Brooks would vote for Candidate Warren!


But says she could actually lose:
Will our stumbling nation even have an election net year?

We aren't completely sure about that. And things are unraveling fast.

There are things a certain person could do, or could at least attempt to do, to avoid the possibility of losing such an election. We find it hard to believe that we won't experience some astounding events next year.

That said, let's suppose that Donald J. Trump is on the ballot next fall, opposed by Elizabeth Warren. After listing four objections to Warren, David Brooks says today that yes, he would vote for Warren:
BROOKS (10/18/19): [I]f it comes to Trump vs. Warren in a general election, the only plausible choice is to support Warren. Over the past month Donald Trump has given us fresh reminders of the unique and exceptional ways he corrupts American life. You’re either part of removing that corruption or you are not. When your nation’s political system is in danger, staying home and not voting is not a responsible option.
Brooks continues from there, beating up further on Trump. We're most concerned by one of the objections he lists with respect to Warren:
BROOKS: First, there are Warren’s policies. On trade, she’s a protectionist. Her 10-year, $34 trillion health care plan isn’t paid for. Her student debt cancellation plan is a handout to the upper middle class. Her campaign seems to not acknowledge the inevitable trade-off between economic growth and high spending, high taxes and high regulation.

Second, she’s one of the few Democrats who could actually lose. As Yascha Mounk notes in The Atlantic, Democrats won in 2018 because they won back a lot of nonpartisan suburban office park workers who found moderates they could vote for. When you remind independents of Democratic support for abolishing private health insurance and decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing—two key Warren policies—they become six percentage points less likely to vote for the Democrats. Trump will tell voters: You may despise me, but she’ll destroy the economy.
You can review objections three and four by reading Brooks' column.

That said, could Brooks be right? Could a Candidate Warren actually lose to a Candidate Trump next year, assuming that we actually have an election?

(For the Yascha Mounk essay, click here.)

We rarely make predictions. In the current circumstance, it seems to us that Trump's increasingly bizarre behavior has taken us beyond the place where anyone can sensibly make any predictions at all.

That said, could a Candidate Warren actually lose? Is it true that she's one of the only Democratic candidates who imaginably could?

It seems to us that liberals ought to be exploring such questions. From "everyone knows that Trump can't win" to "everyone knows that Mueller will save us," we've been living inside a succession of fantasy bubbles over the past four years.

Given the fact that we're all so bright, might it be time that we stop?

Also this: Brooks didn't even mention the Native American question.

Are we sure that topic can't come back? Given our usual way of functioning, are we sure it can't come back because we don't want it to? Because we've declared it racist?

We'd guess that no, it can't come back. But we can't really say that we're sure of that. Should we possibly try to puzzle this question out?


  1. "Will our stumbling nation even have an election net year?"

    It will, dear Bob, but your zombie cult will declare that it doesn't count, because 'the Russians' made them lose.

    You know it just as well as I do; don't be coy, dear.

    1. This applies to Mao: “The responsibility, you know, sure it’s with the president, but at this point it’s with the people cheering and waving things, Trump flags, in the audience,” he continued. “They have a responsibility to not be dumb, and they have a responsibility to be informed. They have a responsibility not to be ignorant, and all I’m asking is that they just spend two or three minutes actually looking at the news and educating themselves.”

    2. Mao,
      I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings, but as soon as I see your non-de-guerre I scroll down.

    3. "nom-de-guerre".
      Fat fingers.

  2. Why do we care what Brooks says? He is a conservative, despite his opposition to Trump.

    Warren hasn't yet gained the nomination, so it is too soon to think she will lose the general election.

    If Warren loses, so does Bernie, for the same reasons. Biden loses for other reasons -- he not only lacks support from conservatives but he lacks support from too many Democrats, myself included.

    When Somerby says that Warren is one of the few Democrats who could lose to Trump, who is he counting? Gabbard? Steyer? Yang? I can think of MANY Democrats who could lose to Trump because they don't have a shot in hell of winning the nomination.

