Everything Flows

I made a flow chart....

The NYT stops being polite and starts getting... "real"

The New York Times editorial board listens to Amy Klobuchar

I watched that NYT endorsement show, where the editorial board meets with the candidates as part of their endorsement process... it was interesting, if silly.  As others have noted, they basically turned the process into a reality tv show, which is pretty much where we already were anyway.

A few quick points:

First, while the folks on the NYT editorial board don't seem like idiots, nor do they seem particularly more informed or insightful than most people I know. They're just people taking their best guess at this, using the same bs metrics all the rest of us are using, trying to figure it out. (Some argue the 'endorsement' of Biden from the building's elevator operator may be more significant than that of the editorial board.) The confusing 'double endorsement' of completely different candidates just reenforces that they're as clueless as the rest of us.

Another thing that stuck out for me involved their take on my man Andrew Yang. Basically they liked him and thought he had good ideas (without really grappling with those ideas, which after all are quite a bit different than those of all the other candidates)... but basically just dismissed him because he has no previous elected government experience. And, I will admit, that's a valid argument! It's something that concerns me as well. 

But one of them made a comment that to my mind actually deflated the significance of this factor: something to the effect of "we already have someone with no government experience in the WH, and we see how that's going." That made me chuckle... as if Donald Trump had only had a few years being governor or a senator then he'd be doing a better job as president. Trump's flaws clearly have nothing to do with his lack of experience: at this point he has three years experience being President and he is clearly getting worse at the job, not better. 

Holding Trump up as a point of reference seems to actually strengthen the case for Yang in my opinion: Yang, in contrast to Trump, clearly has the the kind of temperament and thoughtful approach to issues that one would want to see in a President, which is obviously more important than "experience.". On the other hand Trump's lack of government experience does highlight that that is clearly not a barrier to getting elected (it may even work to a candidate's advantage)... so if electability is our most important metric (as it should be) then perhaps we should not be placing such weight on this factor. 

Now, I get it: at this moment voters are not comparing Yang to Trump, but to the other Dems running for the nomination. In that context, all things being equal, I would prefer a candidate that has government experience. I think there are nuances to getting the bureaucratic gears turning that would be helpful for a President to already understand going in.

But it's not the only thing to consider. If there were a candidate with government experience who seemed to understand both the desperate need for change in this country AND that running just a more extreme version of the same game plan as before will simply continue to divide the country, creating more partisan gridlock and the familiar frustrations of the Obama years... someone who "got" the urgent need provide relief to struggling families without playing into the 'givers/takers' paradigm that turns so many voters off ... then of course I would vote for that person! But no one like that is running, so I'm left choosing between the person who does get all that stuff and... people with government experience. 

As a side note: I've come to realize even supporters of Bernie's "revolution" don't think anything significant will change under a Sanders admin... they just want someone at least arguing for full-throated revolution while the government stagnates under what they see as inevitable gridlock.  (Good to know they don't buy into all that 'revolution' crap, but still...) Meanwhile Biden's peddling fantasies of future bi-partisan cooperation, which are preposterous on their face. Yang's the only one thinking about how to scramble and re-align our politics to get us out of this awful stalemate. It may be a long-shot plan, but at least it's a plan!

Long story short: I feel Yangs strengths outweigh his weaknesses. If someone finds his lack of government experience disqualifying I can respect that. I just felt the NYT discussion of Yang if anything exposed some of the weaknesses of that line of thinking.


Finally, the show reenforced my belief that we lost a notably talented candidate with the exit of Cory Booker. 

Freedom of Choice (is what you got)

“This is an election that will have such profound impact so take your vote seriously. And for the Democratic voters, try to vote for the person you think is most likely to win because at the end of the day that is what will matter. And not just the popular vote, but the electoral college too.” 

— Hillary Clinton, quoted by Variety.

As usual I'm with HRC: electability remains my first, second and third priority. Of course, what does that mean? Who is most likely to win? It's still a hard question to answer.  I end up counting 6 candidates running for President that I would at least consider voting for.  Generally I lean towards supporting more moderate voices that I feel would have wider appeal, but I can see other points of view.

I found this argument from Warren stirring, for example, even if it didn't completely persuade me (yet). (watch the last 32 seconds)

Speaking of Warren, this article makes the case for choosing her. It's in depth and worthwhile. It talks about her strengths in bending bureaucracies in her preferred direction ("personnel is policy"). It argues her skills would be especially valuable with a divided government that would make progress difficult to achieve through conventional means (passing laws, etc).  I would just note, however, that it makes the case why she would be a good President, but not so much about why she would be a good candidate.  

