vox--2020-01-14--Warren and Sanders’s dispute over a woman in the White House came to a head Tuesday night

The January Democratic debate didn ’ t disappoint when it came to the moment everyone was waiting to see .
On Tuesday night , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren finally addressed some of the escalating conflict between the two when they tackled a question about sexism and the 2020 election .
Sanders emphasized that he had championed Warren for the presidency in the past and said it was “ incomprehensible ” that he would argue a woman couldn ’ t win .
Warren , meanwhile , seized on this exchange to make her case about why women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be questioned — the subject at the heart of a supposed disagreement she had with Sanders .
This recent point of strain first emerged on Monday , after a weekend of tension between the two normally friendly progressives , when CNN published a report that Sanders told Warren a woman could not win the presidential election , something he ’ s denied .
Later in the day , Warren confirmed that the report aligned with her memory of the conversation , which happened in 2018 .
“ Among the topics that came up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a female candidate , ” Warren ’ s statement reads .
“ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed.
” Sanders , meanwhile , has said he did not make this assertion , but focused more on the specific challenges of going up against Trump .
“ What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could , ” he said in a statement .
Both stuck to their positions on Tuesday and elaborated on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground while declining to further fuel this feud .
Sanders explicitly denied making this comment — and reiterated his longstanding backing for Warren along with other women candidates : Well , as a matter of fact , I didn ’ t say it .
And I don ’ t want to waste a whole lot of time on this , because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want .
Anybody who knows me knows that it ’ s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Go to YouTube today .
There ’ s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States .
In 2015 , I deferred , in fact , to Sen. Warren — it was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president .
And you know what , I stayed back .
Sen. Warren decided not to run , and I then did run afterward .
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes .
How could anybody in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could become president of the United States ?
And let me be very clear .
If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that ’ s not the case , I hope it ’ s me — but if they do , I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country .
Warren took this opportunity to not only restate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasize why coded questions about a woman ’ s electability are misguided .
Among the points she highlighted : the fact that none of the women candidates onstage have ever lost an election , compared to the men onstage who have lost 10 elections between them : Bernie is my friend , and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie .
But , look , this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised , and it ’ s time for us to attack it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to talk about who can win is by looking at people ’ s winning record .
So can a woman beat Donald Trump ?
Look at the men on this stage .
Collectively , they have lost 10 elections .
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women : Amy and me .
And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me .
Warren and Sanders seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday .
But their brief moment of tension isn ’ t just political jockeying as they stare down the looming Iowa caucuses — it ’ s touching on a real point of debate in the Democratic Party .
Some Democrats do question whether a woman candidate can beat Trump Part of the reason Sanders ’ s purported comments have prompted such a response is that they wade into assumptions some voters have expressed about the electability of a woman president — questions Warren , and other women candidates , have had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town halls and stump speeches .
“ At the end of the day , what matters for me is whether or not they can beat Trump , ” Lawrence Davis , an adjunct professor who lives in Sumter County , South Carolina , previously told Vox .
Davis said he hoped the country would one day elect a woman for president , but he wasn ’ t sure it would be in 2020 .
Effectively , because of Hillary Clinton ’ s loss in 2016 , some voters are concerned a woman won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the sexism she ’ ll face from other voters .
It ’ s an assumption that doesn ’ t account for the many factors that contributed to Clinton ’ s defeat , including her political baggage , and it obscures the differences between women candidates .
Additionally , there ’ s no data to suggest that a woman is on track to lose in 2020 , experts have told Vox , especially since election predictions are notoriously difficult far in advance .
Because of this uncertainty , many see electability as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to express existing biases about who matches longstanding expectations for what a presidential candidate looks like .
Though Sanders and Warren didn ’ t seem particularly keen to tangle more on this subject ( aside from a somewhat awkward exchange that followed about Sanders ’ s track record of beating a Republican incumbent in the past ) , it remains to be seen if Democratic voters are done considering it .
Warren — and Klobuchar — capitalized on this moment to counter assumptions about electability Warren , as well as Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respond directly to questions that have been raised about a woman candidate ’ s electability .
Of the other points Klobuchar cited : Women drove the victories the Democratic Party experienced in 2018 , including retaking gubernatorial seats in Michigan and Kansas : Women also flipped the lion ’ s share of House seats that Democrats retook in 2018 , as well as both Senate seats — and research has long shown that women candidates win at the same rate as men when they run for elected office .
All of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a barrier that women candidates encounter , they ’ re continuing to win in spite of this challenge , something Warren and Klobuchar took care to point out .
Despite their non-aggression pact , the tension between Sanders and Warren boiled over this weekend Sanders and Warren famously agreed to a “ non-aggression pact ” earlier in the election — though developments this past weekend signaled that it was getting dicier to stand by it as the Iowa caucuses approach .
Sparked by a Politico report that highlighted a script some Sanders volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 candidates , including Warren , that conflict has only grown and built to the leaks about Warren and Sanders ’ s 2018 meeting .
The candidates both put in strong performances in their efforts to address these disagreements on Tuesday and seemed ready to put their simmering feud on the back burner , at least for the moment .
In Iowa , however , where the RealClearPolitics survey average has former Vice President Joe Biden leading the field by a hair , the two progressives are polling extremely close to one another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the likelihood of even more conflict potentially to come — not only between Warren and Sanders , but across the 2020 field .

