Imagine yourself at the counter of a Baskin Robbins dairy case.
 |
| Triple Mango |
You have allotted yourself 400 glorious calories, and there they are, in two dozen tubs in front of you.
One big scoop. Choose.
Political pundits are amazed at the sudden way Biden went from death spiral to frontrunner. There was a near instantaneous movement of support to him.
What happened?
The number of choices collapsed. Voters got less picky.
Sanders decisively cleared out Elizabeth Warren in Iowa and New Hampshire. Warren had far and away the best apparent campaign, the biggest crowds, and a message that was Sanders-lite, the presumed sweet spot. It didn't work. Notwithstanding the Oklahoma origin story people perceived her as the meritocracy candidate, the candidate of upper middle class educated people. That was a good niche, but she shared it with Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, and Bloomberg.
Besides, Bernie people wanted Bernie, not Bernie-lite, on policy. Bernie overwhelmed her. This was Bernie's year.
By the New Hampshire contest Democratic voters were not looking into a freezer case and seeing two dozen flavors. They saw one big flavor category, Sanders, and several alternatives to Sanders. Each has strengths and weaknesses, evaluated on multiple scales. Old-young. Male-female. Experience level.
Rumination in front of the freezer case. Berry? Another kind of chocolate? Vanilla? Cookie dough? Nuts? These are whole different categories, evaluated on those multiple scales. That hurt Biden.
Warren was smart woman, Harvard, youthful for her age, talked about corruption, sort of Medicare for All lite, with the Pocahontas thing that made her look silly.
Buttigieg was young and smart and gay, and he seemed exciting but not necessarily ready, kind of chancy. Actually very chancy. Rich people like him.
Klobuchar seemed steady and normal and kind of boring, but solid.
Steyer said anti-corporate stuff, and actually sounds sort of like Bernie, but he is a rich guy and doesn't really draw crowds. He is a preppy Yalie, then Wall Street.
Biden is good old Joe, and there's the Hunter thing, and he rambles.
In this context, Biden was one of many, on multiple scales, and his flaws were very apparent.
Voters in South Carolina had, in effect two choices, Sanders versus Biden. After New Hampshire it was evident that Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer had no real path forward, even though Buttigieg did well. They were in, yes, but they were actually out. And black voters got the message. Biden was the one.
That meant the election got simpler.
That meant the election got simpler.
Super Tuesday was a confirmation of the consolidation. There were really only two flavors after South Carolina. Sanders, the Democratic Socialist promoting change from what he calls a corrupt, rigged system, versus the alternative, Biden, who represents sentimental humanity and kinder, gentler incremental change.
(Bloomberg didn't count. His campaign was vulnerable to the charge that he was only about the ads, not about people. He needed to show he wasn't afraid of live voters. His consultants gave him bad advice, or else he ignored them.)
It came down to two flavors for Democrats: the big change drama guy or the quiet normalcy guy. Voters chose vanilla.
It isn't over yet. Sanders has an opportunity. Sanders can make this a matchup between good change vs. status quo. That could win this for him. After all, Democrats are the party of hope-and-change.
Until now, Sanders embraced divisiveness. He insists he isn't a regular Democrat nor an establishment Democrat, nor that he gets along and works with them. They are part of the oppressor class, sold out followers of the oligarchy. He criticized Obama. He considered running against Obama and he works closely with people who openly say they voted for Jill Stein. Sanders can change emphasis and stop making division and opposition to the wrong kind of Democrat a big part of his message. He is already doing it, showing ads with Obama.
Democrats are picking their alternative to Trump. If the election is Trump vs. Sanders, it will be a contest of normality-Trump versus Socialist disrupter Sanders. If the election is Trump vs. Biden, it will between high drama Trump vs. normality-Biden.
4 comments:
For me the enduring question of the Warren candidacy will be the betrayal of other women. Whatever you may think about her presentation ("meritocracy?") her positions were for strengthening and supporting women. The support of women could have given her the lead from the outset.
What does that mean; that women can be prejudiced against other women even in the age of #metoo? This suggests to me that the backlash against feminism goes much deeper than we may think, and certainly points to the insidious entrenchment of the patriarchy.
While it might not be entirely fair to say this, can some blame be given to Hillary and other women leaders who held back endorsing her until it became too late? It's disappointing that there are so few of us who believe that a woman is the best choice, the most Progressive choice, to oppose Regressives.
The Sanders/Biden choice, regardless of policy differences, represents the patriarchy nonetheless.
Holding my nose from here on...
Two questions:
1. What do the exit polls mean to you?
2. Which do you think is more likely and which has a better chance: Biden w/o Bernie OR Bernie without Biden?
Rick; I could not have stated my positions as well as you did. IMHO, Senator Warren, my 1st choice after it got down to 4 or 5, was undone by misogyny, and as a dear friend puts it, gynephobia. I also think the Mainstream Media played a significant role in this, MSNBC in particular, ignoring her presence more often than not, to the point even their own pundits were calling them out. I'll vote for either, as you say, holding my nose, but, by golly, I'm sick of voting for the lesser evil.
As occurs all too often in our presidential nomination "scrambles" money is the deciding factor. Trump is a such a doofus that everyone became convinced that anyone running against such an ignorant misogynist would emerge victorious. Instead of assembling a brainy group who would immediately judge Biden to be too old, Bloomberg, too unknown and unproven, Sanders too far out in front and the rest of them inconsequential (like Hillary, Warren is of the female persuasion and I suspect that many females would balk, just as they did with Hillary). In short the nomination is won by dealing, chance, personal errors of the mouth and money rather than awarding and endorsing the candidate who possesses the most advantageous virtues. The front running pack that have emerged are no guarantee to bring down the idiot in the White House, but someone like Steve Bullock, the governor of Montana does possess all the attributes so lacking in the aforementioned wannabees. He carries no baggage, is of the right age (53) and can boast of a very successful marriage to very accomplished woman, not a man. Bullock represents progress rather the backward path we have followed since the "just grab'em by the pussy" buffoon has been in the White House. The suggestion above is called "Common Sense", and we haven't shown any since the time of Thomas Paine. '
Bob Warren
Post a Comment