This video clip of Warren campaigning prior to the midterms perfectly captures both her appeal to people like me, and why I think much of America would hate her.  "Angry woman fights back" is not a popular genre in this country. 

All that said I won't rule out voting for her. She's smart, has strong values but with a pragmatic streak, and she is "persistent." :)


Then again I also wouldn't rule out voting for 'Sleepy Joe.' I don't think he really has any sense of purpose or vision, but his flaws aren't ones that I think most Americans would really hold against him. Beyond just being a generally decent person, his electability is really the only thing he's got going for him... but that ain't nothing!

So... about Bernie.  I wanted to share a couple articles I found helpful: a 'pro' and a 'con.'

The 'pro' is from the same series of articles that made the case for Warren above. It makes the somewhat counter-intuitive (to me, at least) case that he could be the most electable of the current Democratic front-runners. Worth considering.

But if you are considering voting for him you owe it to yourself to also read this article arguing he is un-electable, which I find ultimately more persuasive. 

I guess the counter-counter argument is maybe voters don't even care about plans/ideas at all, and really are just voting for who they find more 'authentic.' Sanders is nothing if not 'authentic,' that I will give him. But to simply assume most voters will ignore everything mentioned in the article above seems like a risky bet, and one not supported by history.

I think Sanders has a good shot at winning the nomination for the same reason Trump won the Republican nomination last time: no one wants to attack him because if they win they'll need his voters to show up for them. He's never been truly tested by anything like the onslaught of negative attacks that would come were he to be the nominee. There's certainly no shortage of material to turn him into Che Guevara in the eyes of the public. I think this can be very difficult to appreciate for those of us living in liberal enclaves surrounded by like-minded people. It's a big country, and most of it is quite different than what we experience. 

I'd also like to give a brief nod to Klobuchar, who I think is a more articulate, dynamic version of Biden. This article makes a strong case she would be a great candidate to take on Trump.  She would of course face the same uphill battle that any woman would face. (As I've noted before the issue is less people saying 'I won't vote for a woman' as it is people making all sorts of negative assumptions about women without consciously even connecting it to their gender. See: Clinton, Hillary.) That said she has a proven track record of winning elections by significantly higher margins than other Dems on the same ballot.

She also makes the valid point that a candidate with coattails (meaning someone who does so well that Dems pick up more seats in Congress as well) would actually be able to accomplish more liberal goals than a more strident candidate who ekes out a victory while negatively affecting down-ballot races, ensuring they face a defiant Congress. 

If Klobuchar catches on I could imagine voting for her.

It's unlikely I'd vote for Bloomberg, but man... he's spending some real money! I read he's already spent more on this election than was spent on Obama's entire 2012 reelection campaign. 😮 And it's focused on taking down Trump, not other Dems. And he's said he's willing to spend up to a billion dollars to defeat Trump, even if it's Sanders or Warren on the ticket (who he admits not caring for). I'm not gonna bad mouth someone like that. And I won't completely rule out voting for him. He'd be a strong candidate.

I actually like Buttigieg (he seems to inspire a special kind of revulsion in some people, haha)... but his support in the black community is in the single digits... by which I mean the actual number of his black supporters 😂. A Democrat cannot get elected without strong support from African Americans. He's got a bright future ahead of him I'm sure, but this is not the role for him.

I was hoping Deval Patrick might make some waves because from what I've read about him he seems like he could be a really strong candidate. But I hardly ever hear anything about him. It's like he's barely even running. I wish he'd get on it, because he brings a lot to the table. But it's probably too late at this point.

I still think my guy Yang would be both an excellent candidate and President, for reasons I outlined here. California, where I currently live, votes on 'super Tuesday,' immediately after the first four states.  If Yang cracks the top four in any of the early states I will certainly vote for him... and maybe even if he doesn't.  

I remember way back in 2004 I was excited about Howard Dean, but by the time the race came to New York, where I lived at the time, he was toast and it was down to Kerry and Edwards. For some reason I thought Edwards was preferable of the two so I voted for him. I came to regret that... of course Edwards ended up being kind of a creep, but also I really liked Dean and I felt like I should have stayed true to myself. 

Yang has really inspired me and I feel like even if (as seems likely) he doesn't catch on this time his ideas will persevere, because they are good ones. And, hey, it's not too late for him to catch on... anything could happen! 🤷

But I probably won't decide who to vote for until pretty much the day of. It's that kind of election!

P.S. Here's a Youtube playlist I put together of mostly UBI/tech/Yang videos, with a few on Russian disinformation as well. Lots of good stuff in there!