The January Democratic debate didn’t disappoint when it came to the moment everyone was waiting to see.
On Tuesday night, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren finally addressed some of the escalating conflict between the two when they tackled a question about sexism and the 2020 election.
Sanders emphasized that he had championed Warren for the presidency in the past and said it was “incomprehensible” that he would argue a woman couldn’t win. Warren, meanwhile, seized on this exchange to make her case about why women’s electability in 2020 shouldn’t be questioned — the subject at the heart of a supposed disagreement she had with Sanders.
This recent point of strain first emerged on Monday, after a weekend of tension between the two normally friendly progressives, when CNN published a report that Sanders told Warren a woman could not win the presidential election, something he’s denied. Later in the day, Warren confirmed that the report aligned with her memory of the conversation, which happened in 2018.
“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate,” Warren’s statement reads. “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
Sanders, meanwhile, has said he did not make this assertion, but focused more on the specific challenges of going up against Trump. “What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” he said in a statement.
Both stuck to their positions on Tuesday and elaborated on what they meant, managing to stand their ground while declining to further fuel this feud.
Sanders explicitly denied making this comment and reiterated his longstanding backing for Warren along with other women candidates:
Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody who knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren — it was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I then did run afterward. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear. If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.
Warren took this opportunity to not only restate her impressions of the meeting but also emphasize why coded questions about a woman’s electability are misguided. Among the points she highlighted: the fact that none of the women candidates onstage have ever lost an election, compared to the men onstage who have lost 10 elections among them:
Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on. And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record. So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy and me. And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me.
Warren and Sanders seemed to manage to largely bury the hatchet on Tuesday. But their brief moment of tension isn’t just political jockeying as they stare down the looming Iowa caucuses — it’s touching on a real point of debate in the Democratic Party.
Some Democrats do question whether a woman candidate can beat Trump
Part of the reason Sanders’s purported comments have prompted such a response is that they wade into assumptions some voters have expressed about the electability of a woman president — questions Warren, and other women candidates, have had to tackle over and over again during their town halls and stump speeches.
“At the end of the day, what matters for me is whether or not they can beat Trump,” Lawrence Davis, an adjunct professor who lives in Sumter County, South Carolina, previously told Vox. Davis said he hoped the country would one day elect a woman for president, but he wasn’t sure it would be in 2020.
Effectively, because of Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, some voters are concerned a woman won’t be able to defeat Trump due to the sexism she’ll face from other voters.
It’s an assumption that doesn’t account for the many factors that contributed to Clinton’s defeat, including her political baggage, and it obscures the differences between women candidates. Additionally, there’s no data to suggest that a woman is on track to lose in 2020, experts have told Vox, especially since election predictions are notoriously difficult far in advance.
Because of this uncertainty, many see “electability” as a coded term that’s become a way to express existing biases about who matches longstanding expectations for what a presidential candidate looks like.
Though Sanders and Warren didn’t seem particularly keen to tangle more on this subject (aside from a somewhat awkward exchange that followed about Sanders’s track record of beating a Republican incumbent in the past), it remains to be seen if Democratic voters are done considering it.
Warren and Klobuchar capitalized on this moment to counter assumptions about electability
Warren, as well as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, capitalized on this moment to respond directly to questions that have been raised about a woman candidate’s electability.
Of the other points Klobuchar cited: Women drove the victories the Democratic Party experienced in 2018, including retaking gubernatorial seats in Michigan and Kansas:
When you look at the facts, Michigan has a woman governor right now and she beat a Republican, Gretchen Whitmer. Kansas has a woman governor right now and she beat Kris Kobach. And her name is, I’m very proud to know her, and her name is Governor Kelly.
Women also flipped the lion’s share of House seats that Democrats retook in 2018, as well as both Senate seats, and research has long shown that women candidates win at the same rate as men when they run for elected office.
All of this is to say that while sexism is a barrier that women candidates encounter, they’re continuing to win in spite of this challenge, something Warren and Klobuchar took care to point out.
Despite their non-aggression pact, the tension between Sanders and Warren boiled over this weekend
Sanders and Warren famously agreed to a “non-aggression pact” earlier in the election, though developments this past weekend signaled that it was getting dicier to stand by it as the Iowa caucuses approach.
Sparked by a Politico report that highlighted a script some Sanders volunteers were using to push back on other 2020 candidates, including Warren, that conflict has only grown and built to the leaks about Warren and Sanders’s 2018 meeting.
The candidates both put in strong performances in their efforts to address these disagreements on Tuesday and seemed ready to put their simmering feud on the back burner, at least for the moment.
In Iowa, however, where the RealClearPolitics survey average has former Vice President Joe Biden leading the field by a hair, the two progressives are polling extremely close to one another. The tightness of their competition signals the likelihood of even more conflict potentially to come — not only between Warren and Sanders, but across the 2020 field.


vox--2020-01-14--2020 Democrats finally got specific on foreign policy in the Iowa debate