    Among the likely nominees, those with enough money and who are polling in double digits, Warren is the leader now and thus needs to be taken down by the Bernie supporters and the anyone-but-a-woman voters, and of course, the Republicans and conservatives, such as Brooks and his new bestie, Somerby.

    How do we know Somerby dislikes Warren -- he never shuts up about her Indian DNA. Who else does that? Hint: his name starts with a T.

    1. Why would anyone care what Brooks says? His tired old shtick is wringing his hands over the disastrous results of the people he supported, and then declaring that he still can't bring himself to support a Democrat. He's says he'd vote for Warren over Trump. We'll see.

  3. "From "everyone knows that Trump can't win" to "everyone knows that Mueller will save us," we've been living inside a succession of fantasy bubbles over the past four years."

    1. Trump didn't win. He stole the election through foreign meddling in the election. He lost by 3.5+ million votes.

    2. The Mueller report details the process by which Trump stole the election and then covered it up, his obstruction of justice.

    3. The phrase "obstruction of justice" implies that justice was not served, that Trump has gotten away with his crimes so far.

    4. Now that the impeachment process has started, there is some chance for justice to prevail and it seems unlikely that Trump will win any future election, unless Republicans decide to make our country a banana republic.

    5. Somerby's insistence that Democratic perception of reality is actually fantasy is part of the disinformation that Russia has been spreading. It is collusion with the forces of evil to claim that this Republican malfeasance isn't happening and that Trump will prevail.

    6. No liberal would write the stuff Somerby writes.

    1. Raccoon. Wake up. You're so full of propaganda you're fucking delusional.

    2. The phrase "obstruction of justice" is a legal term of art. It does not imply that "justice was not served." It states the elements of interference with the judicial process -- corrupt intent, bad conduct, ability to influence proceedings. There are people in jail for doing less than what Trump has done repeatedly.

    3. No liberal would write the stuff Somerby writes.

      You gotta get out more. Head over to the dailykos during an election period (or review past elections). It's commonplace to argue that the other guy's candidate isn't electable.

    4. 'It's commonplace to argue that the other guy's candidate isn't electable'

      Except that Somerby refers to all Dem candidates as terrible. Naturally, since he is a Trumptard. His ideal candidate would seem to be Roy Moore, whose honor he gallantly defended.

    5. Somerby said in a post a while back that all Dem candidates were horrible. Proof that he is a trumptard

    6. It's only proof that you don't agree with him. And I thought you were going to drop Trumptard.

      Compared to Obama, I think the current crop of Dems is terrible. Are you going to call me a Trumptard too? Remember, I'm the guy who thinks all Republicans have a hollow place where their souls used to reside so that they only walk amongst us as human.

    7. Repeating Right-wing nonsense memes is Somerby's shtick, not deadrat's.

    8. If you think that ALL of the Democratic candidates are horrible, it means you are not much of a Democrat.

      It is proof that Somerby doesn't have much in common with the Democratic party, if he doesn't like any of its candidates. It isn't just a matter of disagreement, but of affinity.

      Somerby also repeats Republican talking points, regularly, so that makes him not only lacking in affinity with the Democrats but sharing attitudes with Republicans. And that is what makes him a Trumptard.

      Compared to Hillary, Obama was a poor second. He was spineless and unable to achieve his programs and he tended to compromise before being forced to. He ran to the right of Hillary and thus lacked appeal to the more liberal wing of the party. I disagreed strongly with several of his views, including his support for charter schools and education "reform" and his lack of support for our space program and for science funding in general. I dislike Biden and was unhappy when Obama selected him. Obama struck me as a decent human being, but his campaign used ugly tactics against Hillary.

      So, compared to Obama, I think several of the current crop of Dems are better and closer to my own views.

      But my larger point is that when you disagree with ALL of the candidates, you cannot call yourself a Dem and it isn't a matter of simple disagreement but of how you disagree, the nature of your disagreements, and Somerby shows NO liberal tendencies whatsoever.

    9. 'Compared to Obama, I think the current crop of Dems is terrible.'

