has been described by many journalists who were there as one of the top two in terms of audience response.
He was very well received at Saturday’s Gun Safety Forum too.
And as of the last update, Buttigieg was doing very well in the “Cast Your Kernel” poll at the Iowa State Fair, tied with Warren at second to Biden. (Unscientific, but the information from voters in the article was very anecdotal.).
Tomorrow Buttigieg will be visiting the fair and making his speech on the Soapbox. And for the next couple of days, he will be making appearances in seven Iowa towns. I hope the Times will cover this and be objective about his ideas and how he is received (in a scientific or unscientific way) without it appearing that you have already decided who is going to win.
8
Biden is highest in polls simply because many voters link him with President Barack the Benign, compared with Tsar Donald the Destructive.
Obama is an admirable person, who did much good for the country, despite debates on various policies. He was opposed all the way by the rw GOP, aided by their state media, Fox News, fanning the flames.
In 2018 Obama said one of his fav films was ‘Won’t You Be My Neighbor?’ about children's program by Mr. Rogers. Picture Trump making that choice?
Headline in Deadline.com: “Despondent Stephen Colbert Begs Obama ‘Please Come Back.’”
“Colbert on his show read a tweet from Obama urging Americans to reject language from political leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments.”
“Papa come back,” !….An emotional Colbert said. “Don’t leave me with the bad man. Please come back. You can still smoke.”
So it's Trump bad, Obama good, Biden his VP. A chain of association. Others candidates more unknown.
Shouldn’t voters reject emotions now of all times? Evaluate platforms on how our lives will be affected---on the right to health care, gun laws, jobs, pay, climate, infrastructure, racial fairness and improvement in criminal justice. Plus the crucial reform of campaign finance that most voters want.
This is a dark, and emotional time in US history. There are many candidates out there for 2020. Let's breathe deeply and think.
6
I could definitely live with a Biden-Warren ticket. I guarantee that it would make the evangelical community pray for Mr. Biden’s health!
4
"Talking to voters . . . I realized . . . how little the ideological lanes that we talk about in punditland really mean."
No kidding.
And then she uses her regular convoluted logic and cherry-picking to try and shape what she heard to fit her preconceptions. The Procrustean bed of Michelle G.
5
Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have both called the killing that led to the riots in Ferguson, Mo., a "murder," even though it was thoroughly investigated by the local and by the federal authorities. Libeling the officer who shot the young black man in this way is so reckless and so low that anyone tempted to vote for these women should reconsider.
3
@Bob Roberts Sorry man but, the boys in blue are constantly let off the hook when they clearly have crossed the line. Poor training or just malicious intent I don't know but people are dying out here.
8
earth to media, the absurd ethanaol subsidy
is pure socialism.
6
Let’s all just be mellow and be kind people.
1
Mr Hall left the Republican Party over Trump?That is great !!Sad how it all played out where the Worst President in American History and his enabling GOP,Barr,and Fox Nation drove Hall to leave. I do know 3 out of 6 who have changed their minds and no longer support Trump. But that still leaves a Fox Nation of us who are still supportive. I would kindly ask...why? Mexico Never Paid for the Wall...Military Tax Dollars have been used and also cover the farmer subsidies. We pay the increases on China's taxed goods, Kim Jung Un never Denuclarized and is still shooting rockets ! The Immigration issue hasn't been solved.It may have been made worse.Better Health Care with lesser cost never happened! The tax break benefitted the wealthy .No one I know is rolling in cash and bragging about their better health care and savings.A Mass shooter quotes Trump verbatim in a Manifesto? The Climate Regulations and The Endangered Species Act are being reversed so even our National Symbol the Eagle is threatened? What is there to support but chaos,confusion, hirings,firings etc and paying for security for golfing Trump said he wouldn't have time for. Could a supporter please explain? What are you supporting? Failed Promises Confusion and Division? Whoever the frontrunning Blue candidates turn out to be in 2020 should not be criticized. Anything is better than the current President and his dysfunctional Administration we've been criticizing since the 2016 !! Vote Blue..No Matter Who 2020 !!
7
To me it is either Warren or Harris. Throw a blanket over the rest.
1
Biden's gaffes are a concern and yet much of America is not concerned about Donald Trump's pathological lying, his complete lack of curiosity, his lack of interest in reading anything more than a paragaph or two, his wish to eliminate experts from his sources of information, his administration's passion for eliminating environmental safeguards in favor of rewarding the 1%, his choice of second rate judges, his family's trading on his office, etc ad nauseum. Write about how dangerous and unhinged our President is, not about comparatively insignificant flaws in the Democratic field. Every day!!!!!!!!
3
Funny how Reagan's gaffes or Bush 43's gaffes or Trump's gaffes did not harm their folksy, man-of-people, I'd like to have a beer with him image.
Yet with Biden, the gaffes are a problem.
Let the Hillaryization of Biden begin!
5
BdB, the world at your fingertips. Cast you kernel results ay 0% after 7 hours Fair duty. Audience of 15 people listened to the soapbox, haystack speech. Police Benevolent Association and casts of others follow the trail as Nattering Nabobs of Negativity.
This hayseed broke the ice on Hannity which counts for something. However, at what point point do bottom feeders poll out and roll up their chits and pass to electable candidates?
The headlne says it all. When voters don't think like "pundits," they are idiosyncratic. You guys need to get out more. Lots of people think for themselves.
2
From everything I have observed and read, every one of the current Democratic candidates has “character” - i.e. a collection of moral qualities and principles, to a greater or lesser degree depending on your interpretation of their past actions and present views. Having had almost three years of a president with absolutely no “character” - no integrity, no empathy, no humility, no respectfulness, no tolerance, no courageousness, no generosity or kindness, I’ll vote for whichever among them can beat Trump and get America back on track “morally.”
14
So, Iowans think that Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden have similar views? No wonder the state is represented in the U.S. Senate by such intellectual giants as Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst.
15
A few years ago in Canada, we were coming up to a federal election, and I posed the following hypothetical question to a group of my teenaged kids' friends: "Imagine there's a candidate, and every single one of his proposed laws is absolutel perfection, but he's a convicted, confessed, multiple child rapist...would you vote for him". It was interesting to see them split about 50:50, and to hear their reasons. It essentially came down to character/role model vs lawmaker.
It drives me crazy to hear people reject a candidate because he/she "doesn't sound authentic", and even more crazy when people say they would vote for a candidate because "they are the kind of person I'd like to have a beer with", as if having beer is an important part of the President's job.
Please folks, you're choosing a president, not a spouse!
3
Why should "verbal sloppiness" hurt Biden? Trump's lies and vitriol haven't even moved his base. The emphasis on purity of ideology and character, and litmus tests of progressive policies will ensure Democrat defeat in 2020. Biden-Harris ticket will work because it covers all the groups and Harris, especially, is strong, aggressive, and articulate. She can be a bad cop on the ticket. The women and blacks base will respond to her favorably.
Of course, Ms Goldberg is hoping Biden will fad away. I hope she is disappointed in it.
2
@Jack
Verbal sloppiness is not Biden's only problem. He is not up to the job. He is better than Trump...better than Bernie, but is he the best we can do? There are reasons he has never won the nomination in the many tries he has made.
1
Anyone who believes Liz Warren’s support for reparations for descendants of slavery and full healthcare for illegal immigrants is a recipe for success in Pennsylvania and Ohio is sorely mistaken.
If she wins the primaries, she will get clobbered over those issues in the swing stares, again and again and again, until it becomes a running joke about how nutty her policies are.
Biden can beat Trump. Warren doesn’t stand a chance.
6
Any of the Democratic candidates that partake of corn dogs, humongous turkey legs, and pork chops, in nationally broadcast video, to gain some kind of phony authenticity has sank in my idiosyncratic ratings.
Let them speak the truth about corn ethanol, the tyranny imposed on the citizens in the siting of hog CAFOs, the nitrate pollution from farms in sources of public drinking water, the siting of hog CAFOS and my ears will perk up.
But, of course, the candidates will not speak truth to the power of Big Ag and Big Food. This is the big gap. So, we'll have to do with talk of big gaffes. And phony acts of authenticity.
2
And, Michelle, where it could go is very possibly in Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s direction. He stands squarely between Warren and Biden, has what it takes to talk to and listen to Democrats of all stripes. Voters, once they hear him are blown away by how whip smart, capable, thoughtful and comforting he is. IMO he’s the candidate one should least underestimate.
Peteforamerica.com
5
Dream scenario.
Nikki Haley decides, now that she has finished her book, that she has to re-enter the political arena for the good of the nation. She soundly defeats Trump in the Republican primary.
A Haley-(choose your Democratic candidate from among Gabbard, Warren, Buttigieg, Yang) Presidential debate would be something to behold.
Unfortunately, this is a fantasy and we have to contemplate the nightmare of four more years of the Rabble-Rouser-in-Chief.
1
Michelle, please stop dumping on Biden, or any of the other candidates, for that matter.
One of the Top 5 will more than likely be the nominee, and if you care about a Democrat taking back the White House, how about working to keep all five of them electable?
Also, although you criticize Biden for saying that he met with the Parkland kids when he was Vice President, he did in fact meet with the Parkland kids. There's real-time news stories about it. Maybe you should have included that in your essay.
2
Joe Biden will sink like a stone by the time the Iowa caucuses roll around and eventually become little more than the 'malarkey' candidate who eats his own campaign gaffes for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Elizabeth Warren has her act together, she's wicked smart and articulate and she pretty much authored the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that stood up for average citizens and returned billions to American consumers before Trump, Mick Mulvaney and the GOP decided to shut it down for Robber Baron renovations.
Warren will offend a few Know Nothings and billionaires who think ignorance and greed is best; what a shame.
And Warren grew up in Oklahoma, which technically is ground zero for Republistan, a state that has NOT had a single county vote for a Democratic nominee since Al Gore won a few counties in 2000.
And Warren is straight as an arrow compared to the corrupt, craven and crass Trump and his creepy Vice President.
A Warren-Booker or Warren-Harris or Warren-Buttigieg ticket would be a formidable and welcome relief from Republican subservience to America's Enfant Terrible.