Foreign policy dominated the opening section of Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate , and it allowed the six candidates onstage in Iowa to put some serious daylight between them on issues of war and trade .
Among other things , they debated how many troops to keep in the Middle East and whether they support the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal ( USMCA ) President Donald Trump negotiated .
At every turn , the candidates found ways to distinguish themselves , something they had largely failed to do with so many hopefuls onstage in previous debates .
This time , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this batch of 2020 Democrats might serve as commander in chief .
Here ’ s what they had to say .
US troops in the Middle East : Stay or leave ?
A constant refrain from leading 2020 Democrats is the need to end America ’ s “ endless wars , ” which would require a drawdown of US troops levels in the Middle East and Afghanistan .
But when asked specifically how they would do that , candidates offered differing takes .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) said she wants “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region , including Afghanistan .
“ We ’ ve turned the corner so many times [ in Afghanistan ] we ’ re going in circles in these regions .
This has got to stop , ” she said .
“ It ’ s time to get our combat troops home.
” Warren has yet to publicly clarify what she means by “ combat troops.
” Does she mean she only wants to bring home service members that have engaged in fighting , or those deployed to the region for the sole purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some have speculated that she wants literally every American soldier , airman , Marine , and sailor to head stateside , though that seems unlikely .
Her campaign declined to comment on the record when I asked for clarification .
Former Vice President Joe Biden had a very different answer from Warren ’ s : “ I would leave troops in the Middle East in terms of patrolling the [ Persian ] Gulf , ” he said , “ and I think it ’ s a mistake to pull out the small number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq and Syria ] to deal with ISIS.
” “ ISIS is going to reconstitute itself ” if that happens , he added .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) offered a middle path .
“ I would leave some troops [ in the Middle East ] , but not at the level that Donald Trump is taking us right now , ” she said .
“ Afghanistan , I have long wanted to bring our troops home .
I would do that .
Some would remain for counterterrorism and training.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president wants .
In July , Trump told Fox News ’ s Tucker Carlson that Afghanistan was the “ Harvard of terrorists ” and that he therefore wanted to leave US intelligence assets and personnel there to continue to combat terrorism .
Still , it seems Klobuchar wants fewer US troops stationed throughout the region , which could potentially lead to her removing Americans Trump recently added in Kuwait , for example .
What ’ s become clear , then , is that the number of US service members in the Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets into the Oval Office — should they beat Trump , that is .
Another constant among 2020 Democratic hopefuls to date is that they are generally skeptical of free trade deals .
That partly has to do with Trump ’ s position on the issue , as he rode a populist wave to the presidency by promising to tear up trade agreements that hurt American workers .
But fissures on trade surfaced in Iowa when the discussion turned to the USMCA agreement , the new name of the renegotiated NAFTA deal Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected to vote on it in the coming weeks .
The clearest difference was between Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and Warren , both the standard-bearers for the party ’ s progressive left wing .
Sanders vowed not to vote for USMCA , while Warren said she would .
“ We can do much better than a Trump-led trade deal , ” Sanders said .
“ This deal , and I think the proponents of it acknowledge , will result in the continuation of the loss of hundreds of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He went on to tout his consistent opposition to free trade deals , including USMCA ’ s predecessor , NAFTA , and the Trans-Pacific Partnership , a multinational agreement brokered by the Obama administration that failed to pass through Congress .
Sanders also had another complaint about the USMCA : “ Every major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase ‘ climate change ’ in it.
” Warren , who is usually critical of free trade deals , explained why she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new trade deal is a modest improvement , ” she stated .
“ It will give some relief to our farmers , it will give some relief to our workers .
I believe we accept that relief , we try to help the people who need help , and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal.
” Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , who espouses a more traditional , centrist US foreign policy , also expressed support for the Trump-backed deal .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , but “ it is not perfect.
” He went on to slam Washington politicians for not delivering on their promises to American workers that free trade plans would improve their lives .
“ My part of the country , in the industrial Midwest , I remember , when they came around in the ’ 90s , selling trade deals , telling us , ‘ Don ’ t worry about your slice of the pie , the pie will get so much bigger that everyone will be better off.
’ And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many experts have long called for Democrats to finally and specifically stake their ground on important foreign policy issues .
In Iowa , they started to .

