ProfessorPlum
ProfessorPlum's JournalThe Clarity of a Smaller Field
Getting down to just two main candidates is a great opportunity for us, as a party, to really examine the remaining candidates with greater detail than has been possible prior to this. With just two candidates, we can really ask ourselves some important questions, and evaluate them carefully:
Who stands a better chance to beat Donald Trump?
We can examine which of the two candidates:
Appears to be sharper, more with it
Speaks with more clarity
Can better call out Trump's fake economic populism
Can better call out Trump's nepotism
Is less likely to try to "work with" the GOP, the way Obama tried to
Is more likely to appeal to undecided, independent, and disaffected voters
Who has backed economic policies that help more Americans?
We can examine which of the two candidates:
Is more likely to fight hard against economic injustice
Is more likely to fight to curtail the fraud in the financial system
Is more likely to fight for healthcare solutions that will be more affordable for most people
etc. etc. It is a great opportunity for all of us.
I think the lesson of Elizabeth Warren is not about sexism. It's about economic populism
I'm seeing a lot of posts on other social media platforms about how it's a shame that such a talented, smart, woman couldn't win the nomination, emphasis on the woman.
I'm a huge fan of Warren and have been for years, well before 2012 and her senate win against Scott Brown. She was my number one choice in the current race, up until it was clear (to me) that she was changing her policies and messaging to put a stake into Sanders' chances. When I contemplate her rise and fall in this race, I see a clear pattern of being a strong, loud, and coherent voice for economic populism and fighting against wealth concentration and for healthcare, to muting, muffling, and muzzling those messages. The change in her rhetoric coincided with her drop in the polls, and also with her bringing on former Harris advisers and then former Clinton advisers. My guess is that those new advisers told her to tamp down her message of economic populism, fighting the fraud of the banks and financial institutions, and creating more economic equality and opportunity, but maybe it is just a coincidence.
The good news is, that I think she could have cleaned up at this point, despite her gender, by being a candidate who clearly was not afraid to promise to fight for economic justice. The bad news is that a lot of people seem to be mistaking her loss in the polls with sexism.
Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 11,257
