Some much-longer-than I expected thoughts on the Democratic primary

[owlmoose]

It feels like I should call this post "my very preliminary thoughts on the Democratic primary", but with something like 25 people running is that ridiculous? Anyway, in the scheme of things it's still way early, but with the first debate coming up soonish, and many thoughts swirling around in my head, I wanted to set them down in some sort of order. Especially since, unlike most other topics relating to politics, my local friend circle has not been discussing this issue at all, which feels kind of weird, really. Maybe we're all avoiding the topic because of our trauma from last time.

Anyway. So I haven't decided on a candidate yet, but there are folks I'm more and less interested in, and a few "oh hell noes". Of course, it should go without saying that I will support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, because I would support a fiery hat of bees over the current occupant of the White House. But I feel compelled to say it anyway, because it seems like almost any time someone expresses an opinion about the candidates, the trolls descend to demand the disclaimer -- especially if it's a negative opinion about one of the white dudes, funny how that works. So anyway, disclaimer made, and here we go.


Roughly in order of my current interest in them as of this writing:

I was lukewarm on Elizabeth Warren at first. I had concerns about her age, her divisiveness in certain quarters, her somewhat limited political experience (she's only been in politics for a decade), the way she botched handling the Native American ancestry issue. But she has slowly but surely been winning me over, with her focus on policy, her detailed plans for every single thing, the fact that she has a plan for actually implementing these plans, her energy, her fire. If you forced me to say I was supporting any one person right now, she's probably who I'd pick.

Kamala Harris was my early favorite, and she's definitely still in the mix. In part, of course, that's familiarity -- she was my city's DA, and then my state's attorney general, and I was pleased to support her each time, then thrilled to put her in the US Senate. If I have any regret about her running, it's that she didn't do a full turn through the Senate first, because her leadership there has been so important. Obviously, I do not agree with every decision she ever made as my elected official. I think the way you feel about Harris has a lot to do with how you feel about the best way to influence systems. She's been quite clear that she felt like she needed to be a little tougher than she would have preferred, to build a base of power inside the criminal justice system, as a woman, as a person of color. And I don't think she's wrong about that. So the question is: do you prefer to agitate against bad systems from the outside, or work from the inside to make them better? Personally, I think you need people on both routes; she chose the latter, and in my opinion she had some success. She's continued to impress me with her policy positions and her style, and she remains in my top tier of potential candidates.

I'm also intrigued by Julian Castro and Kirsten Gillibrand. Both of them have strong policy plans and seem like they could be exciting campaigners. I want to hear more from both of them, and I really hope they both make the debates. Gillibrand is the only candidate I've given any money so far, for a few reasons. First, I appreciate the way she's campaigned openly as a woman and as a mom, making clear how those two aspects of her identity have affected her policy positions. Second, she's shown herself able to grow and change as her constituency changes (see for example how her position on gun control evolved when she stopped representing a more conservative district in upstate New York and began serving as the senator for the whole state). Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it makes me super angry that people blame her for Al Franken's resignation, and especially that big-money Democratic donors are reportedly punishing her for that. Gillibrand has been strong and consistent in being a person who stands up for women who have been sexually assaulted -- how could she have done otherwise? And let's not forget that many other high-profile Senators also spoke up. The fact that Gillibrand takes the heat for this -- and still does, RIP anyone's mentions who brings her up on Twitter or Facebook -- rather than, oh, how about maybe Al Franken himself? Ugh. I burn with rage.

Anyway, Gillibrand was also the first candidate to bring up universal childcare, and I want her to get a fair shake, and she's in real danger of not making the debate stage, so if you're looking for somewhere to throw a few dollars, you could do a lot worse.

Then we get to the people who might get more of my interest, if they make some changes or break out in the debates in a big way, but I have some level of difference with all of them. Cory Booker is a little too "let's reach across the aisle and all get along and govern with love!" for my tastes right now. Yeah, it worked for Barack Obama, but a lot has changed since 2008. Amy Klobuchar is more of a moderate than I'd prefer. I appreciate the role Jay Inslee might play as a single-issue climate change candidate, and is the only white guy I'd like to see getting more traction. But single-issue candidates are rarely a good bet for my vote. I flirted with supporting Mayor Pete for a little while, but he's even more moderate than Klobuchar, he's super light on actual policy proposals, and he just doesn't have enough experience. (All that said, I appreciate that a gay man has made such inroads in the polls and with the political press. He was on the cover of Time magazine with his husband, and this was not remarkable. That is progress.)