Foreign policy dominated the opening section of Tuesday night’s presidential debate, and it allowed the six candidates onstage in Iowa to put some serious daylight between them on issues of war and trade.
Among other things, they debated how many troops to keep in the Middle East and whether they support the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal (USMCA) President Donald Trump negotiated.
At every turn, the candidates found ways to distinguish themselves, something they had largely failed to do with so many hopefuls onstage in previous debates. This time, the smaller debate let voters see just how this batch of 2020 Democrats might serve as commander in chief.
Here’s what they had to say.
US troops in the Middle East: Stay or leave?
A constant refrain from leading 2020 Democrats is the need to end America’s “endless wars,” which would require a drawdown of US troops levels in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But when asked specifically how they would do that, candidates offered differing takes.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said she wants “all combat troops” out of the region, including Afghanistan. “We’ve turned the corner so many times [in Afghanistan], we’re going in circles in these regions. This has got to stop,” she said. “It’s time to get our combat troops home.”
Many people weren’t completely sure what she meant by this, but her spokesperson Alexis Krieg clarified the senator’s comments.
“Elizabeth will ends these wars — full stop. That means withdrawing all of our troops in combat, including special operations forces who have carried much of the burden of the forever wars,” she told me.
Former Vice President Joe Biden had a very different answer from Warren’s: “I would leave troops in the Middle East in terms of patrolling the [Persian] Gulf,” he said, “and I think it’s a mistake to pull out the small number of troops that are there now [in Iraq and Syria] to deal with ISIS.”
“ISIS is going to reconstitute itself” if that happens, he added.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) offered a middle path. “I would leave some troops [in the Middle East], but not at the level that Donald Trump is taking us right now,” she said. “Afghanistan, I have long wanted to bring our troops home. I would do that. Some would remain for counterterrorism and training.”
That’s actually similar to what the president wants. In July, Trump told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson that Afghanistan was the “Harvard of terrorists” and that he therefore wanted to leave US intelligence assets and personnel there to continue to combat terrorism.
Still, it seems Klobuchar wants fewer US troops stationed throughout the region, which could potentially lead to her removing Americans Trump recently added in Kuwait, for example.
What’s become clear, then, is that the number of US service members in the Middle East would fluctuate based on which Democrat gets into the Oval Office — should they beat Trump, that is.
USMCA: Good or bad?
Another constant among 2020 Democratic hopefuls to date is that they are generally skeptical of free trade deals. That partly has to do with Trump’s position on the issue, as he rode a populist wave to the presidency by promising to tear up trade agreements that hurt American workers.
But fissures on trade surfaced in Iowa when the discussion turned to the USMCA agreement, the new name of the renegotiated NAFTA deal Trump secured earlier last year. The Senate is expected to vote on it in the coming weeks.
The clearest difference was between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Warren, both the standard-bearers for the party’s progressive left wing. Sanders vowed not to vote for USMCA, while Warren said she would.
“We can do much better than a Trump-led trade deal,” Sanders said. “This deal, and I think the proponents of it acknowledge, will result in the continuation of the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs as a result of outsourcing.”
He went on to tout his consistent opposition to free trade deals, including USMCA’s predecessor, NAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multinational agreement brokered by the Obama administration that failed to pass through Congress.
Sanders also had another complaint about the USMCA: “Every major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase ‘climate change’ in it.”
Warren, who is usually critical of free trade deals, explained why she would approve the USMCA. “This new trade deal is a modest improvement,” she stated. “It will give some relief to our farmers, it will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief, we try to help the people who need help, and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal.”
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who espouses a more traditional, centrist US foreign policy, also expressed support for the Trump-backed deal. “It has been improved,” he said, but “it is not perfect.”
He went on to slam Washington politicians for not delivering on their promises to American workers that free trade plans would improve their lives.
“My part of the country, in the industrial Midwest, I remember, when they came around in the ’90s, selling trade deals, telling us, ‘Don’t worry about your slice of the pie, the pie will get so much bigger that everyone will be better off.’ And that promise was broken,” he said.
Many experts have long called for Democrats to finally and specifically stake their ground on important foreign policy issues. In Iowa, they started to.


vox--2020-01-14--The next Democratic debate will take place right before the New Hampshire primary

The next Democratic debate will take place after the first voters have already weighed in on the 2020 race .
Slated for February 7 in Manchester , New Hampshire , the debate is the first of a trio happening that month as individuals in all four early states head to the polls ( or caucuses ) .
Scheduled just days after Iowa ’ s caucuses and less than a week before New Hampshire ’ s February 11 primary , the debate , hosted by ABC , WMUR-TV , and Apple News , is poised to inform last-minute voter decisions both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen reports , roughly two-thirds of voters in New Hampshire still haven ’ t made a final decision about their top candidate .
It ’ s possible candidates ’ last-ditch debate appearances — and arguments — could make the difference .
The other debates set to take place next month are slated for February 19 and 25 in Las Vegas and Charleston , South Carolina , respectively .
As has been the case for the rest of this primary cycle , the requirements to qualify for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stringent .
While the Democratic National Committee has yet to announce the specifics , candidates could need to hit an even higher polling and donor threshold than the ones they had to meet in January , when they needed 5 percent in at least four national polls , or 7 percent in two early-state polls and 225,000 individual donors .
If their existing qualifications hold , the set of candidates who appear at February ’ s debate could be very similar to the ones who made the stage this month : Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left out once again : The state of the race , briefly explained There ’ s a four-way race for first place in Iowa and New Hampshire : A recent poll from the Des Moines Register found that Sanders , Warren , Buttigieg and Biden are all within striking distance of one another in Iowa .
Similarly , in New Hampshire , those same frontrunners are polling very closely with one another , with Sanders leading the RealClearPolitics average in both states .
...
But voters are still making up their minds : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from voters heading to the polls , the race is still very fluid as a majority of people continue to finalize their candidate of choice .
These last-minute debates could well play a significant role in these decisions for voters who might be torn between a subset of the remaining candidates .
Three of the top five contenders are going to be rather busy for the next couple weeks : Impeachment continues to remain a wild card as the 2020 race continues , largely because a trial will keep three of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for part of the time .
Sens .
Sanders , Warren , and Klobuchar will need to stay in Washington while the trial is taking place in the coming weeks , though they ’ ll be able to campaign during the downtime they might have .
As the trial rules dictate , however , the proceedings could take place six days a week , eating up valuable campaign opportunities .
The field keeps getting whiter : Sen. Cory Booker has dropped out of the 2020 race this week , and former Housing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well , the latest candidates of color to leave a field once hailed as the most diverse ever .
Experts tell Vox that the dominance of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — both states that are more than 90 percent white — set the tone for evaluations of candidates ’ electability , and in doing so could wind up hurting candidates of color .