America's oligarchy has rigged the system in their favor for 39 years and a hard left turn will merely bring the USA toward the center from our current Republican Reverse Robin Hoodism.
I wouldn't put too much trust in Iowans though.
After all, they voted for Trump 51% to 42% over Clinton.
It's time for all decent Americans to elect an honest progressive and end the Republican hijacking.
97
@Socrates
Were you of the same opinion (not too much trust in Iowans thoughts) in January 2008 when an Iowa Caucus win by Obama introduced him as a very viable candidate?
Did you feel the same way in November 2008 when Obama won Iowa, or November 2012 when he won again?
1
@Socrates, minority members prefer Biden to Harris--and it isn't that they need a progressive to "educate" them. It's that they know Harris was no friend to minorities, prisoners, or immigrants--no, she hurt them when she held power to do so in California to the pleasure of the "law and order" bunch. I don't know why a progressive could realize this and support her. Nor why you seem unaware of the reasons that minorities support Biden. In any case, in the event people still don't know Harris, here's a start:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
5
@Socrates I fully endorse your description of my long preferred favorite, Elizabeth Warren, who will, I believe have a transformative Presidency in the mold of both of the Roosevelts and (sigh) Reagan. I would add one name to your potential VP picks - Julian Castro who just may be enough to turn Texas, yes TEXAS, blue. Wouldn't that be something?!
7
Wouldn’t it be nice if residents of the other 49 states had a chance to meet, get to know, and weigh in on the presidential candidates from our political parties?
4
Michelle, you’re my favorite opinion columnist in the Times. I heart you!
What a brilliant pitch for Biden voters to switch to Warren. Love it!
2
Glad to see that at least one columnist in this paper recognizes the truth of identity politics. In my view if either McCain or Romney had delivered Obama’s speeches and Obama delivered theirs Obama would’ve been elected simply on the basis of his character and charisma.
@Nat I think McCain and Romney are both men of character, although Mitt has the baggage of Seamus...(is that a double-entendre?)
We see that many people make up their minds about candidates based on irrational, emotional reasons stemming from a variety of sources and predispositions. Then they just keep defending their belief system--no matter what.
They excuse the candidates' negatives at the outset, and often have strong resistance to any change in view---it's true of Trump voters and many Dems as well.
Are they idiosyncratic? Or just idiotic--sort of? Maybe for 2020, more voters will wake up, leave their emotionalism behind, and start judging candidates realistically on-- as you say-- the left/right spectrum.
But that left/right spectrum is sadly, grossly distorted in our politics to being with.
Otherwise Americans would never tolerate that multi millionaires/corporations control campaigns with legal donations.
Or tolerate and rationalize that multi millions of citizens still lack health insurance that other nations got in 20th C.
Like, Canada in the 1960s? Etc.
Or tolerate our lax gun laws and piled up bodies and our obvious lack of public safety compared to other nations with well supported strong gun restrictions.
Americans have tolerated that these crucial life and death issues are dominated by special interest elites, manipulating politics to increase profits and power.
Michelle says---"This thing could go anywhere". That's the most profound statement in all the media yacking we see/read daily. And in 2016 'this thing' sure did go anywhere.
God save America, as they say.
1
Just get out and vote (D) up and down the ticket. We, the people, need to get back the White House, Senate, House, governors and state legislatures.
3
It makes me nuts that Iowa, little Iowa, has so much influence on our national election. And KY with McConnell is even more galling. We need a popular vote so candidates campaign everywhere!
1
Seems to me that Warren is by far the first choice of intellectual progressives and If Bernie quits she can be the favorite to win the nomination. Against Trump Biden likely the best candidate to win even if he has “lost his fastball”. That said I’d give her at least an even money shot against Trump
1
Spend 30 minutes with the "typical" Democratic or Republican voter and you will come away with the understanding that elections are simply a popularity contest.
3
Winning is the only thing this time around--I am a student of history. If Trump's re-elected, there may not BE elections in 2024.
It's not about choosing the Ideal Progressive Candidate, it's about choosing the one who can win. Nobody but Democrats will vote for a woman, a person of color, or a sexual minority, full stop. Trump's manifold crimes are not enough to disqualify him, but 'verbal gaffes' disqualify Biden? Get over yourselves.
1
Now in the midst of the great Trump Debacle, I have NO confidence in the Voting preferences, or intelligence, of the average Voter. Especially in a rural, older, lily white area. Do what you will, Iowa, I’m exhausted. I’ll place my hope, work and money into large Cities, with significant “ minority “ populations.
Seriously.
2
Joe Biden can't beat Donald Trump in 2020. With five months of heavy campaigning and slogging toward the first caucuses, the race is beyond the grasp of septuagenarians, no matter how valiant and respected and tenacious they are.
Folksy white septuagenarians aren't going to vote their man in next year. Time for a younger horse in the prime of American life to be voted in by America's melting pot. The race to the presidency is the Triple Crown of American politics.
There's a younger American runner who represents all that we've suffered during the past 3 years under a shamefully ignorant and unfit president. Beto O'Rourke is channeling the democratic torch passed to a new generation. He is full of valor, resolve and human feeling for our people.
This rare horse has connected with us in these days of fear and Trump's threats of white supremacy. Rep. O'Rourke has shown us his mettle and strength during the massacres in El Paso, TX (Beto's home town) and Dayton, OH. Beto has the chops and brilliance to beat Trump. He's American as apple pie.
I find Michelle's constant attack on Biden a little off putting. I don't think anyone else can beat trump. Sure, Biden is gaff prone and sometimes his speech impediment, primarily overcome in childhood, rears itself. However, Biden is well versed in foreign policy, perhaps Obama's primary reason for running him as his VP along with his popularity in PA. and the "rust belt". We will have to wait and see what the American people decide but really Michelle, you have been negative toward Biden before he entered this race. I Iike a Biden/Warren ticket and find it ridiculous to even suggest Biden run for VP again. How condescending to this great man who could easily stay home and take care of his large family. Biden could return us all to sanity, and prepare the nation for a more progressive agenda. We are not close to being ready for that yet. Again, let's wait and see. BTW, it is more than name recognition at this point. Ask the black voters of SC.
4
It never ceases to amaze me how many of the television and print pundits fail to point out what is so obvious. Biden is not the choice of a majority of those polled. Anywhere from 65% to 75% prefer someone else. We don't want to move from a tweeter-in-chief to a gaffer-in-chief.
1
Ms. Goldberg is right in expecting Biden to fade. He's not just gaffe-prone, his time has passed, he's conservative and he is part of the status quo branch of the Democratic Party.
Both Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren are whip-smart and are focused on the future. Booker is a man-of-color and Warren is a white woman. Together they are an unbeatable team that will win the 2020 election everywhere.
3
I am not a fan of Ms. Goldberg's because she makes up stuff. I don't trust anything she says. Today I fact checked the most mundane fact:
"On Friday, Julie Allen, a 62-year-old Medicaid consultant, took time off work to sit in the scorching sun at a midday, open-air rally for Joe Biden in Boone, Iowa."
According to timeandate.com, the Friday high temperature was 84, the coolest day of the week. And the humidity was 32%, the lowest in weeks by far. According to the comfort index, as explained recently in the Times, the low humidity made it the most pleasant day of the month. If you're a fan of Ms. Goldberg's you can argue that the sun was scorching on the most pleasant day of the month. But what matters is that it was the best weather Boone got all month and Ms. Allen probably was happy about that and only thought it was scorching if she thinks every summer day is scorching in Boone.
3
In other words Iowan voters attempt to use their brains instead of voting for right wing demagogues like Trump or identity obsessed social engineers, Neo feminists like you.
Yes, yes I know Iowans voted for Trump in the last election but they also voted for Obama in the previous election.
I am not saying they are always right. If I was in a purple state I would have held my nose and voted for Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. Iowans did the same for Trump.
1
I guess what is so idiosyncratic about the voters in Iowa....and in much of the rest of the country,,,is that you spend way to much time on twitter where you end up thinking that everyone who votes democratic is 25 and woke.....just keep a couple numbers in mind. In the 2018 elections 63% of voters were
over 50 and of the 18-29 group that you and Bernie see as so vital only 31% cared enough about Trumps assault on America to go out and vote. I wish that wasn't true but it is.
2
Another cockeyed aspect of our presidential election “system” — if one can call it that — is the outsized influence it accords to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, not one of which is representative of the country at large. Later on, in the general election, we see Florida, Ohio and a handful of midwestern states exercising inordinate influence. As Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Only states with “competitive” contests need apply. The others —with their voters and their concerns — are habitually ignored.
3
Take a closer look at Steve Bullock, Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar, fellow Dems. We have to win. I believe one of these...as prez or VP...can get us there.
3
Just back from New Hampshire.
Gigantic roadside billboards of Tulsi Gabbard everywhere.
1
A voter looking for someone who is (1) trustworthy, (2) admirable and has (3) experience and (4) conviction...These are qualities that are rare indeed for presidential candidates. Obama, for example was strong on 1 and 2, but weak on 3 and, as it turned out, 4. By those measures it's impossible for me to understand why that same voter would have a hard time choosing between Warren, who nails all 4 (and as a consequence is possibly unelectible) and Harris, who strikes me as opportunistic, too slick by half, and kind of phony (poor little rich girl). I would note that our current president, by these measures, scores a perfect zero on all 4. But Hillary wasn't much better. Pity the voter. I don't quite understand why Klobuchar is gaining no traction as I think she is Trump's worst nightmare-the schoolteacher who made him sit in on the stool in the corner wearing the Dunce cap.
3
Maybe what people are looking for is Wisdom, this time around. Biden is wise. Warren is wise. Even Buttigieg seems wise.
Usually wisdom comes with age. What surprises me is that Mayor Pete seems so wise at such a young age. Somehow, Trump never got past adolescence.
I would love to the two of them debate, next year: a 38 year old "old soul" schooling a 74 year old child.
5
Politicians running for President of the United States are plenty of things but being 'people' is not and never be one of them.
And while the most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party is black African American Protestant female they are a molecular miniscule rarity in Iowa.
Iowa's caucus system is the most bizarre primary selection process in America.