Next is the ever-growing parade of interchangeable white guys, which. Seriously? You all looked at this amazing diverse field of women and men of color with strong experience, and thought "but no, what the world needs is me, me, me!" I am not bothering to pay attention to any of you unless you have a earth-shaking breakout at the debates.

Also no: Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson. No. More. Amateurs. The presidency is not an entry-level position, a truth which the last two years have made abundently clear.

Tulsi Gabbard is my actual last choice. Sorry, I'm not voting for anyone who's cozied up to Assad and displayed that level of homophobia.

So that brings us to Biden and Bernie. Joe Biden clearly has the experience, but he's got two huge strikes against him: his age and his determination to pretend that the Republicans have just been mislead by 45 and if we make Biden president, everything will "get back to normal". First, that's a blatant lie, and given that Biden witnessed GOP obstructionism first hand as Obama's vice president, he has to know it. Second, it's not like "normal" was all that great in the first place. We need a way forward, not a careful walk backwards.

As for Bernie, he lost me, hard, in 2016, and has done basically zero of the work he would need to do to bring me back. And frankly, I don't seem him doing it.

If you don't want to talk about this yet, I entirely understand, but I also welcome conversation. Who do you like, and why? We can also talk about who you don't like, but overall I'd like to keep the conversation more positive. One thing I'd rather not get into is this nebulous (and usually sexist and often racist) concept of "electability". You know what makes someone electable? If we elect them. That could be anyone at this point. We've got a long ways to go, and whoever we choose can win, if we do the work to get them there.

Comments

[sathari]

Oooh, I like this. We are much in accord, including "will support whoever gets the nomination because this is that much of an emergency".

I kind of wish that instead of debating, or at least in addition to it, the Dems would do some kind of "cooperative game" roundtable discussions to divide up the assorted positions in an administration--- who's best for President and VP, and whose interests and talents might be better for the various Cabinet positions, and why. It'd be transparency in action, it would get away from the "doing the GOP's oppo research for them" and "wasting money in the primaries" issues, it would be a gloriously radical departure from the classic mudslinging we're all used to, and, especially for the younger candidates, it would let them boost their profiles and let everyone show their strengths without too much scuffling.

Sadly, that's about as likely as getting a 25th Amendment intervention on the Oval's current occupant.

That said:

I'm totally with you about Warren and Harris--- love them both! I think Warren has the policy proposals down cold, and (sorry for touching on "electability" here) if I thought enough voters in this country picked for actual competence at the job and did things like reading candidates' policy statements and thinking about them, I would be all in for her (with Harris as VP and the two of them collaborating to set up for Harris' future run, possibly as early as 2024 because Warren is not young), but I was harshly disabused of that notion in 2016.

Harris has more of the sort of charm and flair that will appeal to the "have a beer with the candidate" and "they have to inspire me" voters on the Dem side--- not to mention that watching her debate Trump would be amazing. I'd also like to see that brand of charm and strength representing us on the world stage--- I think having her as our President would do a lot to restore our international image on a lot of levels (I can see her having some "joyful warrior" words for the assorted dictators who've been getting petted and coddled in this maladministration, for one thing). She's not leading with policy, but, see above, that may be a good thing, and not leading with it doesn't mean she doesn't have it--- she does, she's just leading with other stuff, and I think she's got good tactical/strategic sense about how to actually accomplish her goals, as her approach to her previous jobs in an executive branch shows.

I would like Jay Inslee better if he would campaign as "Hey, those great proposals the other candidates are putting forward? Those are things we did in Washington state in my administration," and talk about his executive experience putting a wide array of progressive policies into play--- the throughline or common theme of the campaign can be environmental, but even at a local level I like my candidates to have an entire platform and not just a plank regardless of what they pick as a signature issue, let alone when I'm helping to pick a President.

I'm very cool with Klobuchar and Mayor Pete, though I'd rather see the latter go for governorship of his home state, and do to Pence's policies what Trump is doing to Obama's, namely bring a wrecking ball. John Hickenlooper's "politics of joy" approach warms my heart and he can be Harris' veep if she wants him, though I'd rather see Harris/Warren or Harris/Buttegieg.

I haven't seen or heard enough from Castro to have an opinion. I love Cory Booker... right where he is in the Senate; he's doing a good job there.

The eleventy-jillion other white dudes? Sit down and stop sucking up the air, boys, except for Steve Bullock who needs to run, but for Montana Senate instead. (I get that it is not his first love but sometimes we have to take one for the team, children, and we need a Senate majority as well as the Oval.)

I cosign completely on the subject of Tulsi Gabbard. She can go join the Republican Party where she belongs. Ditto the amateur-hour contestants.

