First of wall: it is a very pretty day; mid 40’s and sunny for my “run/walk”; almost college spring baseball weather.
It took me 1:10 to do; I jogged the first and last mile, and all of the uphill sections of my 5.1 mile hill course. Ironically, it took only 3 minutes longer than a “100 percent run” on Tuesday (same distance, easier course). But the reality is that my legs were heavy from yesterday’s deadlifts and possibly from that little 2 mile “harder run” on Friday. Pathetic, I know.
But the “pure run” stuff was almost torture until the end.
Now about my topic:
Some time ago, a discussion about the use of the ACT/SAT came up. I mentioned that it was very useful for math placement; students with math ACT score lower than a certain threshold has a substantially lower probability of getting a C or better in calculus I. Of course, such effects faded after a year, as those entering a second year of post-calculus I mathematics have a year of calculus under their belt (the success rate of the second year is conditioned on having being successful in the first year)
In said discussion, the wokes were babbling on how the ACT was “denying opportunity” to some students. The idea that the score was statistically predictive of success did not matter to those people, AT ALL.
And now go to this morning.
I was talking about my decision to join Team Joe because I thought he had a better chance of stopping Bernie and…there came the “erasing of women and POC.” No, this person didn’t try to present evidence that Klobuchar still had a shot or that some other candidate would better able to fend off Sanders. There was no discussion about RESULTS…only about demographics.
Ok, this started off ok but then the “kiddie table” candidates started to butt in…desperate to be heard. Gillibrand was one of the worst.
Biden was doing ok; Buttigieg was doing well and Harris was doing very well.
Then Harris..the only black person on the stage, interjected.
Then she turned to Biden and went after him about race: specifically his remarks about working with segregationists in the Senate and his stance on bussing (which is more nuanced than presented in the debate). Biden was more talking about who could enforce bussing and on which types of circumstances…and how effective was it in terms of integrating schools and on how well the children learn.
But this was a 1970’s issue!
I felt sick..absolutely sick. I unsubscribed from the Harris mailing list (I had sent her money..now regret it).
No..it isn’t that I am wedded to Biden (he is 3’rd on my new list, behind Klobuchar and Booker). No, it isn’t that I think that the front runner should not be attacked.
But, despite “you aren’t a racist but…” she basically called him an out of touch racist..over a 1970’s issue! That is about a divisive of an attack as one can get; identity politics all the way.
Yes, Trump uses identity politics, but their block is bigger and more united. We need to build a coalition and these sort of attacks retard the formation of such coalitions.
And imagine her debating Trump: “oh, she will mop the floor with him” the wokes coo. Yeah…”Hey Trump, you are a racist” will be met by “LOL, you call everyone that, even Biden, who Obama picked as VP. You are just a nasty, angry woman.”
She sure got a short term bump, at least in the prediction markets, and there are LOTS of reactions like this one out there:
Has it ever been more clear to anyone with a functioning brain in their life that these two women are clearly the top two candidates? Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are in a league of their own.
1) None of this matters because everyone is just yelling as loudly as possible in favor of their preferred candidates, but I’ll say it anyway: I love Kamala Harris and she won tonight – but she may have unfortunately screwed herself long term, and even she seems to know it.
2) Harris was on track to win BIG tonight with her sharp and cool as a cucumber answers in the first half. Those answers likely gained her a huge amount of new supporters, because she’s so impressive but the media had been burying her up to now.
3) Then Harris lost her cool and attacked Biden in a barely controlled and deeply personal way that seemed out of character for her. Right or wrong, this moment likely cost her a large chunk of the supporters she’s just gained. Moreover, she made an ugly mess of the primary.
4) Kamala’s best moment was her food fight line. Then she turned around and threw the ugliest punch. It erased the “I’m the adult in the room” message she was looking to promote. In her post debate interviews, she seemed to be already regretting her attack on Biden.
I expect his opponents to go after him for that but…IF he becomes the nominee, I doubt if any of it will hurt him against Trump.
Now of course, the “woke left” is howling about him being the front runner.
I should add: Biden nostalgia is fundamentally Obama nostalgia as well. Not just thinking about a long past, but the near past too. Obama is a powerful image and motivator for core Democrats, and Biden has been very open about mining that. I mean he was Obama's veep…
The challenge is that Bidenism, like Trumpism, longs for a time in America that didn't really exist. Biden also appeals to voters (many black voters included) who after Trump's election frankly no longer trust in the racial / gender progressivism of their neighbors. 2/2
I am not saying that Mr. Bunch is wrong, but I am not sold on his hypothesis either.