4
@Blackmamba
I agree with you on the minuscule AA population in Iowa and that the AA women are the most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party.
That said, now that I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand Iowa and their process, I do give Iowans a lot of credit for taking their role seriously. They show up. They listen. They compare candidates. They do a better job than my state would if we were the first state...
3
@Patrician
No doubt that Iowa is a lot better than Montana, the Dakotas, New Hampshire or Wyoming.
I have been all over my neighboring states of Indiana and Iowa. And I like a lot more about Iowa and Iowans than I do Indiana and Hoosiers. Southern Indiana much like Southern Illinois has too much in common with the Confederate States of America for my taste.
Barack Obama had a geographic proximity Iowa advantage over Park Ridge Illinois and Little Rock Arkansas New York Copperhead Carpetbagger Hillary Clinton.
2
I would love Warren/Harris... but I KNOW that would never fly. Honestly? Warren/Buttigieg is my dream team.
I could go for having Buttigieg as the 'Presidential Understudy' and ready to run the moment Warren Retires. Lets tie up the presidency for sixteen years, we might actually have time to repair the damage Trump has done, and accomplish some truly amazing things for this country.
7
Isn’t this another way of saying what Marianne Williamson has been saying?
Why do we continually hand the first serious election retail to a state that is 94 percent white and aging?
1
Ms. Goldberg, apparently fearful of venturing into Jeffery Epstein territory, serves up campaign pablum in a comparison of Warren and Biden, two angry senile luddites unable to value fact over fiction whose personal stories are so filled with distortion they are unable to know who their own biographies are about. Neither has a DNA strain that mirrors their folksy musing about fictional characters they cleverly label as Elizabeth and Joe. If either is a serious candidate, then I have a beachfront to sell in Siberia.
1
It seems the Twitter crowd is REALLY offended that Biden is maintaining his lead. Too bad so many Dems lean moderate/liberal.
2
The friction from rubbing liberal/progressives and Trump supporters is wearing thin on the bulk of the voters. Having the right ideology is less important than having verifiable integrity, consistency and trustworthiness.
Nice poke in the soft underbelly of the punditry Michelle. Take the rest of the day off with pay. 👍🏼
I lived in Iowa for 30 years and was active in the caucus process.
I recall in 2004 then Governor Howard Dean was getting a lot of press and visibility – he was riding a wave of popularity and enthusiasm. I recall the shocked faces of Dean supporters when they saw a clear majority of caucus attendees (at lease where I was) line up with John Kerry. They were certain Dean would win.
Kerry was not the most charming candidate (Dean or John Edwards were far more personable), or the most familiar (Dick Gephardt, capable and approachable, from neighboring Missouri).
Not that Iowa Democrats won’t make a bold choice – a state that is overwhelmingly white supported Barak Obama in 2008, over John Edwards (second place), and Hillary Clinton, who took third place.
Certainly the Iowa caucus process is not perfect. Each election presents a different slate of candidates, and they address the issues of the day as those issues shift between election cycles. But I also note that Iowa voters are not parochial – many are directly affected by world trade – both agricultural exports, and John Deere – a big employer in Iowa, with extensive international operations.
I have no idea what will happen in the caucuses, months from now. Candidates will have the chance to make their case. And then New Hampshire voters. And then the process moves on to other states….
Good luck to us all.
5
Makes an important point: leftist elites often think that what's most important in a candidate is his or her policy positions (who has the best healthcare proposal, who will do most to fight global warming, etc.) when really personality is at least as important if not more important than policy.
6
Let's not be spellbound by what they do in Iowa. It's a mostly white, homogeneous, sparsely populated, rural and most often, politically conservative place. Whether or not they're good at picking the Democrats' nominee, they will end up picking Donald Trump as will the surrounding farming states, despite pain felt from his tariffs.
5
I read a lot of comments here that drink the "socialist" Kool-Aid scare mongering which is apparently successful. So fearful, we have to choose people that have little vision the status quo (as if that is so wonderful) and will not upset people, that they may have to change. Don't forget that Bernie calls himself a "Democratic Socialist", democratic, and is not against corporations and enterprise. But healthcare should not be a for-profit business; it should be a "human right" in our country as it is elsewhere in the world. We should not have two classes: the very rich and the poor, barely making it. Especially to make us great, we need to care for all of us. Not doing so puts a weight on us all. we need to be very "progressive" about climate change since Trump has taken us backwards. So this is an appeal, to educate on this issue. Same with education itself. Not being able to go to college if you want to further yourself, is a weight on us all in the end making us less as a country, less vibrant and innovative, less socially mobile. Same with immigration... we need immigrants as we always have. If these be socialist, progressive issues, and labeled by fear mongers as threats, then citizens are in are in need of some enlightenment and education. We need to get progressive just to get back to how far behind we have slipped on these issues.
4
@Potter I've often heard the statement that health care is a "human right". In the real world, it is expensive and needs to be paid for. In the real world, a very large majority of Americans are actually quite happy with their employer provided health care and are very wary of major disruption. I've also heard about how there shouldn't be two classes. In the real world, there is actually a very large number of people who are doing quite well and who you don't hear about that belong to the middle class. For the most part, they are employed by private firms - those very companies some Democrats like to demonize. Failure to understand and accommodate these realities will lose them more elections.
1
@Michael
Data from the federal National Health Interview Survey show the share of the nonelderly population covered by workplace plans rose from 56.3 percent in 2013 to 58.4 percent in 2017. That was still nearly nine percentage points lower than the 67.3 percent covered by employer-sponsored plans in 1999.
And this from Wikipedia:
What percentage of Americans get health insurance through their employer?
Of the subtypes of health insurance coverage, employer-based insurance covered 55.7 percent of the population for some or all of the calendar year, followed by Medicaid (19.4 percent), Medicare (16.7 percent), direct-purchase (16.2 percent), and military coverage (4.6 percent).
------
How about the statement, that health care should not be a for-profit business? Why do we need corporate America raking in billions on this?
UnitedHealthcare raked in the greatest profits. It earned $3.3 billion in the third quarter of 2018 on $56.6 billion in revenue, up from $2.5 billion during the third quarter of 2017.
4
"After watching Biden and Warren campaign in Iowa, I think I understand why some people group them together. Both candidates are folksy, white and in their seventies."
Michelle makes great points. Because Iowa is so "retail," as well as the first primary state, candidates saturate the place and get well known. I suspect that real politicos get to see these folks more than once with all the summer events.
When you see candidates in small forums you get a sense of their personalities, warts and all. But it just proves that folks vote for people, not platforms--if Sanders is a second choice for Biden supporters, well, isn't this right?
My takeaway is this is just a long, slow slog. But it's fascinating to see how the man who can't abide not being the center of attention flits from one to another to hurl insults their way without being able to form a coherent negative narrative about them.
I'm almost dreading the final selection of a candidate in what promises to be the ugliest campaign in US history.
6
Every Democrat, and every progressive, should be aware that our #1 priority is to defeat Donald Trump in November of 2020. Unfortunately, I think that this article, and the comments, reinforce my view that all five of the leading candidates, for various reasons, have significant weaknesses. In each case, these weaknesses may make it difficult to beat Donald Trump.
So what do we do? It seems clear to me that Iowa's voters, astute as they are, are not thinking outside the box. But we need to think seriously about some of the other candidates.
Personally, I am starting to lean toward Marianne Williamson. We don't need a policy wonk in the White House. We are seeing plan after plan. And what good do they do? We need someone with a vision of love rather than fear. We need someone with a moral compass and ethics, compared to the ethical lapses of many in the current administration. And someone who is focused on the future and not the past.
1
"For me it’s not so much policy, it’s [...] who I feel...".
...and therein lies the problem: in spite of clear, concrete, fact-based evidence to the contrary, continuing to Choose unrealistic, aspirational "feeling" versus facing the inconvenient - too often, ugly - reality of pragmatic decision-making based on historical facts and actions.
Apparently, Ms. Helvik “feels” she has the economic security to “find a person” who “can inspire all of us” rather than face the harsh reality of what is actually happening to We, the Everyday People, on a day-to-day basis.
1
Predicting the result in the Iowa Democratic Party caucuses is a job for clairvoyants, not pundits. If you have lived in a caucus state and participated in a caucus, you'll understand why it so hard to predict the results. Otherwise, you'll need an explanation and even then you'll be confused.
The bottom line is that the only people who participate are the people who attend and who are willing to sit through the transaction of local party business before getting to the marquee event. Too many Democratic leaning, lightly affiliated Democratic voters who have attended their first caucus vow never to attend a second.
The Iowa precinct caucuses will be held on February 3, 2020. Winter weather can be a big factor. A blizzard not only affect the number of people who attend. It affects the demographics of the attendees too. Iowa is a large state and winter storms typically impact some regions more than others.
The Iowa Democratic Party has taken some limited steps to increase participation including scheduling virtual caucuses, on January 30.
2
I’m voting for whomever the Dems nominate. I’ve donated to Mayor Pete, I like Vice President Biden (especially if he’s teamed up with Senator Harris), and I’ve even warmed up to Senator Warren. I don’t like Bernie Sanders, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him. I couldn’t care less about platforms, plans, and ideas, because if we don’t get Trump out of office in 2020, I’m not sure what’s going to be left of this country in 2024.
21
@Robert Mac
Well said Robert. I think you speak for millions of us in this country. Now if we can just get our Representatives in Government to remove hackable voting machines fixed and get us paper ballots, it should be a no brainer.
6
The bottom line is this: if Biden turns out to have lost a step and unsuited to the rigors of a campaign either from age or simply because of his innate capability, then the 2020 election is lost to Democrats. I can think of no way in which general election voters in the Midwest vote in majority numbers for the policies advocated by Sanders, Warren, Harris and others.
2
Fact is, we elect people, not platforms. Electing a good person, a hardworking person, a smart person, a person whose heart is in the right place, will help America in any situation the president finds his or herself.
If helping America is what you want.
I have always thought Trump, a manifestly bad person, was elected in part because he was going to harm the people his base didn’t like.