To your critiques of Biden I concur and would add a somewhat harsh but possibly necessary concern: the man was, understandably, incapacitated by his son's death--- and his wife and other family are getting up in years. All I am saying is that he needs to have a strong VP and a clear 25th Amendment plan for transfer-of-power to her in the event that he gets knocked out of cope by a family tragedy. (ETA: It's not that other candidates wouldn't be, again understandably, hurt by the loss of a loved one, it's that we have Biden having been rather publicly floored by a loss, and needing to address what he'd do in that instance--- there's a level on which his VP would be very much running as a potential President. I'm seeing the potential for unfortunate comparisons to Calvin Coolidge here.) And two more words: Anita Hill. I don't think he quite understands what he did there and that doesn't augur well for him.

Bernie was a certain hostile foreign power's other pet candidate and I have had quite enough of THAT. The best thing he could do for the country would be to make a lovely speech about how he's never colluded with them and wouldn't dream of it, blah-blah, but since he was the only other favorite pick of said hostile foreign power he's going to model correct behavior for a candidate who was the recipient of foreign intervention on his behalf and step down. (Alternately, if this were the sort of "work across the aisle" time like Booker and Biden speak of, the DNC and RNC would mutually agree to eliminate their respective foreign-pet candidates from party support--- let 'em run as independents if they must--- but these are not those times.) (That's not my sole critique of him, but that's the dealbreaker, and I'm trying to stay positive.)

[owlmoose]

I kind of wish that instead of debating, or at least in addition to it, the Dems would do some kind of "cooperative game" roundtable discussions to divide up the assorted positions in an administration--- who's best for President and VP, and whose interests and talents might be better for the various Cabinet positions, and why. It'd be transparency in action, it would get away from the "doing the GOP's oppo research for them" and "wasting money in the primaries" issues, it would be a gloriously radical departure from the classic mudslinging we're all used to, and, especially for the younger candidates, it would let them boost their profiles and let everyone show their strengths without too much scuffling.

It sounds fascinating as an exercise, although a little too reminiscent of backroom dealing for my tastes as a way of actually choosing a president. :) But as a way of getting people's ideas and strengths and weaknesses out there, I like it!

Yeah, I didn't even get into Biden's Anita Hill problem. I also have issues with his handsiness. He's really not done a good job of reading the room on either issue, and it doesn't bode well for his campaign.

[sathari]

It sounds fascinating as an exercise, although a little too reminiscent of backroom dealing for my tastes as a way of actually choosing a president. :) But as a way of getting people's ideas and strengths and weaknesses out there, I like it!

:D Thanks. And having it done in public, with polling afterward, would take some of the backroominess out of it, and, hell, maybe insert a little more direct democracy into the Cabinet-selection process. At least as political theater it has the virtue of "we're all in this together."

Yeah, Biden is... not necessarily the candidate for the moment. If he'd run in 2016, it'd have been one thing. In the current moment, though, no. As you say, he's not reading the room--- he's just bulling ahead with what he wants to do, and I do not like that.

And! I forgot to talk about Kirsten Gillibrand! Whom I am very all right with though definitely not more than Harris and Warren. I like that she talks about how she moved positions on gun control--- contrary to what might be conventional wisdom, I like my elected officials to be people who can reconsider prior positions based on factors like "new information" and "now represents a constituency with different needs and opinions from the one they represented when they held their previous position"--- she showed with that that she is willing to represent all the people she serves, and I like that.

[krait]

Good thoughts! Including "fiery hat of bees to be preferred to incumbent," and "Bernie has not done the homework assigned," alas.

do you prefer to agitate against bad systems from the inside, or work from the inside

Was one of those insides supposed to be an outside?

Don't know how I feel about Gillibrand yet; "my identity/most important identity is A Mom" is one of those things that I generally have strong negative reactions to (oh, a woman whose identity is defined by her reproductive status and children, how groundbreaking!) no matter what individual good points they might raise, but I try not to let the kneejerk reaction have the final say on anything. So we'll see!

[owlmoose]

Was one of those insides supposed to be an outside?

Oops, yes. I will fix!

I hear you on the mom thing. It would bother me more if it 1. didn’t seem so genuine and 2. all the other female candidates were also doing it. But so far she’s the only one really going that route.

[krait]

Genuine doesn't do much for me (lots of women genuinely define themselves by their kids, and I still don't think that's a good thing) but I do appreciate that she's directing it appropriately.

All too often when I see someone on a TV screen say something starting with, "As a mom, I..." what they mean is As someone with no experience relevant to the topic at hand, which is part of my kneejerk NOPE reaction. (And let's be real, what they REALLY mean is As a Republican with no experience relevant to the topic at hand, 99% of the time!) 'As a mom' your opinion on the opioid crisis or housing costs or Congressional salaries or mayoral term limits or how many cats is too many cats holds no weight; sit down and let me hear from people with actual insight, please.