      1) Somerby didn't say 'compared to Obama'. He labelled them all as terrible
      2) Exactly 12 years back, it would be hard to tell that Obama was an exception candidate. Even 8 years back, there would have been doubts about his reelection.
      3) The current crop of Dem candidates runs the gamut from centrists to socialists, from those who want to compromise with the Republicans, to those want not to praise them, but to bury them. It includes, or included Senators, ex-Governors. It includes people of almost every racial and ethnic background, from red states and blue states. It includes people with widely varied views on everything.

      To reflexively call them all terrible is the action of a Trumptard, for whom the ideal candidate is a blend of Roy Moore and DJT

    10. Oh, and I decided Trumpanzee was too benign, since chimpanzees are nice creatures and likely smarter than Somerby. So I'm back to Trumptard, sorry.

  4. These are not the droids you are seeking...

    Could Warren lose...

    Could Warren lose...

    Did I mention, Warren could lose...

    Warren will lose...

    Warren will lose... don't vote for a loser like Warren...

    [See how this works?]

  5. Isn't it convenient that Brooks, who is a conservative, would vote for Warren, if only she weren't so likely to lose? Thus he has a perfect excuse to not vote for her, when no one expects any conservative to vote for her anyway, since she cannot win against Trump and voting for her would be hopeless.

    It makes sense that Brooks would say this, but why would Somerby say it? No Democrat would say it. No socialist would say it either. No one in their right mind would say that she could lose because she once said she had a Cherokee grandparent. But Somerby keeps saying it. Why?

    Somerby seems to be part of the large apparatus paid to spread disinformation and confusion among Democrats via the internet.

    Somerby is one of the few human beings on this planet who would lose to Trump in the next election. Because he lies as frequently as Trump, dislikes women as much as Trump does (but doesn't have the guts to act on it like Louis CK), and because he is immersed in his own fantasies and word salad, like Trump. He speaks to Aristotle for God's sake!

    Somerby is off the deep end and anyone who thinks he has anything to say to or about liberals is living in that famous fantasy bubble, not Warren supporters.

    1. 'Somerby is off the deep end and anyone who thinks he has anything to say to or about liberals'

      he has a lot to say to or about liberals, mostly demonstrating his Trumptardism

  6. This is the kind of thing Mounk says:

    "A significant number of swing voters do exist, and in close-run elections, they matter. While Democrats do need to mobilize their base to win in 2020, it is far from obvious that moving to the left will help them do so. And to cure America of Trumpism, they need to persuade voters who aren’t already consistent progressives to turn their back on his brand of politics."

    First, conservatives arent' going to turn their backs on conservatism ever. If they turn their backs, it will be on Trump and they will probably do so by staying home, not by voting for ANY Democrat. It is a tenet of faith among many Republicans that they always vote Republican and have never voted for a Democrat. So they are out of the picture. They will vote for Trump or not vote at all.

    Independents, when polled about their attitudes along with their political affiliation, are not truly independent but tend to be conservative and that's why they tend to vote Republican when they vote. They too may not vote for Trump but that doesn't make them Democrats or give them any affinity for the left.

    The challenge for Democrats is to keep a unified front against the Trump diehards and not be distracted by factionalism within the Democratic party. Efforts by Russia were aimed at encouraging Bernie supporters, Hillary haters, and black voters to stay home or vote for a third party candidate. They are at it again (still). Tulsi Gabbard exists for that purpose, to represent conservative interests and dance to Russia's tune while pretending to be a Democrat.

    Somerby is doing the same thing.

    If Warren cannot win, neither can Biden or Bernie.

  7. Well, I know who Somerby will vote for.
    Spoiler alert: It won't be a Democrat.
    A nut, but never a Democrat; especially a woman Democrat.

    1. You sure claim to know a lot of things that you can't possibly know.

    2. TDH will likely vote for Trump or Jill Stein

  8. “That said, could a Candidate Warren actually lose? Is it true that she's one of the only Democratic candidates who imaginably could?

    It seems to us that liberals ought to be exploring such questions.”

    What does “one of the only candidates” who could imaginably lose mean? Are there others? Is she the only candidate who could imaginably lose, or is she *one of* the candidates who could lose? Why does Somerby write such awful prose?

