# Elizabeth Warren 2020. How do you feel about it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 9, 2018, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028 "2018-09-09T00:14:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/161 "2018-09-17T14:53:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Meh. > > The person not in office has a hard time doing a better job. > > The person in office perceived as supporting business as usual will have a hard time rallying the current public to support their policies … “What do we want!” “Same old same old!” “When do want it?!” “Now!” > > A political leader’s skill and efficacy is not based only or even primarily on knowing where the knobs and buttons of the machines are. They can hire those folk. I would argue that the skill to hire the right folks has a fair bit to do with, or is even one of, the knobs and buttons. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/162 "2018-09-17T15:57:43Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I would argue that the skill to hire the right folks has a fair bit to do with, or is even one of, the knobs and buttons. Not of the sort that comes from being of the established political elite in particular. It is a skill that one gets from having managed a group previously. That can be in government. But it could be in business, or, say, as a grass roots political organizer before briefly moving on to the state senate and then senator from the state … 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/163 "2018-09-17T16:19:28Z")
But I’m sure you remember that was exactly the reasoning why Trump wouldn’t be a disaster. He’d just hire the right people. Easy, peasy. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/164 "2018-09-17T16:22:32Z")
Now, see, you folk are already making a far more nuanced and considered argument than “Politicians have messed things up, therefore the way to fix things is to elect non-politicians”. “Politicians” are not a monolithic entity - some are competent, some are not; some are outstanding, some are dire; some are altruistic, some are corrupt; and so on and so forth. Throwing them all out owes more to intellectual laziness than it does to earnest reform - the harder path is to figure out which ones will actually deliver the desired results (as opposed to the ones that promise they will, which is all of them) and get them into the right offices. And there’s nothing wrong with considering non-politicians (say, businessmen or military officers) for office on their individual merits as long as one is aware that government does not run like a business or the military for many reasons, and success in one area does not necessarily apply to others if the individual’s skill sets are not transferable. But non-politicians likewise don’t get extra bonus points just because they’re non-politicians. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/165 "2018-09-17T17:17:57Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > That’s a quote from Amazon’s product description and frankly need not be taken in the worst possible sense anyway. I’d be hard pressed to come up with an acceptable sense. Yes, I did follow the link, to see if there was any indication the text was from the book, or similar to text in the book. I can only assume the person who wrote the blurb dislikes Warren. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/166 "2018-09-17T17:33:39Z")
We, as a society, have moved from stay at home moms being the norm to working moms being the norm. That’s all I took from it. I mean, I guess you’re inferring the phrase means the mothers had no say on the matter? I just take it as ad copy poetic flourish. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/167 "2018-09-17T19:05:52Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > We, as a society, have moved from stay at home moms being the norm to working moms being the norm. That’s all I took from it. I mean, I guess you’re inferring the phrase means the mothers had no say on the matter? I just take it as ad copy poetic flourish. It assumes both that the mothers have no agency, and that they weren’t working before. No, not all people read “working” exclusively as “holding a paying job outside the home”. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/168 "2018-09-17T19:44:08Z")
Oy vey. The book is about two income families. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/169 "2018-09-17T21:18:51Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Oy vey. The book is about two income families. Whatever. This is not a new issue; women have been bristling at the implication that women who run the home are not working for about half a century now. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/170 "2018-09-17T22:59:41Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Hillary was an unlikable candidate, saddled with completely unwarranted baggage, who ran a poor campaign. Yet she still managed to get more popular votes. > > Any other Democrat at the head of the ticket would have crushed Trump like a bug. Which is why I _don’t_ buy the idea that another Democrat woman can’t win. But whoever it is will have to put in the modest amount of work to get back Wisconsin and Michigan (which are very winnable) and be a dominating personality, not a submissive figurehead. And I don’t know who in the party, or in all of D.C., male or female, is dominant enough to beat Trump. Warren is probably better than most, because she\* is _“shrill.” You_ want _someone who frowns. You want someone who will tell you what she_ really \*thinks. You want a boss, not a cute secretary. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/171 "2018-09-17T23:10:41Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I’d wager about half of the GOP think pizzagate is real but also think all the accusations against Roy moore and Donald Trump are fake news. What other word than deplorable are we supposed to use for these people? “Deceived.” Or “conned,” if you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2018, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/172 "2018-09-17T23:48:36Z")
