You don’t think “capitalism built America” might have actually gotten him in some trouble with today’s Democratic primary electorate? (Aside from their antipathy for capitalism, it just invites “no, slavery and straight white cismale patriarchy built America” and a lot of tut-tutting at him for letting his privilege blind him.) It would narrow his lane, for sure.
Actual poll. It’s question 13.
43% “have some reservations” about a generic candidate being over 75 and 19% are “very uncomfortable” about it.
That’s not “doesn’t care”, it’s most at least actively having reservations. But it about the generic not the specific candidate.
“Socialist” leads the pack of “very uncomfortable” at 43%
All registered voters question.
Re Hickenlooper’s bit.
Yeah one Morning Joe bit won’t make or break a campaign. He’s no more or less the long shot he already was. But he does need to learn from this and be better prepared for how he is going to position himself on economic inequality issues. You can embrace capitalism without embracing its excesses or allowing it unfettered freedoms.
What’s troubling is that moderates seem scared to run for president in the Democratic party, even when they’re running. I think that’s why Sherrod Brown decided not to run. He knows he can beat Trump, but he probably concluded he can’t compete against Bernie and everyone else. Biden’s the only moderate who has a snowball’s chance in hell, and I get the feeling Biden is still very much sitting on the fence with this one. My feeling is that he doesn’t want to do it but he’s probably getting a lot of calls from moderates and maybe even some soft Republican #nevertrumpers begging him to run. It’s hard to win a race unless your heart is into it, and I wouldn’t be surprise to see Biden lose and underperform if he enters the race. I think Hickenlooper and Inslee are probably hoping to get vice presidential bids or cabinet positions but the math just isn’t there for them, IMO.
nm
This is what’s known as an “unforced error.” I could’ve answered this question without spending any time on debate prep: “Yes, I’m a capitalist - but I can be a capitalist and be for consumer protection and against corporate welfare and greed.” Done.
But now, all of Hickenlooper’s opponents (both Republicans and Democrats, except Bernie) will be clubbing him with “Hickenlooper can’t admit he’s a capitalist/socialist” for the duration of his campaign.
Nah.
The message that he tried to get out but did not well deliver can sell well: as a party, as a country, we cannot afford to shove ourselves and each other into neat little labeled boxes that we think tells us all we need to know, about ourselves and about each other. The best future of this country cannot be shoved into one or another box.
They’ll be other chances to deliver it. We’ll see how he does at it and if there is space for that message in the field.
Also: “what do you believe in?” isn’t a gotcha question. It’s kind of basic, post-it-on-your-website stuff.
Except that that’s not the question he was asked.
A “socialist” is someone who believes in the economic doctrine called “socialism”; a “communist” believes in “communism”; BUT a “capitalist” is NOT someone who believes in “capitalism.” This is simply a matter of definition.
Nor is a “capitalist” the same as an “entrepreneur.” When Hickenlooper tried to respond to the Gotcha, it appeared he wanted to explain that his business didn’t have a lot of start-up capital — his business became a success because he was an entrepreneur, not a capitalist.
Yet even here at SDMB, the words and their meanings have gotten all twisted around.
The Club for Growth is very cynically trying to turn Iowa liberals against Beto O’Rourke, running an ad that accuses him of dripping with white male privilege and so on:
I’m sure that ad will be very influential with Iowa’s black voters.
His hetero privilege will be more important due to Des Moines.
Iowa’s caucus electorate tends to run very far right in the GOP, and activist left on the Democratic side.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the most outspoken advocates of the #MeToo movement who has made fighting sexual misconduct a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, spent last summer pressing legislators to update Congress’ “broken” system of handling sexual harassment.
At the same time, a mid-20s female aide to Gillibrand resigned in protest over the handling of her sexual harassment complaint by Gillibrand‘s office, and criticized the senator for failing to abide by her own public standards.
In July, the female staffer alleged one of Gillibrand’s closest aides — who was a decade her senior and married — repeatedly made unwelcome advances after the senator had told him he would be promoted to a supervisory role over her. She also said the male aide regularly made crude, misogynistic remarks in the office about his female colleagues and potential female hires.
…
Since she left last summer, the woman has been doing part-time contract work. The male aide, Abbas Malik, kept his job.
Two weeks ago, however, POLITICO presented the office with its own findings of additional allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct by Malik. Among the claims were that he made a “joke” about rape to a female colleague — a person whom the office had failed to contact last summer despite repeated urgings by Malik’s accuser to reach out to the person.
Gillibrand’s office opened a new investigation and dismissed Malik last week.
…
POLITICO reached out to more than 20 former Gillibrand staffers to see if there was a pattern of behavior by Malik, including the two aides the woman specifically asked the office to contact.
One of those two former staffers said Malik often called her fat and unattractive to her face and made light of sexual abuse. She recalled one instance in which Malik remarked that a particular woman they were talking about “couldn’t get laid unless she was raped.”
Things are not looking too good for the Gillibrand campaign if any of this is true.
Could be much worse – she could have kept him. It’s appropriate to fire harassers. Even if it’s late. Much better than not firing harassers.
Nng. Firing harassers is good, but only doing so for self-serving reasons rather than because of the actual harassment is not exactly praiseworthy.
Harris is a moderate and absolutely has a chance.
I assume nearly everything a politician does is for “self-serving reasons”, but yes, I wish she had done it earlier.
That’s pretty cynical. I don’t make the same assumption (nor do I assume the opposite).
Kamela? No, she’s a San francisco Progressive.