    What are liberals supposed to explore? My hunch is that Somerby thinks she would lose because she is a woman, and the Others, who might possibly be tempted to vote for a Biden or a Sanders, would never vote for a female Democrat. All that other stuff Somerby complains about, the Indian thing, the Medicare for all, is just a smokescreen.

    1. Somerby is suggesting that liberals prepare to defend Warren ("Pocahontas") from the inevitable onslaught regarding her claims of an Indian heritage.

    2. 'What are liberals supposed to explore?'

      Somerby is concern trolling.

    3. My hunch is that Somerby thinks she would lose because she is a woman....

      I like Warren better than anyone else in the field, and I think she'd lose. I don't think she (or any other woman) will survive the tsunami of misogyny that will be (re)released in 2020 and that will resonate with a frighteningly large portion of the electorate.

      You think that makes me a feral Trumper or a realist?

  9. Brooks hates Bernie Sanders at least as much as he hates Warren. He is obviously hoping liberals will choose Biden.

  10. It’s hard to assume that the assumption that Warren is the only candidate who could imaginably lose is wrong. That said, anything is possible!

  11. Joe Biden would lose because he's clearly losing his marbles.

    Bernie will lose because he's too old and sick. Also he won't be able to defend socialism.

    Kamala will lose because she's plainly an idiot who doesn't understand our constitution. That's why her numbers have plummeted.

    Warren will lose because the woman is clearly insane. The Indian thing was the tip of the iceberg. She has continued to insist, for example, that Michael Brown was murdered and continues to do so despite it being pointed out to her that Obama's own justice department cleared Officer Wilson who shot Brown in legitimate self defense. Her claims of Native American heritage will come back to haunt her as Trump will certainly run around reminding everyone every chance he gets. I can hear him calling her "Crazy Liz" as I write this. Republicans will happily call her "Liawatha."

    Also, Warren comes off like a hysterical cat lady. I just hate the way she talks.

    The strongest candidate is Andrew Yang who's obviouly sincere, intelligent and knows how to think outside the box. Tulsi, is the only woman running who doesn't come off as vapid or strident but she also seems to have something of a messiah complex that I think is going to get real old over time.

    All the others come off as pious hacks who are out of touch with the mainstream.

    Trump could very well win. And one should never, ever, under any circumstance, ignore the Democrat's almost magical ability to blow a sure thing. It's what they do.

    1. If you think that Warren is crazy for being wrong, then you must think Trump is psychotic.

      If you think Warren is a hysterical cat lady because you don't like the way she talks, then you have a problem with either ladies or cats. Or both.

      But thanks for your "concern."

    2. Hey Deadrat,

      I see you showed up for your typically idiotic commentary.

      First off, I never said that Trump isn't crazy. Of course he is. That's why I want someone who isn't also crazy to run against him. This is apparently above and beyond your poor brain's ability to consider. Based on your past commentary, I hardly find this surprising.

      Having mentioned that she is clearly divorced from reality, obviously it's not just that she strikes me as acting like a crazy cat lady that makes me think she's like a crazy cat lady. Apparently you are too stupid to figure this out as well.

      Just because I have problem some ladies does not mean that I have a problem with ladies in general. You'll notice that I criticized all the male candidates except Yang as well.

      The more you write the stupider you seem.

      Done with you.

    3. Any sane person would not only gladly vote for a cat lady over Trump, they would gladly vote for a cat over Trump.

    4. Deadrat -- since you admonished me the other day for engaging with a half-witted troll, I am going to return the favor -- it's pointless.

      Anyone putting forth assertions that Warren is a crazy cat lady as if they were factual observations...couldn't be that interesting.

    5. My dearest Ilya,

      I perceive you are not a careful reader. I said that Warren "comes off" as a cat lady, not that she is. That is I most certainly did not claim it as "a factual observation," as you so falsely claim.

      Tell me, Ilya: If you can't even quote me accurately, if you're going to absurdly straw man my agrument, why should I not dismiss you as yet another in a very long line of idiots?

