Ezra Klein: Warren and Booker offer two very different “antidotes” to Trump

[Beet]

Guys, Booker and Obama both know and knew you can't be the angry black man. O/c the angry white woman is no better, but Warren isn't calculating enough to care. But notice how most people say she would be a poor candidate.

A lot of people on here are also saying Booker would be a poor candidate as well.

So? It doesn't change that in his mind, Booker knows he would have no chance as the angry black man.

What's your point about Warren being a poor candidate because women can't be angry?

That is my point. Warren comes off as too angry for a woman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because Booker isn't a woman. But black men can't be angry, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, he could attack Hillary ruthlessly, because she's the victim of sexist double standards. But his overarching campaign was one of Hope and Change, and going to places like Idaho and North Dakota saying that Red America and Blue America should get along, and Democrats and Republicans can get along. Anything else is historical revisionism, to serve what ends I don't know.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Guys, Booker and Obama both know and knew you can't be the angry black man. O/c the angry white woman is no better, but Warren isn't calculating enough to care. But notice how most people say she would be a poor candidate.

A lot of people on here are also saying Booker would be a poor candidate as well.

So? It doesn't change that in his mind, Booker knows he would have no chance as the angry black man.

What's your point about Warren being a poor candidate because women can't be angry?

That is my point. Warren comes off as too angry for a woman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because Booker isn't a woman. But black men can't be angry, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, he could attack Hillary ruthlessly, because she's the victim of sexist double standards. But his overarching campaign was one of Hope and Change, and going to places like Idaho and North Dakota saying that Red America and Blue America should get along, and Democrats and Republicans can get along. Anything else is historical revisionism, to serve what ends I don't know.

Beetposting at its finest.

[uti2]

Sure, he could attack Hillary ruthlessly, because she's the victim of sexist double standards. But his overarching campaign was one of Hope and Change, and going to places like Idaho and North Dakota saying that Red America and Blue America should get along, and Democrats and Republicans can get along. Anything else is historical revisionism, to serve what ends I don't know.

That's not what gave the Obama the edge to win the primary though. Obama only beat Hillary by less than 100 delegates and lost the popular vote. If Obama had run as a pure centrist candidate, praising Wall Street and Free Trade, and supporting interventionism, the far-left wouldn't have bothered to show up to vote for him, and Hillary would've won. Obama won precisely due to his left-wing streak.

[uti2]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

Hillary actually outpolled Obama v. Mccain in '08. Obama '08 is comparable to Cruz '16 as a grassroots organization willing to pander to extremists to win a primary vs. a constrained and toned down establishment campaign.

[I Won - Get Over It]

About Obama...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f4tZFZ_-g

If he'd stay true to himself, he'd be even greater.


Hope, Trump's learned Obama's lesson.

[Mr. Morden]

O/c the angry white woman is no better, but Warren isn't calculating enough to care. But notice how most people say she would be a poor candidate.

Beet, I'm curious as to what you think about Gillibrand.  She's as calculating as anyone but (like Warren and unlike Booker) seems eager to go after Trump, without expressing any guilt over it.  But her style seems quite different from Warren, and she embraces her identity as a woman in a way that doesn't seem comparable to any other female politician I'm aware of.  By which I mean, she's laser focused on a female-friendly set of issues:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=256498.0

and even talks about getting emotional because of hormones:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261858.msg5595918#msg5595918

Does that soften the edge on any "angry woman" problems in your mind, or does it just make it worse, because she's so often reminding people that she's a woman?

What we might be witnessing is a divergence between primary and general election strategies.  I'm not sure these "anger" problems are going to have more downside than upside in the primary, but it might be different in the general election.

[Beet]

O/c the angry white woman is no better, but Warren isn't calculating enough to care. But notice how most people say she would be a poor candidate.