14
@Yeah That is true of some parts of his base. Others elected him because from their perspective, the Supreme Court vacancy, financial policy, etc. were far too important to overlook. These people are not affected by his rhetoric or the harm he is causing certain segments of the population. I can promise you they'll vote for him again. In Wisconsin, I interact with a number of them every day.
3
Something that has puzzled me about Warren and her philosophy is that she did not support Bernie in 2016. Now, her 2020 platform is a carbon copy of Bernie 2016. She supported Hillary, all the way, even though their ideas were not aligned. One has to, objectively, wonder did Warren want the Presidency herself in 2020 given that it is most likely, upon a review of polling data, a Sanders/Warren ticket would have won in 2016?
The reality is we could have beaten Trump in 2016 but now it’s time to use that information, review the pulse of America, and save its heartbeat. I hope the ticket is a Warren/Sanders ticket because of their platforms. For different, vastly different reasons, we cannot have another 4-years of Trump and we cannot have another Democrat who dances with the likes of a McConnel, a Jordan, a Gaetz in any way. Compromise is an illusion sold like snake-oil by the snakes & purchased by the wishful thinkers. Trump read us the poem "The Snake", though he didn't tell us he was the snake.
Mayor Pete is great and perhaps one day he’ll be ready for ‘prime-time’ America. But, that time, unfortunately, is not now. Joe Biden, however, his time has come & gone and no amount of self-deceit or political denial can change that. His heart is just not in running. Biden is a politician, not a progressive, the situation is critical, the prize should belong to the Democrats and played without the status quo.
1
Although we need to vote Trump out in a tsunami, I too have grave doubts about Biden's durability. Time will tell. Warren, being a woman, and only because of that, is somewhat of a risk. So I am heartened to hear these Iowa opinions though I have no idea how Iowa matters in the end. Biden missed his chance in the last election- understandably because of grief over his some and a bit of Hamlet festering in his soul. But though his heart is in the right place, we need sharpness, and a more progressive-minded president to rebalance this country. We must become inured to the screams of "socialism" and (believe it!) "communists" from the other side and not succumb to a "moderate" for fear of people like Iowans..who are probably not where we think they are in their minds at this point.
2
To believe they intimately know any candidate after hearing them speak in a controlled setting is wrong. It smacks of a high school personality contest with the Iowa voters being the clique that decides who's in and who's out.
6
Warren and Mayor Pete are the smartest in the race. Warren is the best campaigner and has the most compelling personal story. She will rip Trump apart in a debate. Unfortunately, her Medicare for all plan is unaffordable and will alienate millions who hate the idea of giving up their health coverage for a big new government program. Her wealth tax to fund new entitlements will be called “communist,” not socialist. The prospect of loads of new business regulations will drive the stock market down. We’re a middle of the road nation. The election will decided by the electoral votes in a handful of mid west states. Warren is a very risky bet to beat Trump.
5
@PeterKa Before you go on about Medicare for all know that this will not happen overnight. Before you go on about the affordability of medicare for all, please take all the individual spending on health care into account i.e. increased taxes versus insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, out of pocket expenses (including for drugs) for what is denied by your insurance, what you pay through your workplace in lower wages. Not the least to consider is time and worry spent arguing with your insurance company, understanding your policy and increases. We have been totally happy on Medicare for mostly all out health expenses. We do have a supplemental policy that kicks in for the little that medicare does not cover.
5
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If we have a NATIONAL presidential election we need to have a NATIONAL nominee election.
Here's how it would work, essentially: Every nominee who qualifies (for argument sake, let's use this whackadoo version that the DNC has so generously created for 2020) gets on the NATIONWIDE ballot. After the NATION votes, the one with the most votes (not super delegate votes or such) becomes the nominee and runs in the general election.
The way it is now, a small percentage of voters gets to select the nominee and the majority of us are left with voting for whom they've decided. That's not just unfair, but it's also undemocratic.
Oh, and since I'm rewriting the rules, I say we follow Canada's lead where, if I'm remembering this correctly, candidates have three months to make their case. This TWO-YEAR incessant sales pitch — EVERY FOUR YEARS — has got to end.
19
So as I have read the article and the response, it is clear that it is not the states that have an overreach in opinion. It is most defiantly the pundits who have an influence that is not deserved. Many times I have watched debates or congressional hearings and then listen to the talking heads and I ask myself did i just watch the same thing? I think Iowa and the other early states are a good thing because they are small. It gives the candidates a chance to get close to a lot of people, instead of 30 second blips on the TV.
6
Bernie and Warren are still our first choices. Won't even consider Biden. He had plenty of time n the WH as VP. Others need a chance. We will not be pushovers any longer. Back in 2016, the DNC refused to "listen" to Bernie and what he represented for millions of voters. Now the message is even louder, vision is even more clear, with Liz laying it out for the voters in her persuasive calm firm logical but comforting manner. If the DNC continues to play deaf, sorry, our children and grandchildren will miss a future they so deserve.
4
The thing about Warren is, not only is she smart and well prepared, but she has picked a team of people for her campaign who are obviously quite dedicated and quite able to take her lead and do the work that needs to be done to demonstrate what a leader she is. This is what the president needs most: a talent for picking talent to support the agenda and the drive to do what needs to be done. We can see that with Trump, this talent for picking. Except that he has picked a cabinet of destroyers, not builders. I believe Warren will be the one most able to choose a wise and engaged cabinet. Perhaps Yang, Williamson, Inslee, Buttgieg, Gillibrand, Booker and Harris will be called to serve in that capacity, and then my heart will rise in hope.
15
Although I'm aware of all the candidates' positions, I won't vote in the primary on ideology. I'll be looking at how each of the Democratic candidates is polling in the swing states, particularly Pennsylvania, against Trump. The candidate with the biggest margin of victory will get my vote.
National polls aren't relevant, as we discovered in 2016.
I like candidates who don't overpromise, like Biden, Klobuchar, Bullock, Hickenlooper, etc. I think the division isn't between progressive and centrist candidates, but between activists and pragmatists. I'll go with the pragmatists who don't saddle themselves with positions that can be easily demagogued in a general election.
28
Candidates spend months campaigning in Iowa, and the state is perceived as possessing outsized influence in choosing candidates. What is wrong with this picture? Iowa is a small state with a population of roughly three million people, less people than users of the NYC subway system, is rural, overwhelmingly white, Christian and conservative. Pardon me if I don’t place too much importance on what Iowans think of the candidates. In reality, Iowan caucus participation is low. Only 20%of caucus-goers show up on caucus night.
Iowa is not a microcosm of America. It is just a small state that was selected to go first after the 1968 Democratic National Convention because they have such a convoluted process that takes more time.
After the election of Donald Trump, predictions are useless. Anything can happen. Even the re-election of Trump. With or without tiny Iowa and their pundits.
20
@Patricia Caiozzo
I grew up in NH , you sooo right !!
2
While the "conventional wisdom" says only Biden can beat Trump, actual data shows that Bernie is far more electable than Biden. He polls strongly among independents and conservative Democrats who are supposedly turned off by his socialist message. A recent Emerson poll in Texas, of all places, shows only Sanders and Biden beating Trump there, and by the same margin. But Bernie's strength is more telling when you look at actual votes from actual voters in actual elections: in 2016, despite the DNC's heavy thumbs on the scales, he won the Wisconsin primary by taking every county in the state save one; he won the Michigan primary by winning 77 of the 83 counties there. Aren't these supposed to be the Rust Belt states that "only" Joe Biden can win back from Trump?
Bernie draws strong small-donor contributions from every corner of the country, the only candidate doing so, demonstrating his strong grass roots support. Where is Biden's grass roots support? As the Republicans have demonstrated in election after election, turn-out of the base is absolutely crucial for victory. Biden will not turn out millennials and progressives dispirited by yet another neoliberal centrist candidate and THEY are the Democrats' base, not disaffected moderate suburban Republicans disgusted with Trump who will either vote Democrat or sit this one out. Only Bernie can turn out the base -- that Biden could do so is a centrist delusion as fact-free as the delusions of the most rabid Trump supporters.
5
Why Iowa? Why not?
At least the people in Iowa seem to be engaged; looking candidates over closely; take pride in voting with discernment. Too many Americans don't or won't pay attention to candidates and what they stand for until AFTER the general election.
I have more issues with how the "debates" are being conducted than I do with Iowans vetting the candidates.
I'm not concerned with who's ahead, who's behind in the primary polls. I'm concerned about Americans voting in the general election. Are enough Americans revolted by Donald Trump to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate?
When will make classes in civics mandatory from grade school through high school? Make voting more accessible, a badge of honor? Or, are we content to stand by and watch as our democratic republic, defended with sweat, tears and blood of previous generations, is taken away from us?
50
@JABarry
If the Democrats are counting on votes no matter whom they nominate because of revulsion to Trump, they are going to lose this election. Didn't 2016 teach us that simply pointing out how horrible Trump is won't be nearly enough? Poll after poll over the last decade has shown that the electorate doesn't know what the Democrats stand for. You can't win elections that way. Only a clear, forthright and unapologetic progressive program is going to turn back Trump and the far right Republicans. Democrats lost a thousand seats at the federal and state levels between 2008 and 2016 by tacking to the center. The 1990's are over.
1
@JABarry
When will make classes in civics mandatory from grade school through high school?
When Republicans are no longer running the states...they always cut $ for education. They want the populace uneducated because it benefits their party.
1
AFTER THE CONGRESS RETURNS In September, we'll have a far clearer picture of the impact of Trump on voters. We've not heard from the voters so far that their choice of candidates also mean anyone-but-Trump. In the midst of the broiling sun, was a guy who's going to create true havoc in the election: Bill Weld. He's a moderate Republican who's going to run against Trump, not expecting to win, but to stand as an alternative for those GOPpers who will not be swing voters, still preferring a party member. For the time being, Trump is not paying any attention to Weld. He's too busy horrifying the populace and terrifying migrants/asylum seekers along with discriminating against them financially by favoring the rich. Weld is a regular guy who's going to siphon off enough GOPper voters from Trump to make it impossible for him to get the necessary number from the electoral college again.