[worlds_of_smoke]

I'm for either Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand has focused strongly on LGBT issues, including trans issues, which is really refreshing.

Biden and Sanders are the two that I really, really hope don't get the nomination. I'll vote for them if they get it, but it will certainly be a "hold my nose and vote against Trump" vote. They both are clearly in it for their own egos and, if they really cared about the good of the nation, they'd throw their heft behind someone younger who aligns with their values. That's how they could really make a huge difference for the nation.

[owlmoose]

Gillibrand has focused strongly on LGBT issues, including trans issues, which is really refreshing.

I didn't even know that about her, and that's fantastic. I really hope she gets some more traction soon!

They both are clearly in it for their own egos and, if they really cared about the good of the nation, they'd throw their heft behind someone younger who aligns with their values. That's how they could really make a huge difference for the nation.

Indeed. I could maybe, maybe see Biden shifting in that direction if he flames out early, but Sanders would never.

[worlds_of_smoke]

She's also come out and said that we need to do something about POC trans women getting murdered, IIRC. She also came out with a plan to protect LGBT rights recently.

Yeah, I've lost any respect for Sanders I had. I get he thinks he's going to help the nation, but he's really just risking another split vote because Bernie Bros are likely to pull another 2016 if he doesn't get the nomination. They're all about ideological purity and, if you're not Sanders, you're not pure enough.

[sathari]

Biden and Sanders are the two that I really, really hope don't get the nomination. I'll vote for them if they get it, but it will certainly be a "hold my nose and vote against Trump" vote. They both are clearly in it for their own egos and, if they really cared about the good of the nation, they'd throw their heft behind someone younger who aligns with their values.

THIS. SO much. YES. Especially with Bernie--- he has the perfect avenue for that: "Yes, look at all these candidates embracing my positions! I'm so proud to have been such an influence! I'm going to cheer on the younger generation and pass the torch while I still have time to enjoy watching them run with it!" But, no, alas, as you say, it's about his own ego.

[worlds_of_smoke]

It's really frustrating because I voted for Bernie in the primaries last time around! And it really worries me that we're going to get another split vote because Bernie Bros will refuse to vote for anyone who's not Sanders. If that happens, we'll basically be handing the presidency to Trump again.

[cygna_hime]

As a NJ resident, I was initially cautiously positive about Booker - I feel he's done good, solid work as my senator, work I didn't have to constantly lean on him to do - but at this point I really wish he'd stuck with being my senator.

Warren has really caught my attention with her policy proposals; of course, as a Smart Girl I appreciate the Smart Girl look more than seems to be average. But seriously, I feel the need for competence much more than charisma.

[owlmoose]

That is good to know about Booker, though. In another time, I would have really appreciated his style of leadership. But it just seems like a mismatch for the current state of government. I will say, I had a bit of the same feeling about Harris, although at least she'll still have her seat if she loses. Is Booker's seat up for re-election in 2020?

I actually had the same initial thought about Warren -- that I preferred her as a leader in the Senate. But she's looking more and more like an executive leader to me. And actually, I am hearing that, in person, she has the charisma, too. If true, it could be a potent combination.

[cygna_hime]

I actually am not sure? I haven't been keeping track. Let me see...Yes, actually, it is! That's unfortunate.

[lassarina]

My top two are Harris and Booker, with Warren a close third. Booker for a lot of the reasons said by cygna_hime above - that and, his tendency to talk about cooperative solutions aside, when he makes a statement on events/policy (e.g. gun control, choice) he makes it very clear that those things are not up for discussion and is expressing the views I want a politician to express. He had a tweet when Georgia and Alabama did the thing that, paraphrased, was "this isn't about wives, mothers, sisters--it's about PEOPLE" and I really liked that shift in framing.

Harris I'm less directly familiar with, but I do like the way she has addressed criticism about her past positions and changed them--being progressive is being willing to progress, and I think she absolutely knows the law and the job and the responsibility.

I am interested in Warren's detailed policies, if a tiny bit "sigh" about the likelihood of many of them ever getting enacted (but might as well reach.)

Julian Castro has some excellent policy proposals, particularly around immigration, that I like, but I feel like he maybe doesn't have the right experience this time. 2024/8?

Gillibrand I'd be okay with, but she doesn't break my top three.

And every single white guy can go take a beach vacation while women and POC get the real work done, as we always do.

[seventhe]

im referring to all the old white guys as "chad" until further notice. chad 1, chad 2, etc.