> [@j666](#): > > This is not a new issue; women have been bristling at the implication that women who run the home are not working for about half a century now. You know, the word “work” means both any kind of labour and someone’s paid job. Ignoring the definition that is blindingly obviously intended so you can be offended is not totally cool. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/173 "2018-09-18T00:45:13Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You know, the word “work” means both any kind of labour and someone’s paid job. Ignoring the definition that is blindingly obviously intended so you can be offended is not totally cool. Not my issue, I’ve never been a SAHM, but I will say I don’t recall that argument getting much traction any time in the last fifty or so years. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/174 "2018-09-18T02:02:35Z")
What frigging argument? Are you denying that when someone says they were late for work that nobody in the English speaking world is going to think they mean late for cleaning the kitchen or nursing their baby? Again: the book is about two income families. Mistaking the quoted phrase as anything like “women’s work ain’t real work” is not remotely rational. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/175 "2018-09-18T02:41:56Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What frigging argument? Are you denying that when someone says they were late for work that nobody in the English speaking world is going to think they mean late for cleaning the kitchen or nursing their baby? Again: the book is about two income families. Mistaking the quoted phrase as anything like “women’s work ain’t real work” is not remotely rational. Well, I guess that makes sense, because it’s an issue raised by women, and we all know how irrational and emotional they can be, right? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/176 "2018-09-18T02:57:17Z")
**j666** , if you actually are at all curious about what the book is about you could pretty easily google up some reviews of it, and read some of the language that the authors actually use. [Here’s a New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/21/the-warren-brief) one. And another [from Mother Jones](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap/). The thesis is pretty straightforward: the rise of two parents in the paid workforce has increased income … and has been matched with a much greater increase in expenses and debt. In the Mother Jones one the co-author, Amelia Tyagi, uses the phrase. And the clear meaning is mothers in the paid workforce. > [@Mother Jones](#): > > Amelia Tyagi: More and more families today are sending both parents into the workforce — t’s become the norm, it’s what we now expect. The overwhelming majority of us do it because we think it will make our families more secure. But that’s not how things have worked out. By the end of this decade, one in seven families with children will go bankrupt. Having a child is now the single best predictor of bankruptcy, and this holds true even for families with two incomes. > > So we looked at the data for two-income families today earning an average income. What we found was that, while those families certainly make more money than a one-income family did a generation ago, by the time they pay for the basics — an average home, a health insurance policy, a second car to get Mom to work, child care, and taxes — that family actually has less money left over at the end of the month to show for it. We tend to assume with two incomes you’re doubly secure. But if you count on every penny of both of those incomes, which most families today do, then you’re in big trouble if either income goes away. And obviously, if you have two people in the workforce, you have double the chance that someone will get laid off, or double the chance that someone could get too sick to work. When that happens, two-income families really get into trouble, and that’s how a lot of families quickly go bankrupt. … > > … It used to be that a stay-at-home parent was a sort of safety net — she (and it was usually a “she”) not only took care of the children, but she was there if anyone got sick. Or if Grandma broke a hip, she could step in and provide care without costing the family financially. But today, with both parents in the workforce 100 percent of the time, there’s just no way to care for somebody on the side — either somebody has to take time off work or somebody has to pay someone to provide that care. In either it represents a big financial blow, and families just don’t have the flexibility to deal with it anymore. > > [MJ.com](http://MJ.com): Some conservative commentators might see this as evidence that the mother should return home. > > AT: [Laughs] Right. Of course, the notion that mothers are all going to run pell-mell back to the hearth and turn back the clock to 1950 is absurd. But that aside, a big part of the two-income trap is that families have basically bid up the cost of living. Housing is a big example. A generation ago, an average family could buy an average home on one income. Today you can’t do that in three-quarters of American cities. We all know that housing prices are going up, but what most people