 |
| Warren |
Different politics, different styles.
Warren is acting like a star. Klobuchar is acting like a legislator.
Each of them had their hour with Native Americans in Sioux City, Iowa. Seeing them back to back, speaking about Native American issues, put a focus on presentations.
Warren has the presidential charisma piece.
In a normal Town Hall type free for all it would be quite evident that Warren and Klobuchar are in different policy lanes. Warren wants more dramatic change, "systemic change" as she puts it. She doesn't say "revolution" or "socialism" but she takes a sharper attack on the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry, on the overall system. She is contesting Sanders as the electable progressive.
Klobuchar is the midwest moderate, in a crowded lane.
The singular focus on Native American issues at this event, and the fact that both of them have similar records of full, engaged sympathy with those issues, means that policy was a tie game. They both promise more money, more Indian-friendly policies, and becoming a total friend in the White House if elected.
That changes the focus to style, how each presented her total embrace of Indian issues.
Elizabeth Warren is animated. Her voice goes up and down in expressions of empathy for Indians, outrage at Trump, frustration with bad government. Warren oozes emotional intensity. Warren is selling.
Klobuchar is even-toned, serious, professional. Klobuchar describes. Klobuchar is calming. She projects enormous professional competence as a senator. But she is no rock star.
It is easier to show than to describe. Here is Klobuchar:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua5_rX2iQSQ
Here is Warren. Warren's clip is longer but there is no need to watch all 3 minutes. After thirty seconds the difference is fully apparent:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S6F0kaltIng
 |
| Klobuchar |
Some readers may worry that Warren is too progressive for today's electorate, and think a moderate-sounding, bipartisan Minnesota-nice candidate might be a stronger matchup against Trump. On policy grounds that might be right, although readers on the Bernie-progressive left disagree strongly. But this event sharpened my attention to who would shine as brightly as Trump when seen side by side.
Who looks like C-SPAN, vs. who looks like reality TV? Who would voters actually pay attention to?
Warren is on fire. Klobuchar is mellow. Warren is theatrical, overplaying her emotions, like an actress on stage making sure she is understood even in the balcony seats. That risks turning off some people, who might read her as over-excited and radical.
But she is more interesting to watch. If the Trump era taught us anything, it is that a politician needs to attract attention in order to communicate and lead.
Klobuchar would not be out argued by Trump, but she would be out-shined by his bigger than life manner. I suspect the meta message of a Trump-Klobuchar matchup would be that a lion is engaging a smart, reliable antelope. It would be a simple story of dominant vs. agreeable, weak vs. strong, engaging vs. impersonal.
If voters really want low-drama, then Klobuchar will rise to the top. But to be noticed as the low drama Democratic alternative to Trump, she has to be noticed, and one does that by being interesting enough to cut through the clutter.
7 comments:
The Presidency was a unique construct when created at the Constitutional Convention in the 1780s. For not only is the President the head of government, as is a Prime Minister, but also the head of State, as is a sovereign King or Queen. So we will be choosing not only a Margaret Thatcher or Justin Trudeau, but also a Queen Elizabeth or Louis XIV. In either case, whomever the Dems nominate will be running against neither a head of State nor head of government, but rather against a tribal leader.
One wonders if Sen. Warren had run in 2016, rather than bow to the Party's designated driver, if the outcome might have been different. If the candidates seem manic, it's only out of concern that the complacency of '16 isn't repeated.
I think it's hard to overstate the urgency.
Does Warren Sounds Unstable?
Perhaps, but it’s not her fault, that’s just how she’s perceived. Why? Mostly because of gender stereotypes in America that don't operate as strongly in Western Europe. See, “Testing the Double Standard for Candidate Emotionality: Voter Reactions to the Tears and Anger of Male and Female Politicians”, Journal of Politics (https://bit.ly/2MtLFN0), and “Are women ‘Too Emotional’ for Public Office?”, Salon (https://bit.ly/2MsJbyC). That’s why an unsustainably large portion of Democrats think no woman can beat Trump. See, “Democrats Worry That A Female Candidate Can't Beat Trump: Poll”, Newsweek (Aug. 15, 2019, https://bit.ly/2N2MThM). She talks too fast, gesticulates too much, and her facial expressions convey unsettling urgency of all she says is wrong with America. She looks reactionary because she actually is reactionary. In the debates, way too many voters see her high intensity calls for reform as “crazy” sounding, her stellar moment to progressives was when she said she “can’t understand” why moderates don't run on her “structural change” platform. Watch her attack moderate John Delaney because he won’t fight the banks and corporate establishment (which employ most voters)on the grounds they "hold our government by the throat”, (https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1156377058001457152?lang=en). Her entire message is “America is a capitalist pig racist country”. Watch, “Democratic Debate: Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Opening Answer”, NBC New York (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkrNf-rjog). She would not do well on a debate stage against Trump, who in every debate speaks slowly and launches calm but brutal attacks on those who “don’t love America”. Watch, “Trump Invokes 9/11 to Defend 'New York Values' From Ted Cruz”, https://time.com/4181975/republican-debate-trump-defends-new-york/.
Hopefully America’s first woman president won’t be Ivanka or another Republican. But I’m sure most Democrats are right when they say it won’t be Elizabeth Warren.
We're going to have to suffer 10 1/2 more months of primaries, town halls, debates, campaign stops, and caucuses before we get down to a single D nominee and R nominee, unless, of course the candidates make the voters suffer by running independent campaigns right up to November.
The 17 or so Rs who ran in 2016 brought us Trump. What will the 24 orso Ds bring us?
I prefer the smoke filled room so the campaigns can focus on policy and winning. Much preferred over a real life example of Survivor!
Biden, Bernie, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg are such poor candidates, that you have to think that the eventual Democratic Party nominee is NOT even currently in the race.
In other words, the current candidates are so poor, that expect someone like Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton to enter the race at some point, selling themselves as the savior against an apparent republican landslide win.
I would disagree...ONLY a woman can defeat El Señor. let's not lose sight of the important goals: a woman in the White House, a rebuke to the Regressives, Medicare for all and, oh yeah...some indictments.
Rick's most recent comment is not an argument that will win over many NAV voters.
Post a Comment