Beet, I'm curious as to what you think about Gillibrand.  She's as calculating as anyone but (like Warren and unlike Booker) seems eager to go after Trump, without expressing any guilt over it.  But her style seems quite different from Warren, and she embraces her identity as a woman in a way that doesn't seem comparable to any other female politician I'm aware of.  By which I mean, she's laser focused on a female-friendly set of issues:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=256498.0

and even talks about getting emotional because of hormones:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261858.msg5595918#msg5595918

Does that soften the edge on any "angry woman" problems in your mind, or does it just make it worse, because she's so often reminding people that she's a woman?

What we might be witnessing is a divergence between primary and general election strategies.  I'm not sure these "anger" problems are going to have more downside than upside in the primary, but it might be different in the general election.

Whenever I see Gillibrand, she has such a cheery personality & smile plastered on her face, even her anger doesn't seem that threatening. I agree that this is better. However, I don't think building a brand around her identity is going to tap into the very real populist sentiment that still abounds. Only people like Gabbard and Ro Khanna are really going for the jugular that is going to help in a primary & bring in young people. In the general, none of them are that strong.

[henster]

I think Booker may have trouble passing the 'commander in chief test' for voters he really does seem like a lightweight. Being a vegan and unmarried does not help either.

[TheSaint250]

I think Booker may have trouble passing the 'commander in chief test' for voters he really does seem like a lightweight. Being a vegan and unmarried does not help either.

I'd trust him as commander-in-chief.  Obviously, I would prefer a Republican, but he doesn't seem like a crazy dude.

[7,052,770]

I think Booker may have trouble passing the 'commander in chief test' for voters he really does seem like a lightweight. Being a vegan and unmarried does not help either.

Watch Street Fight and you won't think he's a lightweight at all.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Booker is the antidote to Trump and Warren will win reelection.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cory Booker is such a fraud.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/democrat-cory-booker-defends-jared-kushner-after-receiving-loads-of-campaign-cash/

[Confused Democrat]

Here's why I like Warren better than Booker and why I think she'd whoop his ass in a Democratic primary.

Unlike Booker, Warren has an overarching message and has had one throughout her entire career in politics. She's the firebrand progressive politician who's made it her mission to combat Wall Street's increasingly powerful influence in Washington. She's accredited with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has built her image around being a champion for the "little guy." Not to mention, she hails from the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Booker, on the other hand, is an enigma. He's a product of the Democratic establishment, and it's clear that the party leadership has been grooming him for a presidential run in the future. Why does Booker want to become President exactly? I don't know, and that what I don't like about him. His positives are all superficial. Young, black, charismatic, etc. Theres no substance.

That's just my two cents.

[henster]

Here's why I like Warren better than Booker and why I think she'd whoop his ass in a Democratic primary.

Unlike Booker, Warren has an overarching message and has had one throughout her entire career in politics. She's the firebrand progressive politician who's made it her mission to combat Wall Street's increasingly powerful influence in Washington. She's accredited with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has built her image around being a champion for the "little guy." Not to mention, she hails from the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Booker, on the other hand, is an enigma. He's a product of the Democratic establishment, and it's clear that the party leadership has been grooming him for a presidential run in the future. Why does Booker want to become President exactly? I don't know, and that what I don't like about him. His positives are all superficial. Young, black, charismatic, etc. Theres no substance.

That's just my two cents.

Despite his problems I think Booker would be a stronger candidate than Warren by virtue of him being young and black. He's more likely to juice up black turnout than Warren and being 47 he'd be a good contrast to Trump who'd be 74.

[Beet]

That may be, but I wish the Democrats would reduce their addiction on goosing up the black vote. It just contributes to racial polarization, and racism. It means when the GOP (inevitably) is in power, they got into power without black support, so they feel free to be as racist as possible. Ideally, the Democratic party should pursue a strategy that will result in ethnic depolarization. Admittedly this has nothing to do with what's good for the Democrats, but it would be good for the country, so I selfishly want it.

[henster]

That may be, but I wish the Democrats would reduce their addiction on goosing up the black vote. It just contributes to racial polarization, and racism. It means when the GOP (inevitably) is in power, they got into power without black support, so they feel free to be as racist as possible. Ideally, the Democratic party should pursue a strategy that will result in ethnic depolarization. Admittedly this has nothing to do with what's good for the Democrats, but it would be good for the country, so I selfishly want it.

