Part I of II Earlier this week, Elizabeth Warren participated in what was called a "town hall." The event had three major sections: Q&A discussion with the moderator, Chris Hayes. Q&A discussion with a panel of Carrier factory workers. Q&A with a few audience members. I watched it and, as I do with all such events I watch, I took notes so I can afterwards form my own assessment of the candidate's performance, based only on what s/he presents/says during the specific event. Normally, I just keep my analysis in my notebook and review it a day or two before I vote. This time, I decided to convert my notes and thoughts into a high-level "review" that I'd share with people outside my immediate circle of friends. So, what's below is the "long hand" version of what I wrote about Warren's June 2019 town hall. Note: I vote first on character and, if I don't have a clear sense of whom I strongly prefer based on character, on policy second. The key qualities I look for are coherence, cogency and probity with regard to policies and principles. Opening Remarks: WARREN: “…in Fort Wayne, IN, because people in IN … understand how you build an economy that doesn’t just work for a thin slice at the top, but an economy that works for everyone.” Platitude; false à The majority of people of Ft. Wayne understand nothing of the sort, as shown by their having voted (84K to 55K, ~3:2 – NY Times “Indiana Results” for Trump despite his having told them – “Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Worker” – he’d impose tariffs, which haven’t been good for Ft. Wayne. References supporting the assertion that Ft. Wayners know no such thing: “Consumers: Tariffs' loser” “Fort Wayne Metals Working to Minimize Impact of Tariffs on EU Customers” “Indiana farming industry concerned over potential ‘tariff war’” “How the China trade tariff could impact local consumers” Town hall attendee, Renee Elliott’s, circumstances as a Carrier employee (Town Hall transcript; just after first commercial break) “I thought he was going to protect our jobs, you know what I mean? We all voted for him. And then, boom. [She lost her job.] I felt betrayed.” Town hall attendee, S. Cropper, who remarked “I thought Trump was going to really secure American jobs, and that’s just not what’s happening out there at all. The jobs that were saved in the Indy plant were never going to leave to begin with.” United Technologies’ (Carrier’s parent company) financial statements 2016-2018 Assessment: No points from me. Warren mischaracterized the nature of Ft. Wayne, IN voters’/citizens’ understanding about jobs, and she did so before she responded to any attendee’s questions. And to what end did she do so? To blow smoke up their asses and make them feel good about themselves. As shown by sequence of voters’ behavior in Ft. Wayne – hear Trump’s rhetoric, buy his BS, and then get screwed – voters in Ft. Wayne haven’t a clue about what public policy initiatives are good for building an economy that “works for everyone.” What they have is opinions that don’t “hold water.” Warren Hayes Exchange: The next notable exchange is between Warren and Hayes. She unequivocally declares her opposition to the Hyde Amendment (Hyde proscribes gov’t funding of abortions) and that Biden is wrong to concur with that legislation. Warren proceeds to explain why she opposes Hyde, and she implies Hyde discriminates on a financial basis. Assessment: Props for answering unequivocally. Her reasoning isn’t innovative, which one can’t expect on abortion and Hyde because they’re long standing matters and there’s nothing new to say. I have no issue with her stance and I give her points for her direct and unwavering response. Hayes then asks her to reconcile her opposition to Hyde with the political reality that most Americans oppose federal funding of abortions. (For now, I’ve taken as accurate Hayes’ depiction of most voters’ stance on federal funding for abortions.) She essentially says she sees the matter not as a political one but as a health care, financial and reproductive freedom matter. Assessment: Meh. She failed to respond to the substance of Hayes’ question. It doesn’t matter that she doesn’t see the matter as political; most people do. She didn’t explicitly square her stance with the fact that most voters disagree with it. Hayes recognized that she’d ducked the question and pressed her again, this time more directly by citing the conflict between stances that may be prudent/sage or ethically right and the politically pragmatic impacts of embracing those stances even as voters do not concur. Warren responded by saying that she sees dichotomy as inevitable and existential and that a candidate simply must sell his/her position. Assessment: Okay. It’s not the answer I’d have preferred to hear, but I doubt any candidate would give that answer because it’s a “nerdy” political scientist’s/strategist’s game theory answer, and they and I know most voters aren’t interested in that sort of thing. I’m not thrilled with her answer, but I won’t downgrade her for it. (Continued due to character limit)