I like Klobuchar (gave her money) based on her “get things done” record and her attitude. This “identity politics, all the time” from the others turns me off for many reasons, one of which I will get to at the end of this post.
I think that it is POSSIBLE that many of us “non-twitter-liberal” Democrats are tired of the woke left and blame them, in part, for our loss in 2016. I’ll explain MY reasoning at the end of this post. But assuming that there is a niche for such a candidate and that Joe Biden is leading mainly on the strength of voters in this niche, the following two articles are interesing:
Let’s say you are a presidential candidate with an impressive record and a belief that you are the electable choice who can bring people together across party lines. And let’s say, further, that your name is not Joe Biden.
How do you make yourself noticed in a field of 23 Democratic contenders?
If you are John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado and mayor of Denver, the answer is to stand before several thousand of the Democratic party’s most liberal activists and say things that are guaranteed to get you booed.
Things such as “socialism is not the answer.” And that most people don’t want to give up their private health insurance for a government-run system. And that “we shouldn’t try to tackle climate change by guaranteeing every American a government job,” which was an unmistakable dig at the Green New Deal.
“You know,” Hickenlooper said over waves of jeering at last weekend’s California Democratic Party Convention here, “if we’re not careful, we’re going to end up reelecting the worst president in American history.”
Note: Joe Biden didn’t even bother to show up. (LOL)
It’s no secret that older Democrats are more moderate than younger ones. Relatedly, older Democrats put more emphasis on electability. Last month’s Monmouth University New Hampshire poll asked Democrats whether they’d prefer a “Democrat [they] agree with on most issues but would have a hard time beating Donald Trump or a Democrat [they] do not agree with on most issues but would be a stronger candidate against Trump.” Among Democrats 65 or older, only 13 percent wanted the candidate they agreed with if the candidate would have a hard time beating Trump. But among Democrats younger than 50, 42 percent were willing to take a chance on the less electable candidate.
Share of New Hampshire Democrats who would prioritize issue agreement with a candidate vs. a candidate’s ability to beat Trump, according to a May 2-7 poll
The cause and effect is difficult to sort out. Maybe younger voters deemphasize electability because they’re more liberal and think the concept is being used to prop up more moderate, establishment friendly candidates like Biden.
But it’s at least possible that some of the causality runs the other way: Younger voters are more liberal because their lived experience gives them less reason to think there’s an electoral penalty for liberalism.
Consider the experience of 27-year-old voters. As they were coming of age, they’d have seen George W. Bush’s popularity fall to pieces and a guy named Barack Hussein Obama upend the Hillary Clinton juggernaut and win in a landslide against John McCain. Then they’d have seen the supposedly cautious and “electable” Clinton lose to Trump.
This is a reasonable analysis. But I’ll say this: remember that Obama campaigned on healing the divisions in our country!
THAT, plus his charisma and skill as a campaigner..plus the economic disaster under George W. Bush, is what got him elected. He did not campaign as a socialist or as an especially “woke” candidate. He was actually less liberal than Hillary Clinton.
So people might claim that the last two Democrats to win the presidency were “bold” choices, in terms of policies, they were quite moderate and they ran on at least a type of unity.
Note: he sought out cooperation with Republicans:
And consider those fresh out of college, where, well, “wokeness” is seen as a big virtue. Imagine a professor or administrator acting like Trump. They’d get fired, tenured or not. But in reality, almost half the electorate was either ok with it, or at least didn’t see it as disqualifying.
One problem with identity politics In my opinion, there are many problems with identity politics. Here is one of the biggest ones (again, in my opinion): the “other side” can also play that game!
Tomi Lahren’s back with a brand new over-the-top rant and this time it's in support of the straight pride parade: "Don’t forget, it is open season on straight white men in this country and y’all aren’t allowed to celebrate your straightness!" https://t.co/bcqYyx2Zvj
Now “the woke” will howl about this. They will cry out “straight white men do not NEED a parade”. And true, there is no social penalty for being white (not in larger society anyway, and even in the university committee, not being white often means getting stuck with more “inclusion committee” work). No, there is no social penalty for being straight.. (note: the “kiss cam” at games always uses male/female couples..and yes, I’ve been on it with a female friend).
So, yes, intellectually speaking, “the woke” are correct.
But “the woke” seem to think that they can fight this by getting indignant and wagging the finger….”I’m not interested in making straight white men comfortable” they will say.
But…what happens at the voting booth? Sanctimonious finger wagging will not get votes and it will change neither hearts nor minds.
But hey, when your side loses…AGAIN, you get to feel really smug and get to throw some cool temper tantrums.