10
@John Jones
The GOP voters I know who hold Trump in disgust simply withheld their votes last time around. I don’t see much difference from that and voting for Weld, but maybe I just don’t understand the difference within the context of the electoral college. That should come as no surprise, as I never have had much appreciation for the electoral college. The only graduates of that college seems to produce are GOP candidates who have majored in the dark arts.
6
@ John Jones
I agree on Weld but am panicking all over again since the 2016 Johnson/Weld ticket took 220,000 votes away from Hillary here in Michigan. That could happen again if a far-left progressive is nominated and voters here just can’t go there but won’t vote for Trump. Weld provides a “safe” vote that could again backfire on the Dems. And if that voting pattern repeats itself in the other rust belt states, there goes the election...again.
1
The Iowa caucuses are a fine example of our current political predicament. Keep doing the same things even if they make no sense (i.e., a small number of white rural voters have decide for everyone who is the nominee). For some unexplained reason, we must maintain the status quo and wait decades for any true change or actual solutions to real problems. We must stay with the current nominating system, the electoral college, gerrymandering, campaigns financed by the wealthy, voting only on election day ... on and on and on doing the same things expecting different results.
23
@JAG31965 i don't know why you added gerrymandering to the list of issues - Democrats have been doing gerrymandering far longer and more often than Republicans have.
1
I think the point is we should get rid of gerrymandering.
11
@JAG31965 Iowa is 65% urban, 35% rural. CT, on the other hand, is pretty much all suburbanites and wealthy as all heck. Trump lost in the Iowa caucuses in 2016. The CT 1% helped Trump handily win the state.
Why does Iowa still get an outsize role in deciding who the nominee for president will be?
Maybe decades ago, under the quaint election system we had then, Iowa represented some kind of mash up of America. But not today.
Today, candidates start building organizations in Iowa years before the election, because a fifth place finish in Iowa can doom a candidacy. Presidential campaign spending has become a cottage industry for Iowa.
Why not pick, say, five states--one east, west, north, south and midwest--and have each of their primaries first on the same day? (And Iowa can be one of them.) At least then a representative sampling of voters would impact the nomination process, rather than one state.
Moreover, Iowa still uses a caucus system to select its winners and losers. So the one state with outsize influence for no reason also has a system which is less democratic than simply allowing all voters decide.
No knock against Iowans, but if we started this all from scratch it would not be done this way.
44
@Jack Sonville. Many criticize the caucus system without knowing how it works. Basically, supporters of candidates who aren’t viable are given a chance to go with their second choice. That is a sensible way to narrow the field and determine who are the preferred contenders. Dividing the vote among 20 candidates is not a good idea. The caucus system better indicates the top contenders. It makes more sense than a 20 candidate primary.
6
@michjas However the problem with the caucus system is that the person who got the most people on caucus night, often lose out by the time the state convention happens. The reps chosen at caucus nights got to districts, people picked go to regions, and then state.
But anyone who wants to participate in an Iowa caucus can show up - it takes more effort than a primary - and in Feb in Iowa, more dedication. In my youth I caucused in Iowa.
1
@michjas
OK, one can debate the merits of the caucus system. But why does Iowa get to have all of this influence? I don't get it.
4
The national polling of Democrats to determine their preferences for the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is strongly influenced by which of the candidates is deemed the most likely able to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.
Ideology matters, but it tends to be the ideology of the candidate which matters, not the ideology of the person responding to the pollsters. Moreover, the ideology of the candidate matters only to the extent that a candidate with perceived far-left views is deemed less electable in a general election.
All of this reflects how crucial we Democrats feel that it is to beat Donald Trump and the Republicans.
The approach is not very different than that of some Republicans, who claim they will hold their noses and vote for Trump in order to avoid putting a Democrat back into the White House.
Nowadays, the stakes are so high that most voters feel they will not have the luxury of voting for a candidate whom they actually “like.” One suspects that the voters who will vote in the Iowa caucuses are using the same selection criteria.
The problem with the early caucus states like Iowa is that voters often seem more interested in vying for personal attention. Ironically, the Iowans also may be more vulnerable to arm-twisting (literally?) by aggressive campaign operatives.
7
Well, if pundits didn't make the primaries and caucuses in these small rural states so important we might be able to field a majority candidate. These are the early polls and tend to influence the swing voters in other states, but for selecting the best candidate, I don't think this is the best way. I know that in 2016 I was offended that the party that we built here in my State (population 1.3 million with no racial majority) seemed to be overtaken by Bernie supporters that tried to lead the conversation. For me and my Democratic party brethren and sisters, Bernie was not a Democrat though our caucus selected him. Is he committed to the party and what it stands for? My analysis says no. Did the pundits buy his line that he is a Democrat? Yes, they did. This worried me a lot. We are a solidly liberal Democratic State since 1959 and the party was built by walking the neighborhoods and communities and sitting and talking to folks in their garages, om their porches, where they gathered. I walked the neighborhood with my parents and still talk the party line where I can. I don't agree with the party line always (I am farther to the left and more progressive than the standard party line) but I feel that I have a voice. The punditry around the elections seem to assume that they know what's what and attempts to tell me what to think. They want to shout down my voice. I don't care. You go your way I go mine. How many of you predicted a landslide victory for Clinton in 2016?
6
People frequently complain about the disproportionate role Iowa always plays. But it makes more sense than you might think. The two early tests are fund raising and Iowa. One is cold cash the other is all up front and personal. Iowa is small enough that candidates can do the circuit. But it is large enough that it requires them to secure a broad cross section of residents. Its shortcoming is its relative homogeneity. But no state its size is particularly diverse.
The perspective of the voters influenced here is more personality-oriented than policy-oriented. That sets off well against cold cash. But is a mistake to project the decision-making of Iowa residents on the rest of the country. The whole point of Iowa is to allow its residents to make up close and personal decisions. In the other 49 states, policy will have a much greater role. I am not a progressive and I do not plan to vote for a progressive. And most progressives feel just the opposite. And, while Biden and Warren may have a lot of similarities in the eyes of Iowa residents, I don't believe there are many many voters anywhere else who see it that way. Id guess that there are about as many siting on the Warren/Biden fence as there are sitting on the Republican Democrat fence. Which is to say, not a whole lot.
4
This is an interesting observation. It seems many people vote based on how they feel about a candidate, whether they like or trust the candidate, whether they can relate to the candidate in some way. I vote mostly on policy. I like wonky types who work for the greater good. But I also prefer strong public speakers. If their speech evokes snores, it is harder to cast that ballot in their favor.
9
I hope you are wrong that ideology doesn’t matter, Michelle.
Ideology is the basis for what a candidate will try to achieve in office. That voters could write it off is shocking and a sad testament to the civic ignorance of even the vaunted Iowa caucus goer.
What does not shock me at all is the willingness of a Trump voter to vote for Sanders or Warren. Trump (dishonestly) ran to the left of Clinton on economics. So did Sanders. Their concern for working families (yes, feigned by Trump, genuine with Sanders) was met with Clinton’s wealthy donor parties in the Hamptons and her out of context, yet still unfortunate (and accurate) “deplorables” quote.
Maybe ideology does matter to some voters, after all.
6
Numerous polls show combined Warren and Bernie supporters considerably exceeding Biden’s. If, say, Bernie at some point discontinued his campaign and endorsed Liz, we’d likely then have a genuine fighter for the party’s nominee. Putting Biden finally out to pasture would be good practice toward putting Trump out on the manicured greens full time, and then into prison if his ticker can last that long.
8
@corvid the problem is Bernie's ego won't let him do it. His feeling is that the Warren should drop out for him.
2
I haven't seen any of those polls. I don't suppose you have links to these "numerous" polls?
@corvid
Why should Bernie drop out when he's more likely to beat Trump? I like Warren but you watch Trump turn her into Hillary II before your very eyes.
1
Most of my family and friends are not getting into the weeds of policy papers and opinions of individual Dems yet. We plan to vote for our choices at primary and then work and vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever she is .... or perhaps he is. Centrist or more progressive ideology doesn't matter as much as leadership, smarts & empathy. So fitting that 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of the passage of 19th Amendment. Let's encourage young women to register to vote and participate in selecting a president who respects women.
53
I wish the NYT would discuss candidates other than Biden, Saunders and Warren. They should be taking the role if advisor not candidate. They had their chance and now it’s pure ego that drives them. Please let the ideas of younger candidates be heard instead of the same old same old.
Everyone knows mental acuity and flexibility in thinking drop as people age and the thought of someone working through the night during a crisis at their age is plain scary. (I speak as an older voter.)
6
@JW Using your criteria I can't see putting Warren in the same boat as Biden and Sanders, apart from the fact that she's 70. But she seems about 30 years younger than Biden and Sanders, and has not really "had her chance." To me she comes across as someone who'd be happy if a real politician would take up her causes, but she's learned that it ain't gonna happen unless she does it herself.
12
@JW
Don't know who you're hanging around with but I know plenty of people who are around 90 and still completely with it. "Everyone knows" that there is huge variability in mental and physical ability after 60.
3
The Punditocracy keeps raising questions about Joe Biden and yet, there he sits atop the polls. it may not last but Biden’s lead was supposed to have died long, long before this.
Warren has rn a smart campaign. I admire her. But Ending private Insurance is an Election losing position. it just is. Most people know that.Alas, Liz does not.
16
Warren does not propose ending private insurance. The wealthy would still be able to purchase private insurance. Citation please.
4
Actually she did come out in favor of eliminating private health insurance. Too many sources to cite but you can begin with her remarks covered by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, Politico and the New York Times. When asked in the debates who would support eliminating private health insurance Elizabeth Warren raised her hand. While she may not have “proposed” it, her position certainly favors eliminating it with Medicare for All.
3
@Lefthalfbach the same pundits said Trump had no chance - why are people still listening to them on this.
2
Pundits and politicos tend to be obsessed with ideology. As Ms. Goldberg points out, rank and file voters not so much. Just look at the history of U.S. Senate elections in Iowa. From 1980 to 2010, Iowans would vote for conservative Republican Chuck Grassley and then in the next cycle they'd vote for liberal Democrat Tom Harkin. Clearly something other than ideology is at work here. It seems voters support the man/woman who can connect with them on some kind of gut level. This is a mysterious process, and even the most astute political hacks and journalists have yet to figure it out.