Juiced up black turnout is one of the reasons Obama kept the Midwest blue, especially Ohio.

[Confused Democrat]

Here's why I like Warren better than Booker and why I think she'd whoop his ass in a Democratic primary.

Unlike Booker, Warren has an overarching message and has had one throughout her entire career in politics. She's the firebrand progressive politician who's made it her mission to combat Wall Street's increasingly powerful influence in Washington. She's accredited with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has built her image around being a champion for the "little guy." Not to mention, she hails from the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Booker, on the other hand, is an enigma. He's a product of the Democratic establishment, and it's clear that the party leadership has been grooming him for a presidential run in the future. Why does Booker want to become President exactly? I don't know, and that what I don't like about him. His positives are all superficial. Young, black, charismatic, etc. Theres no substance.

That's just my two cents.

Despite his problems I think Booker would be a stronger candidate than Warren by virtue of him being young and black. He's more likely to juice up black turnout than Warren and being 47 he'd be a good contrast to Trump who'd be 74.

This country is going down the tubes fast.

[Mr. Morden]

it's clear that the party leadership has been grooming him for a presidential run in the future.

I don't think it works that way.  The party leadership isn't grooming him.  He's grooming himself.  No one has to ask him to accept invitations to talk to news outlets in New Hampshire.  He does that on his own initiative because he wants to be president, and has for years.

[Confused Democrat]

it's clear that the party leadership has been grooming him for a presidential run in the future.

I don't think it works that way.  The party leadership isn't grooming him.  He's grooming himself.  No one has to ask him to accept invitations to talk to news outlets in New Hampshire.  He does that on his own initiative because he wants to be president, and has for years.

Maybe you're right. All the more reason to be suspicious of his ambitions.

[Shadows]

Here's why I like Warren better than Booker and why I think she'd whoop his ass in a Democratic primary.

Unlike Booker, Warren has an overarching message and has had one throughout her entire career in politics. She's the firebrand progressive politician who's made it her mission to combat Wall Street's increasingly powerful influence in Washington. She's accredited with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has built her image around being a champion for the "little guy." Not to mention, she hails from the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Booker, on the other hand, is an enigma. He's a product of the Democratic establishment, and it's clear that the party leadership has been grooming him for a presidential run in the future. Why does Booker want to become President exactly? I don't know, and that what I don't like about him. His positives are all superficial. Young, black, charismatic, etc. Theres no substance.

That's just my two cents.

Despite his problems I think Booker would be a stronger candidate than Warren by virtue of him being young and black. He's more likely to juice up black turnout than Warren and being 47 he'd be a good contrast to Trump who'd be 74.

Obama won the mid-west because of strong performance among young people, working class folks (including white people) along with a little increased Black turnout (but their % vote is too small to flip the mid-west).

I find the idea that a black person will win the black vote pretty ridiculous. Will Ben Carson turn up the black vote for the GOP? Will Michelle Bachmann turn up the female vote. Why did Rubio lose in his home state of Florida to Trump & lose big? Why did Hillary Clinton beat Bernie in the Jewish vote?

Cory Booker will likely be destroyed & would fracture the Democratic party in 2, putting the long term future of the Dem party in question !

[Pericles]

I prefer Warren and her vision. Booker's 'love' seems too passive and too reactive to Trump, Warren is far more effective at both articulating her own vision and attacking Donald Trump. Booker would be a repeat of the same old failures of the current Democratic establishment, and while he may squeeze to victory with minorities and college-educated whites, he would not be able to craft a secure majority or implement a progressive agenda. Warren is underestimated as a candidate, she is a true populist and fighter for  ordinary Americans, a true FF, and I think she is more likely to be able to bring about a lasting progressive majority and victory.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Here’s an Atlantic piece about “economic populism” vs. “SJW” that spends a lot of time on Warren and Booker:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/whats-wrong-with-the-democrats/528696/

You must be logged in to read this quote.