The next Democratic debate will take place after the first voters have already weighed in on the 2020 race. Slated for February 7 in Manchester, New Hampshire, the debate is the first of a trio happening that month as individuals in all four early states head to the polls (or caucuses). The debate’s start time will be 8 pm ET; it’s expected to run for about three hours.
Scheduled just days after Iowa’s caucuses and less than a week before New Hampshire’s February 11 primary, the debate, hosted by ABC, WMUR-TV, and Apple News, is poised to inform last-minute voter decisions both in the state and across the country. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen reports, roughly two-thirds of voters in New Hampshire still haven’t made a final decision about their top candidate. It’s possible candidates’ last-ditch debate appearances — and arguments — could make the difference.
In the first debate after votes are cast in Iowa, candidates will for the first time in the 2020 primary race have two distinct pathways to making the stage. The first option is to meet a delegate threshold: Any candidate who leaves Iowa with at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention will automatically have a spot on the stage.
The second pathway is identical to the standards put in place by the Democratic National Committee for the seventh debate in January: Candidates must achieve 225,000 unique donors and poll either at 5 percent or better in four qualifying national or early-state polls, or at 7 percent in two qualifying early-state polls.
The deadline to qualify for the eighth Democratic debate is midnight on February 6, the day before the debate is scheduled to take place.
The other debates set to take place next month are slated for February 19 and 25 in Las Vegas and Charleston, South Carolina, respectively.
Currently, the set of candidates who have qualified to be on stage in the first of three February debates is one larger than this month’s debate:
Similarly, a slew of remaining candidates could get left out once again:
The state of the race, briefly explained
There’s a four-way race for first place in Iowa and New Hampshire: A recent poll from the Des Moines Register found that Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden are all within striking distance of one another in Iowa. Similarly, in New Hampshire, those same frontrunners are polling very closely with one another, with Sanders leading the RealClearPolitics average in both states.
... But voters are still making up their minds: Even though we’re just weeks away from voters heading to the polls, the race is still very fluid as a majority of people continue to finalize their candidate of choice. These last-minute debates could well play a significant role in these decisions for voters who might be torn between a subset of the remaining candidates.
Three of the top five contenders are going to be rather busy for the next couple weeks: Impeachment continues to remain a wild card as the 2020 race continues, largely because a trial will keep three of the top five candidates off the campaign trail for part of the time. Sens. Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar will need to stay in Washington while the trial is taking place in the coming weeks, though they’ll be able to campaign during the downtime they might have. As the trial rules dictate, however, the proceedings could take place six days a week, eating up valuable campaign opportunities.
The field keeps getting whiter: Sen. Cory Booker has dropped out of the 2020 race, and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro recently did as well, the latest candidates of color to leave a field once hailed as the most diverse ever. Experts tell Vox that the dominance of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — both states that are more than 90 percent white — set the tone for evaluations of candidates’ electability, and in doing so could wind up hurting candidates of color.


vox--2020-01-14--Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are their own evidence that women can win

“ So can a woman beat Donald Trump ?
” Elizabeth Warren asked about an hour into the seventh Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday evening .
It ’ s an uncomfortable — and , frankly , depressing — question .
And it ’ s one that ’ s on a lot of Americans ’ minds .
But what happened next was uplifting : The two women onstage , Warren and her fellow senator , Amy Klobuchar , made a case that women can and do win in politics all the time .
Their proof ?
Themselves , and plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in probably her biggest moment of the evening , noted that the men on the stage have collectively lost 10 elections .
“ The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are women : Amy and me , ” she said , to audience cheers .
She emphasized that as recently as 2012 , she won a race against an incumbent Republican , former Sen. Scott Brown , and cast herself as a unity candidate in the Democratic field .
“ The real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a candidate who can ’ t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency , ” Warren said .
“ We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party , bring everyone in , and give every Democrat a place to believe in .
That ’ s my plan , and that is why I ’ m going to win.
” Klobuchar then took the opportunity to build on Warren ’ s message and point out that the possibility for women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two of them , even if a woman hasn ’ t yet broken through the highest , hardest glass ceiling that is the Oval Office .
You don ’ t have to be the tallest , skinniest , or loudest person in the room , “ but you have to be competent , ” she said .
She pointed to Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer and Kansas Gov .
Laura Kelly , both of who defeated their male opponents in 2018 .
And then Klobuchar brought it back to herself : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done , I have won every race , every place , every time.
” The remarks came about as part of a broader conversation stemming from Warren ’ s contention that Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) told her in a 2018 meeting that he did not believe a woman could win the upcoming presidential election , which CNN first reported earlier this week .
Sanders has denied the claims , and Warren continues to say it did happen .
But beyond the Sanders versus Warren disagreement , the fact that two women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success is , well , pretty neat .
There ’ s no denying that when it comes to rising to the top in politics , corporate America , or plenty of other arenas , women are held to a different standard .
Women are winning more now than they ever have , and the more they run , the more they ’ ll win — and , obviously , lose .
But just because Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 ( though she beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes ) doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Men have been losing the presidency since the nation ’ s birth , and we ’ re not asking whether it ’ s time for them to reconsider running .
As Vox ’ s Li Zhou has written , there are plenty of reasons to believe women are electable : Women drove the wave that allowed Democrats to retake Congress in 2018 , and the women who tossed their hats into the ring for the 2020 presidential election have strong electoral showings .
When women run , they generally win at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mean sexism isn ’ t real .
As Klobuchar pointed out at the November debate , if women weren ’ t held to a higher standard , we would have had a woman president before .
And for women in politics and , honestly , a lot of women , the electability question is a personal one , as writer Rebecca Traister outlined this week in The Cut with respect to the Warren-Sanders debacle : What has been exposed here are some of the complicated , painful , difficult dynamics that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s entire history .
Among those dynamics is the chilling fact that talking in any kind of honest way about marginalization becomes a trap for the marginalized .
To acknowledge the realities of running as a woman — the double standards , the higher bars , the demands for likability and relatability in a nation that mostly only relates to and likes dudes ; the need to be authoritative but not hectoring ; to be smart but not a know-it-all ; to be cool but not fake ; to be warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maternal but not too soft ; to have the contours of your life , from your breasts to your skin-care routines to your maternity leaves , treated as foreign and weird and maybe counterfeit by a political media that ’ s never had to take this stuff seriously before ; to be honest but not actually tell the truth about any of this stuff because you ’ ll sound like a whiner — is a trap .
You will be understood as trying to leverage the bleak unfairness of it all to your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one to enter the arena with the advantage of getting to cry “ Sexism !
” and not with the multiple disadvantages of … sexism .
However 2020 turns out , and whoever the nominee is , having women onstage matters .
And seeing them make their case and advocate for themselves — something plenty of women struggle to do — matters , too .
Warren famously tells little girls on the campaign trail that she ’ s running for president because that ’ s what girls do .
No matter who emerges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidency is no longer a novelty .