9
"This thing could go anywhere" -- and even to Him, Who Shall Not Be Named, I suppose?
Bravely spoken.
Is that the limit journalist independence these days? Dropping hints that there is still chance?
1
Once again Michelle, your anti-Biden bias is showing throughout your piece. Joe Biden isn't as glib and quick with the jabs as some of the candidates, but I don't rate the candidates on those qualities. Joe makes gaffes but is even tempered, experienced and worked with Barack Obama over his 8 years as President. So, he knows what it takes to be a good President and I think he has the skill set to do just that. My vote is a cup of moderate Joe please, not your flavor of the week. Trump must be beaten and Joe Biden has the best chance of doing just that.
38
@biglatka, Biden already spend 8 years in the WH. As VP. Our country of 300+ million population can surely produce another candidate who has never worked in the WH before, and yet serve our country well. Biden has had a lifelong experience as a public servant in the Senate, in the WH. Time for someone else. Thank you Biden for your service, now give others a chance.
3
Wrong. Joe is just another neoliberal corporate, Wall St. friend. Status quo. No thanks. Running on that platform worked great for Hillary Clinton didn't it?
3
@biglatka
Biden would do even less than Obama on the things that matter: climate change, health care, and the coming oligarchy. Why shouldn't he be even-tempered? He's got his, supported by the credit card industry these many years.
2
Like many voters, I’m looking for someone intelligent, honorable, decent and kind, someone who knows the economic struggle, who HAS onerous student loans, who gets the life and death reality of military force, who can speak in complete sentences — who is a full citizen of the 21st century. The exact opposite of what we have now. Pete Buttigieg.
23
@Amy
"Pete Buttigieg"
Or perhaps, Joe Biden. Why rule out Joe if he meets all your criteria except for not having a student loan?
I appreciate this opinion piece that recognizes that no one really knows at this point. It is frustrating to read so many stories that claim to know that the "tiers are set" and the "lanes are set". The press, in its coverage can and does influence the outcome. (ask Howard Dean) Please, I beg of you, please report the facts and leave out the punditry.
That being said, I think folks are underestimating Mayor Pete. Calm,reasoned and highly intelligent I think is the *real* opposite of the guy in the WH.
17
Major Pete has a husband and that's not going to fly in the General election. Voters will pick a kitty grabber. Its frustrating but a reality.
Take any one of the front runners. Take any one in the second tier. Or the third or fourth. Or someone who’s yet to announce.
If she or he can defeat this man and begin the process of rebuilding and reconciling with honesty, decency and humanity, what more do you want? Forget the substantive differences. For get the promises. Policy and law will not depend on the White House. It will depend on how the Congress disposes of what’s proposed. Most of the time.
After Newtown, did Obama get greater gun control?
The President can only do so much. But with decency, honesty and humanity we’re so ahead of what we’ve got now. Won’t we be?
18
@ Regards LC
Thank you! Direct, sensible and cuts thru a lot of nonsense.
1
And there you have it: As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.
And this is also why I wish the moderate pundits would quit being paranoid. Iowa knows what it's doing, they've been through this before. And I do believe they will do the right thing here too. Let the people decide!
7
The presidency is not a legislative position. It is an executive position. At best, the president can set the legislative agenda for the first few months of his or her first term. Beyond that, what makes it through Congress depends on who is in Congress. The President has to run an enormous organization with millions of employees, be commander in chief of the world's most powerful armed forces, and react to events out of his or her control, both internal and external.
Does Warren have a detailed legislative agenda? Yes, but that's not the president's job. That's a Senator's job.
The voters in this article are right to judge character and ability to lead, more so than legislative agenda. That's what will really matter. I will be voting for a candidate who is young enough (<70), and has sufficient executive experience, to do the job well. I would love to see governors like Bullock and Hickenlooper climb in the polls.
10
Good job getting out there on the ground and meeting actual living breathing voters.
"I realized, not for the first time, how little the ideological lanes that we talk about in punditland really mean"
Yep. All the categorizing and labeling by the news media becomes almost meaningless when real voters meet real candidates in person.
27
We are not limited to Warren or Biden. There are many conventionally qualified candidates, including seven senators and three governors. Why not give more mention to others who have substantial experience and abundant talent, like Senators Klobuchar and Gillibrand and Governor Bullock?
13
It matters who shows up at the caucuses. I think caucuses should be abandoned in favor of primary voting but they still exist and the Democratic primary begins with a caucus state and the third primary Nevada is also a caucus. It is believed that a larger percentage of activist progressive Democrats show up at caucuses than in regular primaries so Warren and Sanders start out with at least that advantage. Sanders basically tied Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2016 even though he started out in the polls at around 3%. So regardless of what we hear from Iowa voters I think the key will be the ability of activist Democrats to organize to get people to the caucuses and if they take place on a very cold night expect the more energetic progressives to show up in bigger numbers and vote for Warren or Sanders. Biden and other candidates described as center-left have their work cut out for them in Iowa.
6
@Bob When it is 20 below zero outside, and you have to find parking at the caucus site - only the truly dedicated make it to the Iowa Caucuses. How well the super progressive candidates do can probably be tied to how nasty the weather is.
And so we go through the sad pretense of American 'democracy' once more. I almost wish that candidates were chosen by horsetrading at conventions, that at least would be more honest, and maybe even more democratic, at least in a representational sense. The fact that appealing on a personal level to a percentage point of a percentage point of a percentage point of the national population of dubious similarity to the the nation at large is now a necessary and almost sufficient condition for attaining the most powerful office in the world should be a major scandal. Instead, we appear to be assuming that this is how it always was and resign ourselves to being regaled with tales of how folksy and reasonable and foresighted and non-ideological our wonderful middle-American caucusgoers are. Anyone else sick of hearing it, I'll be at happy hour.
6
@Eli B
Try to console yourself that you only have to avoid looking at and listening to people from Iowa once every 4 years. On the other hand, those of us in the Midwest are fed a constant daily stream of everything happening on the east and west coast 365 days a year.
4
Good golfers play almost every weekend. The great ones know that there are only four tournaments a year that are truly important - the Majors. And they arrange everything (e.g., playing or not playing weekly tourneys, how they allocate practice time, & etc.) around the goal of trying to peak exactly when it matters most.
Over the course of a season some players seem to be the next biggest thing, that that doesn't necessarily translate into wins at the majors.
In some weird way, political primaries have always seemed a bit like that. Beto, for instance, was the new golden child for awhile, but he peaked way too early. He'll never get back. Mayor Pete and Kamala are the youngsters having strong seasons, but it is too soon to tell whether they can bring it when it matters most (the real pressure will only start in the fall debates.) Bernie, Liz, and Biden are the old pros - The Mickelsons and Woods of the primaries. Great skills, honed over a couple of decades at least ... but with worries growing that they may be over the hill. Their performances are spotty ... streaks of the old brilliance, interspersed with ... clear signs of age.
This article points out an odd perspective. In some ways, a Biden-Warren ticket makes the most sense in the general election. Solid, experienced, and not too threatening to the mainstream. On the other hand - for the progressive wing, I fear the reaction would be "oh great, two old white people. Again."
The Majors are soon here.
12
The useful thing about the Iowa caucuses is the human connection to actual people. Logically it would be more appropriate to have all the states vote at once but we know that such a primary would be even more of a money driven media exercise than what we have now. We need some sifting and winnowing of candidates based on their character - which we get on the Democratic side in Iowa and NH. Full disclosure: I went to college in Iowa, have always known details like the oldest Mosque in America is in Iowa, Iowa was one of the first states to allow gay marriage and has been ahead of the rest of the states at times in history, despite giving us Steve King and Chuck Grassley. I had an emotional moment when I read about an Iowa State Representative with an Islamic sounding name instructing the Democratic Presidential candidates in one of the forums to hug each other say I love you and we’re gonna win. Every state in flyover country has a different personality. Iowa is a pretty good laboratory for testing Electoral College potential.
12
Iowa’s wholly unwarranted influence on our system for choosing a president is yet another thing that’s wrong with our country. And like most of our other problems, it’s either angrily denied or passively accepted by our media and political elite.
22
I was listening to Politics Monday on the News' Hour just today, and the commenters mentioned Joe Biden's gaffes. As one woman said, and I paraphrase: As "Uncle Joe," it is okay, to be expected. Yet, as a presidential nominee, the bar is set a lot higher. Our last Democratic president was careful and cautious when he articulated; Barack Obama, that eloquent and elegant man, thought before he spoke. When we juxtapose him with Trump, there is no comparison other than to say we want someone who will speak well, honestly, and ethically. Our next POTUS can not, must not, be another Trump.
I am glad to hear that our neighbors in Iowa are being so responsible as to who should win the caucus. By the time CA has its primary, it is almost easier for us. The field has been narrowed down substantially. To read how seriously Iowans take their job, so to speak, brings a relief and a confidence re the final choice(s). If I may, I would like to be a bit personal and subjective right now. I am thrilled that Elizabeth Warren and even Kamala Harris are receiving the attention due them. I'm a septuagenarian, and I want a woman president while I can still function rationally. Those two ladies above are as ready to be president as I am awaiting their rise to the highest office in the land.
22
I must correct my submission-
I think what really is what swing voters think. And I don't think it really matters if it is progressive or moderate ideology, but rather the personality of a candidate, a forceful candidate who can energize these voters. Iowa is emblematic.
3
I don't think what really is what swing voters think. And I don't think it really matters if it is progressive or moderate ideology, but rather the personality of a candidate, a forceful candidate who can energize these voters. Iowa is emblematic.
4
"Somehow I always manage to half forget, between election cycles, how idiosyncratic many voters are, and how little their decision-making tracks the ideological battles that dominate social media and cable news."
"As people see more of him (=Biden), at least some are beginning to become alarmed about his pronounced verbal sloppiness. "
Indeed, the major issue for all candidates is selling themselves and presenting ideas that will sell them and get them elected. This has absolutely nothing to do with being able to lead or govern, only about the hype of salesmanship.
As for the substance of the ideas or their viability, waste of time, who cares.