don’t realize is that this has become a family problem. Housing prices are rising twice as fast for families with kids. > > A lot of that has to do with public schools. As confidence in the public schools has dwindled, people are bidding up the prices on homes in those school districts with good reputations; so for a typical family, the only way to afford one of those homes is to send mom to work. Average mortgage expenses have gone 70 times faster than the average father’s income, and the only way families are keeping up is by bringing in two incomes. > > Of course that’s where you see the trap. If families were simply sending Mom into the workforce and using that money to build their savings, or to have more fun, or to go on more vacations, you wouldn’t see the same kind of financial trap. If Mom or Dad got laid off, heck, they’d stop going on vacation. But that’s not the case. If mom gets laid off now you can’t say, “Well, we’ll just stop paying the mortgage for awhile.” One of the things we’ve heard over and over after our book was released was mothers stepping forward and saying: “You’re telling my story. You know, maybe I prefer to work and maybe I don’t, but I tell you I have no choice financially. The only way we’re getting health insurance and the only way I’m sending my kids to a decent school is for me to work and work some more.” … To read in that context “send mom to work” as “women who run the home are not working” and “assumes both that the mothers have no agency” is … very strange. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/177 "2018-09-18T03:47:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **j666** , if you actually are at all curious about what the book is about you could pretty easily google up some reviews of it, and read some of the language that the authors actually use. > > [Here’s a New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/21/the-warren-brief) one. And another [from Mother Jones](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap/). The thesis is pretty straightforward: the rise of two parents in the paid workforce has increased income … and has been matched with a much greater increase in expenses and debt. > > In the Mother Jones one the co-author, Amelia Tyagi, uses the phrase. And the clear meaning is mothers in the paid workforce. > > To read in that context “send mom to work” as “women who run the home are not working” and “assumes both that the mothers have no agency” is … very strange. I am familiar with the argument, and do not disagree, although I find it ignores other benefits to a two income household. My only comment was on the blurb. I do not see how anyone can disagree that “send mom to work” implies that only work outside the home counts somehow and that women were manipulated, at best, into choosing paid outside work. (I won’t even mention the implication that paid work is an option.) This is not a new observation. The phrase “working mother” has been raising hackles most of my life, and probably since World War II. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/178 "2018-09-18T10:40:24Z")
> [@j666](#): > > I do not see how anyone can disagree that “send mom to work” implies that only work outside the home counts somehow and that women were manipulated, at best, into choosing paid outside work. … Well then you do not see how most of us would understand the comment in that context, because it is very evident and clear to the rest of us who have a hard time seeing how you can read it that way. But so be it. Mind you I am not supporting their thesis per se. The premise that women previously had been commonly working for pay outside the home is accepting a short period of time as the long historic norm. Women worked (outside the home for pay) as the norm across [much of history](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/13/working-women-stay-at-home-wives-myths). Really "working women’ powered the mills of the Industrial Revolutions and increased numbers during the Civil War and every war afterwards. The idea that taking care of the household is work for women and that earning other pay (as well) is not is more of a relatively recent and middle to upper class affectation. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/179 "2018-09-18T15:24:44Z")
And they didn’t need babysitters or two cars in the industrial revolution days either because you lived down the street from the factory and the kids worked there too. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028/180 "2018-09-18T20:01:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d vote for her. But I’ll admit I would vote for pretty much anyone who’s running against Trump. > > But I feel the main goal should be to get Trump out of office. So Democrats should pick the safest candidate rather than the ideal one. I haven’t read down-thread, but if no one else has said it: I remind you, Hillary Clinton looked like the safe candidate in 2016. I voted for Bernie in the NY primary, but had no problem pulling a lever for Hillary in November '16. There is zero question in my mind that Elizabeth Warren would make a better president than Trump. Or Pence for that matter. She does have some administrative experience as the temporary head of the consumer protection agency. I’d also go for Joe Biden or some other reasonable person. I want sane, likable, and experienced in government. None of which Trump is. I’d prefer progressive, but I can live with a middle of the road person if they at least support the ACA, a woman’s right to choose and less belligerent foreign policy posture. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-2020-how-do-you-feel-about-it/821028.md?page=10)