Part II of II First Panel Question (paraphrased): What is your approach to providing jobs for folks like Mmes. Cropper and Elliott? Warren’s response was the most sensible and self-evident one available right now: avail the country of the synergy between environmental protection (green-energy innovation, implementations and investments) and employment. Assessment: I’m okay, for now, because it’s early, with her answer; it’s sage. There’re three key gaps in it, however, gaps that she and other candidates proponing the same thing -- which they all should be, frankly, because there is only one other synergistically viable answer…Infrastructure innovations and upgrade – hasn’t addressed. Both approaches suffer from the same gaps: Automation: Her answer doesn’t reconcile the inexorable trend toward workforce automation with her implied assertion that the initiative will produce manufacturing jobs. Skills: Her answer doesn’t address the reality that non-manufacturing jobs associated with the green-energy-driven economy she envisions will be jobs that require a relatively high degree of skills/training, particularly analytical skill. If one’s “build it” job has been automated, one must be employable on the research and design side of things, and that takes strong (college and graduate level) skills in STEM and business fields, along with strong reading and writing skills. (Later in the town hall, Mr. Staples asked about this aspect.) Implementability: If Warren doesn’t get a Democratic House and Senate, very little, if any, of her plan is implementable because Congress controls the purse strings – not only how much money, but also on what it can be spent – through the appropriations process. It’s worth noting that Hayes raised this issue just before the commercial break, said he’d return to it, but after the commercial, he did nothing of the sort. The next part of the discussion addressed two key themes: revenue generation and on what she’d spend the newly generated revenue. Revenue sources: Curiously, Warren didn’t quantify the revenue gains associated with either tactic. Wealth tax -- have no idea of how much revenue this will generate. Quite frankly, I don’t think Warren does either because AFAIK, there aren’t any official by-person measures of wealth. We have that level of information for income, but not for wealth. Ending oil and gas subsidies -- This will provide $20B to $25B in revenue (“Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought”) Revenue spending: Warren stated she would spend it on programs to resolve opioid addiction and on childcare for infants through kindergarteners. Assessment: Sounds good, but that’s all. I don’t know whether the revenue sources she notes are indeed enough to indeed fund her initiatives. She’s got time to flesh that out, but she’ll need to do so. The proposals are plausible, but if she ends up with a GOP Senate or House (or, God forfend, both), none of it will come to fruition, and it’s not clear how comprehensively it’d do so even with a Dem Congress. After all, Dems dicked around and passed a materially flawed ACA and they didn’t bother to pass any gun-control legislation. Audience Questions: As for the rest of the town hall, take a look at the four questions from the audience. She directly answered one of them. “My question is, climate change is real, and we’re got to get going on it. At GM here in Fort Wayne is one of our largest employers. They make trucks. How do we make sure that that factory is not negatively impacted with your policies?” No direct answer. “What I want to know is what is the one issue or piece of legislation that you feel so strongly about you would not compromise on it?” Somewhat direct but very high-level answer: healthcare coverage. (I presume, but can’t be 100% sure, that means health insurance, but the anecdote she used to preface that answer didn’t have a thing to do with health insurance.) “What can we expect to see your support of organized labor and how we can get that brought back up in this country?” No direct answer à She said: Unions should be stronger and have more power when negotiating Make it easier to join a union. She was asked for tactics (a question about how to do a thing), what she articulated were goals (what attempt to do), not tactics. “Do you believe still that impeachment is the right path forward? And why or why not?” Direct answer. My Summary for later review: Overall --> Right now she’s my second choice candidate. Honesty --> She seems only somewhat honest. I dislike that she failed to acknowledge the dependency on Congress of her signature proposal items. That's not an overt lie, but rather a lie of omission, omission of a material policy-achievement factor. She should have at least acknowledged it and used it as a reason to implore folks to vote not only for her but also, if they want to see her ideas implemented, for Democratic Congress members. I disliked that she gave non-answers to questions that are directly answerable. I disliked her according Ft. Wayners' a plaudit they hadn't earned and thus didn't deserve. Governance --> I haven't seen anything that indicates she'd make a competent and highly effective chief executive. AFAIK, she has no executive experience. Also, however, I haven't seen anything that indicates she'd be an ineffective chief executive. Policy platform --> Warren articulated no policies that she can, as POTUS, enact on her own without depending on Congress' imprimatur. Thus if she doesn't get an amenable Congress, her ideas and initiatives will "go nowhere fast," and she didn't expressly bid voters to give her a Dem Congress.