"Pronounced verbal sloppiness"--And that impacts on one's leadership skills just how? Does not being Cicero mean that one cannot govern or lead? It does mean that one's rhetoric will not be studied in high school (if such things were still to be taught in high school).
There are advantages to direct elections for a country's leader, bit there are also disadvantages. Platform and ideology are non-starters. What people want is a show. Well then they will get a showman or should I say showperson.
18
I've thought about this policy vs. personality question a bit, and I do think there's some wisdom in voting for personal qualities as opposed to policy. Even if the Democrats win control of the Senate, most of the plans being thrown out now by candidates won't make it into law, at least not without serious revisions and compromises. So, you want someone who is smart enough to be able to adjust as circumstances dictate, but still has enough integrity and dedication to their ideals to push for the best possible policy.
Also, whoever wins will be thrown into unpredictable situations for which they can't possibly have current plans. What if there's another recession? What is Russia invades the Baltics? What if there's another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 in the US? You have to think which candidate has the strength, wisdom, and grace under pressure to be able to deal with those sort of things.
10
I wish people would stop acting like the President is the king. The President is a manager of a very large organization, the Federal government, and he/she needs to know it works and how to work with the Congress.
I love Elizabeth Warren, but "having a plan for everything" sounds like micro-management nightmare scenario. There is a reason why we have experts work for the government.
The President is the one who hires the most important people, and the one who knows where to apply pressure in Congress to get things done.
Just think, who would Major Pete pick for Secretary of State, what about AG?
Frankly I think Biden is the best choice. He is a decent person who will set the right tone and he will pick the right people to implement some of those Warren plans.
Recall that one of the more effective Presidents of the 20th century was LBJ, because he was able to bent the Congress to his will. I doubt that Kamala Harris could have gotten the Civil Rights bills passed.
32
@Richie by
Your counterfactual's off the mark.
Southern Democrats in office back in the early 1960s would've never accepted the leadership/pushback LBJ exerted from Kamala Harris, and not because she's somehow less effective and will-less. In fact, she'd have never been elected to US Congress--not even from "liberal" California back in that day. LBJ swaggered and swayed and domineered as a legislator because his era, generation, race, and gender gave him 12 benefits of the doubt, and the power to go with it.
2
Iowa has a population of only about 3.17 million people.
New Hampshire has a population of 1.36 million.
My home state of New Jersey has a population of just under 9 million.
Iowa Caucus - Feb. 3 2020.
New Hampshire - Feb. 11.
Super Tuesday - March 3.
New Jersey Primary - June 2.
My state has a population almost triple that of Iowa's, and more than eight times that of New Hampshire, but our primary occurs so late that it's close to meaningless. How many candidates will have dropped out before I can cast my ballot? Essentially, the citizens of Iowa and NH are voting for their choice of candidates, and for mine too!
I think a fairer process would be for all states to have ranked primary elections on the same day, Super Tuesday. Every voter can lists his/her top three choices.
The Electoral College gets all the attention for being a system that gives excessive weight to small population states, but in their present configuration, the primaries do exactly the same.
366
@D Price
I feel your pain New Jersey, California has the 5th largest economy in the world and close to 40 million people and we get to sit idly by while other less populated states get to choose who runs for President. How is that fair? There needs to be a change on how we get to choose who runs for President. Our current system is not working.
174
@D Price
This would be the best way to do it.
--Though I admit it's fun living in Iowa and having all the candidates come to my small town in person! Caucuses can be a little chaotic, haggling with your friends, encouraging them to come over to your candidate if theirs has fizzled, etc.
But so much more fair to just have a nationwide primary day with ranked voting (your top 3 choices)!
43
To: D Price and Will
Your State decides when it's primaries will be held. This is not being forced down your throat by some all powerful Federal institution or law. Primaries (or caucuses) are determined by local governments and local political parties. Changing the date requires political will and effort. It has been done.
Wake up Will. During Jerry Brown's last term the Cal primary was moved up from June to March.
20
I will vote through my nose for Warren/Sanders ticket if it comes to that, anyone but Trump. But I would prefer Warren/Buttigieg or Biden/Buttigieg or Biden/Harris; a good combination of youth and old.
19
Watching the first night of the second set of debates, I was struck by the genuine rapport betweeen Sanders and Warren, who also support many of the same policies. I think they would make an incredible team, especially since Warren's supporters (so far) tend to be on the wealthier end of the spectrum and coastal and Sanders's (so far) are more working class, male and from the middle of the country. If I had to choose just one, it has to be Sanders, because he has the support in the states Dems must win.
27
@Parapraxis yeah, they would storm their way to defeat withn37% of the vote. Look up 1972.
1
@Lefthalfbach
1972 has little relevance today. The GOP was not a far-right white nationalist party yet. There was a hard-fought war going on. The president was popular, and well to the left of any Republican since Jim Jeffords left the party in 2001 - and even to Joe Biden's left on a number of issues, including health care.
Bill Clinton won on promises (soon abandoned) to institute universal health care. Barack Obama did as well, though the ACA has fallen well short of that promise. Even Donald Trump repeatedly campaigned on low-cost universal health care, even for the poor. Yes, Trump was lying, but the idea that these progressive ideas are unpopular and will be doom at the ballot box are completely unfounded.
1
In Iowa and elsewhere, primaries are the province of party stalwarts, not the average voter. Today's vocal Democratic stalwarts are far to the left of the average American, but in the battle for primary votes they forget that reparations, open borders (sorry, 'decriminalization'), and free medical care for 'asylum-seekers' are anathema to most voters. In the wake of last week's horrors the Dems are also again forgetting the thousands of state and local races they have lost because 100 million voters own firearms and that most simply do not believe that the Dems' claims that 'sensible gun laws' will not eventually lead to confiscation when those new laws have no impact on the murder rate. Everything said in primaries will be used by the Republicans to pillory the eventual candidate, and Democrats' short memories will give us another four years of Trump.
8
@Someone else and think of the all the things the president has said. I have to push back and agree with Funky Irishman that the GOP is headed for extinction. People are begging for some type of legislation on a long menu of big policy items. When the election is over and we have a total count of who voted for who, we as a nation will see how many bigots, nationalists, and racists we have. I mean ya gotta have a deplorable attitude to vote for trump and others
The Iowa Democratic Caucus has picked the eventual Democratic nominee every time since 1996. For Democratic hopefuls Iowa is a must win to becoming the nominee. Just ask Hillary 2008.
My money is on whoever wins Iowa in the 2020 caucus will win the nomination. For whatever reason Iowa Democratic caucusers seem to have a knack for picking the Party’s nominee.
3
This is a good reminder that, ultimately, people vote not only for politicians, but for other people. Candidates would do well to let their true selves shine through the personas.
19
I was really appreciative of Michelle's admission about half forgetting between election cycles taht when looking at voters, that "how little their decision-making tracks the ideological battles that dominate social media and cable news". I hope her assessment is dead on and becomes more widely recognized for its accuracy, because the pot stirrers from the extremes of both parties in many instances have secondary motives in creating division through click bait stories and game show hosted cable news panel shows. I would suspect that beyond having the initial arrogance to think they know what is best for us, it probably boils down to their motives really are what is best for them.
10
As a native of Iowa (Steve King's district no less), I find it absurd that such a small, unrepresentative state has become so important in the nominating process.
Even more absurd is a campaign that lasts two years. Still worse, serious talk starts a year before that...and preliminary talk six months earlier.
So we're in full or partial campaign mode for 3 1/2 out of every 4 years. No country in history has had to endure that. Why do we have to be the first?
319
@bnyc
Having lived in several other countries during the past 25 years, and having watched their election processes, I am in full agreement that election campaigns in the USA are absurdly long. But elections in the USA are big business --- lots of money spent, lots of money made, much of it by media companies who sell "news" --- and the politicians-in-place really protect their incumbency advantage, so I don't see it changing.
30
@bnyc You're right.
Stick it in Ohio. That or Pennsylvania.
2
This is an important article. Remember 2016? Trump’s policies were never designed to win over independent voters. The border wall is less popular than Medicare for All. Presidential elections are all about building a narrative, branding and motivating potential voters.
Democrats can try to choose a perfect candidate to appeal to a balance of moderate voters’ beliefs, but there’s no moderate polling at over 10% (sorry, Pete) who can do that while motivating both wings of the party to vote. Joe Biden seems confused and uninteresting in most appearances nowadays. I believe that Warren is the candidate (with a chance to win the nomination) who is building the strongest narrative, changing people’s minds and motivating voters to actively support her. In Iowa, and in the general election, this matters more than policies. Remember, republicans called Clinton’s policies radically leftist and socialist even though many of her positions weren’t, but the more damaging attacks had to do with her being tied to a corrupt establishment. Nominating a progressive wouldn’t help with the former, but it certainly would with the latter. Presidential elections have never been about just policies, and this election is too important to rely on wishful thinking that it might be.
29
Chris, I appreciate your thoughts and reasoning. I hope we’ll elect an authentic, intelligent and determined problem solver who possesses good character and can work with others to enact principled change.
23
@Michael Herrinton
"Remember, republicans called Clinton’s policies radically leftist and socialist even though many of her positions weren’t,"
You know what I remember.. President Bill Clinton on the stage explaining his universal Healthcare vision and he said everyone will be issued a "national insurance card," and both sides went nuts because they saw that as a government intrusion rand tracking of citizens personal information.
Look where we are know, Google knows more about me and my health than I do.. all because I keep hitting the "I accept" button on their software apps.
I am so absolutely tired of hearing about Iowa and Iowans. I'm tired of their outsize say in who gets on the ballot for President of the United States. Nationwide same-day primary. And rid of the electoral college while you're at it.
273
@R
My first thought was to agree with you on the coverage of Iowa. But then I realized it gets that attention mostly because it handles elections in ways most other states don't. Maybe because of its size, Iowa shows the other states that elections are more than just showing up at the polls on election day
8
@R
If you are tired of hearing about Iowa, then wear earplugs. I, for one, take some comfort in the idea that America has to hear from ordinary rural people in the Midwest for a few days before we start getting rolled over by the gigantic states.