“So can a woman beat Donald Trump?” Elizabeth Warren asked about an hour into the seventh Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday evening. It’s an uncomfortable — and, frankly, depressing — question. And it’s one that’s on a lot of Americans’ minds.
But what happened next was uplifting: The two women onstage, Warren and her fellow senator, Amy Klobuchar, made a case that women can and do win in politics all the time. Their proof? Themselves, and plenty of other women like them.
Warren, in probably her biggest moment of the evening, noted that the men on the stage have collectively lost 10 elections. “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are women: Amy and me,” she said, to audience cheers. She emphasized that as recently as 2012, she won a race against an incumbent Republican, former Sen. Scott Brown, and cast herself as a unity candidate in the Democratic field.
“The real danger we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can’t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency,” Warren said. “We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give every Democrat a place to believe in. That’s my plan, and that is why I’m going to win.”
Klobuchar then took the opportunity to build on Warren’s message and point out that the possibility for women to win in American politics extends beyond the two of them, even if a woman hasn’t yet broken through the highest, hardest glass ceiling that is the Oval Office. You don’t have to be the tallest, skinniest, or loudest person in the room, “but you have to be competent,” she said. She pointed to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, both of who defeated their male opponents in 2018.
And then Klobuchar brought it back to herself: “When you look at what I have done, I have won every race, every place, every time.”
The remarks came about as part of a broader conversation stemming from Warren’s contention that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told her in a 2018 meeting that he did not believe a woman could win the upcoming presidential election, which CNN first reported earlier this week. Sanders has denied the claims, and Warren continues to say it did happen.
But beyond the Sanders versus Warren disagreement, the fact that two women politicians held themselves up as examples of success is, well, pretty neat. There’s no denying that when it comes to rising to the top in politics, corporate America, or plenty of other arenas, women are held to a different standard.
Women are, in fact, winning
Women are winning more now than they ever have, and the more they run, the more they’ll win — and, obviously, lose. But just because Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 (though she beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes) doesn’t mean the door is closed forever. Men have been losing the presidency since the nation’s birth, and we’re not asking whether it’s time for them to reconsider running.
As Vox’s Li Zhou has written, there are plenty of reasons to believe women are electable: Women drove the wave that allowed Democrats to retake Congress in 2018, and the women who tossed their hats into the ring for the 2020 presidential election have strong electoral showings. When women run, they generally win at the same rates as men.
That doesn’t mean sexism isn’t real. As Klobuchar pointed out at the November debate, if women weren’t held to a higher standard, we would have had a woman president before. And for women in politics and, honestly, a lot of women, the electability question is a personal one, as writer Rebecca Traister outlined this week in The Cut with respect to the Warren-Sanders debacle:
What has been exposed here are some of the complicated, painful, difficult dynamics that have kept women from the presidency for the country’s entire history. Among those dynamics is the chilling fact that talking in any kind of honest way about marginalization becomes a trap for the marginalized. To acknowledge the realities of running as a woman — the double standards, the higher bars, the demands for likability and relatability in a nation that mostly only relates to and likes dudes; the need to be authoritative but not hectoring; to be smart but not a know-it-all; to be cool but not fake; to be warm but not a mommy; to be maternal but not too soft; to have the contours of your life, from your breasts to your skin-care routines to your maternity leaves, treated as foreign and weird and maybe counterfeit by a political media that’s never had to take this stuff seriously before; to be honest but not actually tell the truth about any of this stuff because you’ll sound like a whiner — is a trap. You will be understood as trying to leverage the bleak unfairness of it all to your benefit: as if you are the one to enter the arena with the advantage of getting to cry “Sexism!” and not with the multiple disadvantages of … sexism.
However 2020 turns out, and whoever the nominee is, having women onstage matters. And seeing them make their case and advocate for themselves — something plenty of women struggle to do — matters, too. Warren famously tells little girls on the campaign trail that she’s running for president because that’s what girls do.
No matter who emerges as the nominee, women running for the presidency is no longer a novelty.


