It's my belief that if Democrats put up someone like Warren against Trump in 2020, the youth vote could see a substantial shift to Democrats. Hillary was an awful pick for winning over young voters, yet she still did pretty well, all things considered.
What if they don’t put up someone like Warren though? I’m curious as to what your reaction is to my thoughts here on Clinton and the resistance to her from Sanders-istas:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260124.msg5563922#msg5563922
Were Clinton’s problems among the young really that specific to her, or is this something that’s just going to be a feature of politics now, that there’s a non-negligible number of (mostly young) progressives who are sufficiently turned off by any “establishment” candidate that they go 3rd party or don’t vote—something that wasn’t happening ten years ago? Would/will Booker or Gillibrand or someone similar face similar problems in 2020 because they’re considered “establishment”?
Sorry Morden - I missed this!
My opinion is that you are right and wrong. I do believe any establishment politician would have had a wall to climb in 2016, but Hillary Clinton was a uniquely terrible fit. She had a well-defined history full of bad decisions, flip-flopping and her husband's record to own. However, I think what really did her in was her tenure as Secretary of State. That was the worst move of her career in politics, and resulted in Benghazi & the email "scandal." Thinking about it, one of Hillary's problems was just terrible decision making. She was really tone def as to how what she did would be perceived by the masses. Meeting so many foundation donors as SoS? The email server? Come on girl!
I do think sexism played a part in her problems, but I don't think it was the sole reason. I think it would be a cop-out to think otherwise. I read this today that, even though it's about the tech industry, kind of explains things a little:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/Often, many men will value a woman's opinion less, feel she has less authority than she really has, be far less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, less willing to forgive, more willing to treat with disrespect, much more willing to criticize - even for things that often aren't even real
(eg: "her voice is so loud!" "stop screaming!" etc), nd so on. This seems to be a bigger problem for ambitious women in fields where men have typically been the overwhelmingly dominant force. As a woman who did briefly work in the tech sector, I can verify at least most of that article. I imagine its the same, maybe worse for women in politics - by definition a field based around authority and power.
Finally, a troubling problem I found Hillary to have was that she had few redeeming qualities in terms of her public personality. I don't mean to slander Hillary, and maybe that is a bad word choice, but she lacks charisma, authenticity, humour, all of it. At least that is how she is perceived. Many politicians have their own issues - Obama was a Wall St magnet too, but many of these politicians have attributes that let them deflect and smooth over the rough edges. Hillary has
none of that, or if she does, she suppresses it deeply. She had no way to make up for all her other deficits. This was a big problem, and one reason I think someone like Booker even could perform a lot better.
-
As for Booker/etc facing problems in 2020 - who knows. There is a lot of time yet. I'd expect at least Booker to fare better, though. I think for all the talk of the "establishment," that particular issue can be handled by a politician at least partially if they have charisma, the ability to charm and come off at least somewhat authentic. I don't think an establishment character is automatically doomed, even with this populist anger. For Gillibrand - I don't know much about her. Can't say.
If such anger still exists by 2020, though, I'd be worried if the party still tries to push someone like them. A big part of the Democratic base is now Millennials, and the party must track their wishes as best as they can. Those (we) want authenticity and someone who we feel we can trust to carry out what they say.