    6. Ilya,

      I was all set to waste some time and drollery on HB, when I got your timely reminder. As if to help, HB chimed in to tell you that he wasn’t saying that Warren actually was a crazy cat lady, just that she comes off as a crazy lady.

      Which, of course, doesn’t mean that HB is a pitiful buffoon, just that he comes off as one. In either case a waste of space here and of my time.


    7. Andrew Yang?
      That fucking idiot, like Joe Biden, thinks he can work with Republicans to effect positive change.
      Andrew Yang knows nothing.

  12. I don't agree with Warren's policies, but I think she'll get the nomination and will be a strong candidate. She's bright, she's attractive, she's glib. She's willing to lie when a lie will help her. She doesn't look her age (70) and, anyhow, Trump is older. Her record has only one thing that she can be attacked on, her claim to be Native American, but I don't think that will hurt her much. By 2020 it will be old, old news.

  13. Let's keep in mind that Trump won the election by 60K votes in 3 states, while massively losing the popular vote. I don't expect many voters who chose Trump in 2016 to reverse course. Let's say 0% do. The Democratic nominee whoever she (Warren) may be, only needs to find more than 60K votes in those three state, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. It should not be that hard, as I am sure more than a million stayed on the sideline in 2016. To achieve that, she needs to get people excited, and it's not going to happen if she is spouting the same lame ideas as Biden, Klobuchar, etc. I don't think that Trump can just rely on calling her Pocahontas; that will only take him so far.

    1. But Trump has Putin, a pathetically vulnerable election infrastructure, a dedicated cadre of voter suppressionists, the ownership of a political party without spine or conscience, an opposition skilled in conjuring up its own defeat, and a normalized atmosphere of misogyny and xenophobia. The latest Gallup finally has his approval under 40%, but even after all we’ve learned in the last few weeks, he isn’t at either his lowest approval or highest disapproval.

      I think the only things that could lose him the election are losing a military confrontation or a recession. Betraying the Kurds could be the former.

    2. Good analysis, Ilya. The one thing Trump has going for him in 2020 is that he has been a more successful President than many feared. Some feared he'd be a war-monger. Instead, he's being criticized for bringing troops home. Some feared he was a racist who would harm Hispanics and blacks. Instead, these two groups are better off. Some feared he'd harm the economy. Instead, the economy boomed. I think he deserves re-election. I think if the media were fair and unbiased, he would win easily.

    3. Hispanic and blacks are two groups better off under Trump.
      From your lips to Republican voters ears, David.

    4. Why would Putin's support be important? What could Putin do that an American political party couldn't do for themselves? Anyone can run ads on Facebook or hack opponents' computers or spread disinformation.

      Now, Xi Jinping is in a position to have big influence on the election. If he agrees to deal on tariffs that looks like a win to US voters, that'll help Trump a lot.

    5. David in Cal,
      I'm begging you. Please, please, please don't read the Mueller Report.

    6. David,
      Why aren't you voting for William Weld?

  14. 'But Trump has Putin, a pathetically vulnerable election infrastructure, a dedicated cadre of voter suppressionists, the ownership of a political party without spine or conscience, an opposition skilled in conjuring up its own defeat'

    He also has Trumptards like TDH concern trolling :)

  15. I want to share a testimony of how Dr.Osemuhau herbal mixture cream saves me from shame and disgrace, my penis was a big problem to me as the size was really so embarrassing,and i was also having weak erection problem. I can't make love to my wife and my penis was just too small a full grown man like me having 4 inches penis and to worsen it i don't last in sex i cant even last two minutes it was really a thing of shame to me. My wife was really tired of me because my sex life was very poor,she never enjoyed sex,i was always thinking and searching for solutions everywhere until when i saw a testimony of how Dr.Osemuhau herbal mixture cream have been helping people regarding their sex life, so i decided to give him a try and to my greatest surprise in less than one week of taking the herbs my penis grow to 8 inches i couldn't believe my eyes and as i speak now my penis is now 8 inches and i do not have week erection again. I can make love to my wife longer in bed. And my marriage is now stable,my wife now enjoy me very well in bed. can contact him {) or call or what-apps him through +2348168714427