vox--2020-01-14--Amy Klobuchar’s moderate case against Medicare-for-all

At Tuesday ’ s seventh Democratic presidential primary debate , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) went directly at the two leading progressive candidates , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , to make the case for a more “ practical ” health care reform agenda rather than pursuing Medicare-for-all .
The exchanges were , in some ways , a repeat of what ’ s been said in many debates before .
Sanders and Warren argued the risk is not doing enough , given that America spends more money on health care than other developed countries but has worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that Medicare-for-all is too expensive and risks angering Americans by moving them to a new government insurance plan .
But Klobuchar made that argument more directly , and a bit more coherently , than we ’ ve seen in prior debates , including by bluntly stating the biggest problem for single-payer health care : the Senate .
“ Over two-thirds of the Democrats in the US Senate are not on the bill that you and Sen. Warren are on , ” Klobuchar said to Sanders on the debate stage .
The debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to respond .
But as Vox has covered before , it is true that many Senate Democrats , including those who would lead the committees that write health care legislation , don ’ t sound on board with single-payer .
( Sanders supporters generally respond to these arguments by saying they don ’ t think they should be compromising on their ideal plan before a new president has even been elected . )
Among Democratic primary voters , for what it ’ s worth , both health care plans — a public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though a public option does poll better at the moment .
One survey taken last summer showed a little less than half of potential Iowa caucus-goers considered backing Medicare-for-all a prerequisite for their supporting a candidate .
Later , Klobuchar called out Warren , arguing that the senator ’ s most recent iteration of her health care plan ( which differs from the Sanders Medicare-for-all bill Warren previously supported ) was an acknowledgment that the center-left critiques of single-payer were correct .
The Sanders bill includes a four-year transition period and then puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren now says she would start by passing a public option plan ( albeit one more generous than those supported by moderates like Klobuchar , Joe Biden , and Pete Buttigieg ) and then would try to pass full Medicare-for-all later in her first term .
“ You acknowledge that Medicare-for-all you couldn ’ t get there right away .
You got on the bill that said on page 8 that you would kick 149 million Americans off their current health insurance , ” Klobuchar said to Warren , referencing the Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , you said you ’ ll wait a while to get there .
That was some acknowledgment that maybe what we ’ re talking about it is true.
” Given that Republicans are favored to hold on to the Senate , it isn ’ t just Democrats ’ opposition that could doom ambitious health plans in the Senate .
So the debate later turned to what candidates could do through executive actions .
Warren responded to a question about her plan to have the government manufacture some generic drugs by highlighting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She promised to exercise existing presidential powers to authorize the cheaper production of certain drugs even if they are still under a patent .
Klobuchar said she had “ 137 things ” that would be legal for her to do as president in her first 100 days without congressional approval .
They include allowing people to import drugs from Canada and other countries for personal use .
That has been a popular idea with the public , and it ’ s received some bipartisan support , though experts have cast doubt that similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In general , as several Democrats onstage took the time to point out , the Democrats agree on expanding health care and lowering prescription drug costs — the question is how .

At Tuesday’s seventh Democratic presidential primary debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) went directly at the two leading progressive candidates, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to make the case for a more “practical” health care reform agenda rather than pursuing Medicare-for-all.
The exchanges were, in some ways, a repeat of what’s been said in many debates before. Sanders and Warren argued the risk is not doing enough, given that America spends more money on health care than other developed countries but has worse outcomes. The moderates on the stage argued that Medicare-for-all is too expensive and risks angering Americans by moving them to a new government insurance plan.
But Klobuchar made that argument more directly, and a bit more coherently, than we’ve seen in prior debates, including by bluntly stating the biggest problem for single-payer health care: the Senate.
“Over two-thirds of the Democrats in the US Senate are not on the bill that you and Sen. Warren are on,” Klobuchar said to Sanders on the debate stage.
The debate moderators unfortunately did not give Sanders a chance to respond. But as Vox has covered before, it is true that many Senate Democrats, including those who would lead the committees that write health care legislation, don’t sound on board with single-payer. (Sanders supporters generally respond to these arguments by saying they don’t think they should be compromising on their ideal plan before a new president has even been elected.)
Among Democratic primary voters, for what it’s worth, both health care plans — a public option and Medicare-for-all — are popular, though a public option does poll better at the moment. One survey taken last summer showed a little less than half of potential Iowa caucus-goers considered backing Medicare-for-all a prerequisite for their supporting a candidate.
Later, Klobuchar called out Warren, arguing that the senator’s most recent iteration of her health care plan (which differs from the Sanders Medicare-for-all bill Warren previously supported) was an acknowledgment that the center-left critiques of single-payer were correct.
The Sanders bill includes a four-year transition period and then puts everybody into one national health insurance plan. Warren now says she would start by passing a public option plan (albeit one more generous than those supported by moderates like Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg) and then would try to pass full Medicare-for-all later in her first term.
“You acknowledge that Medicare-for-all you couldn’t get there right away. You got on the bill that said on page 8 that you would kick 149 million Americans off their current health insurance,” Klobuchar said to Warren, referencing the Sanders bill. “Then a few months ago, you said you’ll wait a while to get there. That was some acknowledgment that maybe what we’re talking about it is true.”
Given that Republicans are favored to hold on to the Senate, it isn’t just Democrats’ opposition that could doom ambitious health plans in the Senate. So the debate later turned to what candidates could do through executive actions.
Warren responded to a question about her plan to have the government manufacture some generic drugs by highlighting the administrative actions she’d take. She promised to exercise existing presidential powers to authorize the cheaper production of certain drugs even if they are still under a patent.
Klobuchar said she had “137 things” that would be legal for her to do as president in her first 100 days without congressional approval. They include allowing people to import drugs from Canada and other countries for personal use. That has been a popular idea with the public, and it’s received some bipartisan support, though experts have cast doubt that similar importation plans would actually have much effect.
In general, as several Democrats onstage took the time to point out, the Democrats agree on expanding health care and lowering prescription drug costs — the question is how.