american businesses and politicians and corporates sold their manufacturing in the same way someone would trade slaves. it is the same morality for patriotic economics and national sovereignty. how do you sell your expensive high quality product to 3 billion poor Indians and chines ? what if you didint have to worry about workers rights, working conditions wages environmental regulations ... what a great idea ! can we sell some cheaper slaves ? you bet ya we can ! and so they did now what ? china and India own all the American manufacturing and none of the politicians want to talk about it because they are the ones making profit from it. who owns American oil/transport & economy movement ? the middle east who owns all the American consumer products that surround good ol stars and stripes christian Christmas trees at that special time of? CHINA ! how is that working out ? now your going to remove the tax scamming international trade workers rights and wage regulation loop holes to load fake tax through tariffs on to them and still not give that money to the usa jobless they are giving it to all the rich. whos a good little patriot ! if the usa sold its milking/breeding cow to buy magic beans it would be understandable and a learnable situation that a good ol global market crash could solve. but its not it is known, deliberate and precisely done to vampirically feed off the American economy like a cannibal eating its own children. hows that dakota pipe line going and that river polution ?
[i am speaking to the audience member who asked the question in the brutal honesty they wish to discuss reality in] sucked in by the con artist what true republican would switch from alt-right to then copy bernie sanders policys around infrastructure and job protection ? they dont they wont were you paying attention ? not really. but thats ok its politics and politics is all about the rich playing games with each other...and in America people idolise the rich and give them intellectual license because they are rich. thats ok i assume thats working out really well for you ? hows that american unilateral war on unions going ?
i like warren, i think she is a little too hard nose for my ideal pick, but you have to be hard nosed in such an environment. cant be easy being a woman in a male dominated jungle. lies of omission in a public format are a dogs breakfast of manipulation and miss understanding they make good video edits to lip sync for luny fringe whips. it is far better to ignore a question that requires complex understanding and people to actually listen and think about something than to answer intelligently and precisely when 75% of the audience are incapable of bothering to find out what it means. they instead focus on the colour of her knickers and style of her shoes and which way she flipped her hair then join in the group monkey behavior conversation. or they lay over the top their own little drama and install compulsory moral behavior associations. if you know 60% of your audience are not really paying attention to the detail in what your saying... then do you answer complex involved questions ? never !
just trolling ! instead of offering your opinion or making a personal statement, you couch your intent of trolling to flame the subject by asserting a sense of innocence in asking a question that you should already know the answer to. just trolling... trump is a busines failure he failed 3 times bankrupting hundreds of millions trump is the failed business man right ? the big loser who fired himself ? is that the same language your using ? i think so that's very helpful for public discussion processes yes ? ... "make them angry!...because white middle aged men dont trust angry women" ! ..." privileged self entitlist white middle aged women dont trust angry women" ! its a win/win !
There are no such policies. Failure to "articulate" the nonexistent is empty - not a criticism at all. We will presume, from that, that you will never criticize the tactics of anyone who implies or can be represented as having implied that the average Trump voter is ignorant or stupid. Meanwhile, a lot people in Indiana did not vote, and many voted for Clinton and her sounder policies. Why you would assume Warren was addressing Trump voters only is unclear. We have reliable, solidly based measurements of wealth that can be broken down per capita even to the individual person level. They are not "official", because wealthy people don't want them to be, but they exist. For an example of their use in public discussion, which is common, see Thomas Picketty's recent tome.
The progressive Dems never had control of Congress. Even a lumping all the Dems together didn't make a voting majority for more than a few months, and a filibuster override for much less time than that. The myth of an organized Democratic Congress wielding power for years is a bothsides meme - Republican propaganda (and projection). If you demand of an incoming President that they have not only the best policies, but the predetermined power in Congress to push them through in a few weeks against all opposition, you will never find a Democratic Party candidate.
excellent point for discussion. the USA social-cultural Myth of 'mite is rite' is front and center. the presented paradigm is the idea that someone must be capable of doing everything before they become qualified to run against someone who is doing almost nothing. this is a human behaviour issue as much as an American culture issue. "they are not perfect so they wont do" meanwhile ... the republican message from the electioneering volunteers is "we don't want someone perfect, we want someone who just acts normally and speaks their mind" well thats a bit of a claytons predicament as much as it is a message of lack of belief in the honesty of their own party. i think the shit-fight that burnt with fury in the republican party battle for leadership ignited a loss of faith in the better judgement concept of middle ground polite cultural leadership. virtue signalling to sexism and racism plays right into the heart of that miss trust to reinforce old stereo types that prevent people from thinking intelligently and to prevent people from compromise and coming to the table. technical critiquing of women while virtue signalling how big a mans dick is. it is a sly and underhanded way to undermine women in leadership and the republican party stink of it. "he is just a man and we like that" "we don't like the way she folds her napkins, it tells us something very sinister about her"