9
@Madeline Conant But why Iowa? I live in Montana, and sure, we are also dependent on farming for much of our economy, but for example, we're more affected by climate change than they are. We have more mining, thereby a different energy policy. We're a border state, and while it's the Canadian border, that adds more complexity. We're the second highest state for gun ownership. Rural America is not homogeneous, and Iowa has outsize influence. That much is clear.
18
It's not just Iowa. It's not just this election.
Some voters do vote on the basis of ideology or policy. Some vote on demographics or identity.
Some look for intelligence, leadership or electability. Maybe even the dreaded "likability". For many, I assume it's some combination and policy is often not at the top.
A recent Nate Silver penned column tracking who 2016 Sanders and Clinton voters now support shows interesting shifts in line with Ms. Goldberg's anecdotal reporting. There is a "well traveled and robust left policy/ideology lane" but there are many other roads too.
The title of that column from Mr. Silver?
Forget ‘Lanes.’ The Democratic Primary Is A Whole Freaking Transit System
10
@LT, I would not trust Nate Silver, ever. Not just his sports stats, he got 2016 completely hopelessly wrong. Plain wrong. He can take his smart data mangling and migrate to the sports world, leave politics alone. People like Paul Krugman wrongly gave Nate Silver the pedestal. Nate is symbolic of data without feelings, he does not understand that voters are thinking feeling emotional mental "beings", not numbers alone.
1
As someone who knows exactly why he supports Warren and Sanders, this was a little frustrating. But at least people are excited about many different options for beating Trump next year!
15
@Ted B
Thanks for your comment: brief and to the point. I agree and there are great swaths of the electorate who agree as well. In many polls Bernie beats trump; unfortunately msm marginalizes him.
4
If Iowa voters have voting "idiosyncrasies" that voters in other states do not have it's all the more reason why the undue emphasis and importance placed on the results of the Iowa primary is problematic.
56
@Jay Orchard You might want to consider that Trump lost the Iowa primary in 2016 while running away with the vote in your home state of Florida.
2
@Jay Orchard
I read it differently; I think the real point is that the political pundits we watch on TV and read are always discussing the ideological aspects while most voters are making their choice based on the actual candidate and who they are as a person. I would vote always choose to vote for the nominee with intelligence, integrity and honor...hence, I always end up voting Democrat.
2
It doesn't matter. Caucuses are no way to choose a Presidential candidate.
32
@Travelers
Better than a closed primary.
These voters don't seem concerned about what the most important problems are and how candidates intend to address them. Policies matter. Trump is rolling back every Democratic policy he can identify. Warren and Biden may agree on fundamental values but they have very different approaches to solving problems. For Warren it all about taking on the big corporations and taxing the rich. For Biden it is more about finding bipartisan solutions. Warren is much more politically like Sanders. Biden is much more politically like Hillary Clinton. I don't see this great similarity between Biden and Warren.
10
Regardless of who becomes the final Democratic Presidential ticket, the most important factor is how quickly, how passionately and how unanimously every one of the Democratic also-rans supports that ticket to defeat the incumbent. It's that simple.
It's that complex. It's that vital.
Vote.
406
@Guido Malsh
Indeed. Sanders by not immediately declaring that he is fully supporting Hillary in the last election did great harm to her, and millions of his supporters either didn't vote or voted for a third party candidate, throwing their votes into a trash-bin.
In addition, I did not and do not now like that he is running in the Democratic primaries while keeping his Independent label.
8
"This thing could go anywhere" - good! They're doing their homework - God bless Iowans, every one.
72
@KEF and the fact the top two Republicans were Ted Cruz and Donald Trump?
If you don't mind I'm praying for something a little different.
2
You lead off with a quote from Julie Allen a Medicare consultant - who I take makes money off of supplemental programs that would be covered under a Medicare for All program. When she said Bernie “is past his time” and she is voting for Biden I had to just laugh at your amazing ability to scout out an anti-Medicare for All voter to base you piece on.
Sen Warrens work as a bankruptcy lawyer on the side of Dow Chemical in the breast implant case highlight how she has worked on the side of powerful corporation during her career. She has many plans now as a Democrat after being a Republican, but her actions show that she is willing to be on the side of corporations against the people if it pays well. I’ll stick with Bernie who has stood with the people his whole life.
11
@steve
"You lead off with a quote from Julie Allen a Medicare consultant - who I take makes money off of supplemental programs that would be covered under a Medicare for All program. When she said Bernie “is past his time” and she is voting for Biden I had to just laugh at your amazing ability to scout out an anti-Medicare for All voter to base you piece on."
The first sentence of the column states that Julie Allen is a MEDICAID consultant.
1
@steve The first sentence in this article describes Julie Allen as a *Medicaid* consultant, not Medicare. Two totally different programs. As to what a Medicaid consultant does, I have no idea.
I really like Bernie, but I think Warren is the one. Best prepared, proper presentation.
195
@Mexico Mike Bernie is no slouch. See his one hour interview with Joe Rogan (now seen by over 8 million people and #1 on YouTube)
4
@Mexico Mike, we truly love them both.
5
@Mexico Mike
Warren has ZERO executive experience - she's an academic and she has "plans." She's articulate because she teaches. Of course she explains things well. But can she actually execute anything? She never has. Her plan for the CFPB came true thanks to the politicking of the Dems but she did not implement it nor manage it.
1
Being in the same age bracket mentioned in the article, clearly Joe Biden has faded from my radar over the last few months. Elizabeth Warren has the spirit, knowledge, and details. Pete Buttigieg, smart as a whip, and measured at decision making. Then there's Harris, Booker, and O'Rourke.
Any of these "new" fresh candidates are the ones to carry the Democratic torch.
135
I think Warren is proving herself the best candidate in the race, and I hope she's the nominee. Her progressive vision is right for the times, and her intelligence and commitment to doing what's right is just what the country needs now. I've also been pleased to see her appeal broadening across many different groups of Democratic voters.
For me, it's all about the VP spot now. For that I like Booker and Buttigieg best at this point, though a few others would work too.
266
@617to416 Warren is the “anti-Trump”. She’s the sharpest, most passionate candidate, consistent, prepared, on point and strong in making her ideas easy to digest. Anyone’s who isn’t not direct and consistent, like Biden (presents folksy but sloppy) or Harris (flimsy on core issues and wavers when pushed) is gonna get crushed by Trump.
Paired with Buttigieg, who is also solid on camera, explains issues and positions well, and has military experience, Democrats would have a platform for a very wide range of voters - women, mid-westerners, younger generations, and hard progressives.
17
@617to416 The VP spot is more important than people imagine,Palin was such a bad choice that she crashed McCain's campaign,,
5
I'd like to repeat a comment I've made previously.
We are more like dogs than we would like to think. We respond not to the actual words, but to the tone of voice.
Unfortunately, in many cases, this leads to problems. The speaker could be spouting undiluted applesauce, but we lap it up if it is delivered in a comforting soft voice. c.f. Ronald Reagan, Ben Carson. Also, so many comments against Bernie are about his tone of voice.
23
My husband is from rural Iowa and he is not exactly complimentary about the mental acuity of people from his birthplace. But leaving everything else aside, didn’t Iowa go for Trump in 2016? How well will a socialist candidate be received in this state or in any other state in the Midwest? Actually, a socialist candidate won’t be received well anywhere, including California. If you ask people to vote for policies, not personalities, most independents and a large number of Democrats will rightly reject the Sanders-Warren platform. This is why, despite my husband’s misgivings, I trust the good sense of Iowa voters and hope they will elect a nominee who can actually beat Trump.`
13
@Mor
I would like to push back a little, if I may. First, ANY Democratic ticket is going to win the next general election.
Second, if you poll any Progressive policy, it polls wildly popular and even just popular among republicans.
Third, there are 100,000,000 that sit out any given election due to apathy, disenfranchisement or the like. They are not only waking up, but will have a large portion of them come to the polls for the correct candidate, ticket and especially platform.
They are just begging (have been for quite some time) for a true Liberal, a true Progressive that will put THEM first, and not the rich or the corporation. I think they will finally get that ticket and platform, and I believe they will then come out and drives.
I think that the above, and along with simple demographics are the end of the republican party. It will become a fringe party or regional party at best, never again to hold office.
We shall see.
113
@Mor
The thing is, neither Sanders or Biden are socialists. Sanders is a Social Democrat, Warren a capitalist, who believes government has a role in protecting the consumer. So don’t fall for the false wording.
177
@LFK Sanders is not a social democrat. According to his self-definition, he is a democratic socialist. If you don’t know the difference, I address you to a useful resource: the political breakdown of Norway (so often cited by the clueless American left as Sanders’ model). The Labour Party (Social Democrats) has 27% of the popular vote. Democratic socialists have 6%. I lived in Norway and in Italy. I know exactly what Sanders is. As for Warren, in whatever way he defines herself, her hare-brained scheme of breaking up tech industries permanently disqualifies her for me. In order to regulate something, you have to know what you are regulating. She does not.
1
I’ve read arguments against the gold standard that assert there’s no way you can efficiently base the money supply of a gigantic expanding economy on a metal in short supply.
By analogy I wonder how you can usefully analyze policy and politics and the relation between them by referring to a line that has a left, right, and center.
And I suspect the continuing attempt to do so ends up distorting both politics and policy.
3
A fascinating process, this Democratic primary. Warren and Sanders are indeed a lot alike but Warren has the momentum which will be nearly impossible for Sanders to stop. Sanders is the founding father of today's progressivism but Warren is its political future.
But, alas, Biden could stand in the middle of Park Avenue and gaffe all day and still maintain his current advantage.
70
Except that Ms Warren really is a capitalist. She is not an ideologue. What she opposes are the abuses of capitalism. And those abuses are more dangerous to the system than all of the socialists in the nation combined.
37
@Andy Makar, Bernie is a social democrat. He too takes capitalism for granted. He simply says in the midst of our capitalistic ways, we have to pay attention to minimum wages to health care for all to free public education to taking care of our environment. What in his message sounds like an ideologue to you? Perhaps you don't have kids or grandchildren. If you did, you too would be able to visualize Bernie's vision for our children.
5
@Murray Bolesta
Better Biden's gaffes than Trump's tweets.
5