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.You can review objections three and four by reading Brooks' column.
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.
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?