vox--2020-01-14--Trump counterprogrammed the Democratic debate with a rally featuring a rant about toilets

At the same time that presidential candidates at the Democratic debate in Des Moines , Iowa , were discussing foreign policy and their respective qualifications to be commander in chief , President Donald Trump was less than 400 miles away in Milwaukee bashing lightbulbs that make him look orange and toilets that don ’ t flush well enough for his liking .
Trump ’ s counterprogramming to the Democratic debate ended up being a relatively uneventful rally by his standards .
But the contrast between the two events couldn ’ t have been more stark , and threw the stakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Somebody said , ‘ Oh , sir , don ’ t mention the lightbulb , ’ ” Trump said at one point , right around the same time that former Vice President Joe Biden was defending his vote for the Iraq War .
“ The new lightbulb costs five times as much , and it makes you look orange .
And I was more interested in the orange than I was in the cost.
” Trump transitioned to hyping “ new dishwashers that give you more water so you can actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it 10 times ” — comments that suggest he ’ s not overly familiar with how dishwashers function .
The president did show a bit of restraint , catching himself before he fully reprised the statements he first made last month about “ flushing toilets 10 times , 15 times ” because of federal water efficiency standards .
He did , however , mimic flushing a toilet while alluding to how many times people flush ( “ 10 , 15 ... ” ) .
He went on to lament that new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drip , drip ” that doesn ’ t get the job done washing “ this beautiful head of hair.
” And what is Trump ’ s solution to these crushing environmental regulations ?
“ We ’ re getting rid of the [ water ] restrictors , you ’ re gon na have full shower flow , ” he said .
If it sounds silly , it was .
But Trump ’ s audience responded with wild cheers .
And , in all seriousness , the success Trump has had rolling back environmental regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of his speech , Trump bragged about war crimes .
He joked about former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson perhaps being in hell and about his possibly serving more than two terms in office .
He said he ’ d like to see Hillary Clinton locked up and trashed “ filthy , dirty ” blue cities like San Francisco in a manner that ’ s highly unusual for a president .
Meanwhile , in Des Moines , Democrats had sober , nuanced discussions of what they view to be America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care policy — something Trump didn ’ t even mention in his speech .
The contrast indicated that Trump won ’ t be running for reelection on a policy platform , but on the strength of his appeal to his base , a relatively strong economy , and overheated attacks on his Democratic rivals .
Oh — and by making America great again by turning the clock back to a time before wimpy liberal toilets .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics coverage .

At the same time that presidential candidates at the Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa, were discussing foreign policy and their respective qualifications to be commander in chief, President Donald Trump was less than 400 miles away in Milwaukee bashing lightbulbs that make him look orange and toilets that don’t flush well enough for his liking.
No, really.
Trump’s counterprogramming to the Democratic debate ended up being a relatively uneventful rally by his standards. But the contrast between the two events couldn’t have been more stark, and threw the stakes of the 2020 election into sharp relief.
“Somebody said, ‘Oh, sir, don’t mention the lightbulb,’” Trump said at one point, right around the same time that former Vice President Joe Biden was defending his vote for the Iraq War. “The new lightbulb costs five times as much, and it makes you look orange. And I was more interested in the orange than I was in the cost.”
Trump transitioned to hyping “new dishwashers that give you more water so you can actually watch and rinse your dishes without having to do it 10 times” — comments that suggest he’s not overly familiar with how dishwashers function.
Trump's complaints about new dishwashers are nuts and suggest he's never used one in his life pic.twitter.com/D7E6R0TNsQ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 15, 2020
The president did show a bit of restraint, catching himself before he fully reprised the statements he first made last month about “flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times” because of federal water efficiency standards. He did, however, mimic flushing a toilet while alluding to how many times people flush (“10, 15 ...”). He went on to lament that new showers only provide a “drip, drip, drip” that doesn’t get the job done washing “this beautiful head of hair.”
"You don't get any water!" -- POTUS transitions from complaining about dishwashers to complaining about sinks, toilets, and showers. He then starts bragging about his hair. pic.twitter.com/o4nHUBkGSc — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 15, 2020
And what is Trump’s solution to these crushing environmental regulations? “We’re getting rid of the [water] restrictors, you’re gonna have full shower flow,” he said.
If it sounds silly, it was. But Trump’s audience responded with wild cheers. And, in all seriousness, the success Trump has had rolling back environmental regulations is no laughing matter.
During other parts of his speech, Trump bragged about war crimes. He joked about former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson perhaps being in hell and about his possibly serving more than two terms in office. He said he’d like to see Hillary Clinton locked up and trashed “filthy, dirty” blue cities like San Francisco in a manner that’s highly unusual for a president.
"You know, Lyndon Johnson was sort of a tough guy. Can you imagine his phone calls? He's probably looking down, or looking up" -- Trump suggests LBJ is in hell pic.twitter.com/4At8tr4Tvv — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 15, 2020
Meanwhile, in Des Moines, Democrats had sober, nuanced discussions of what they view to be America’s appropriate role in the world and health care policy — something Trump didn’t even mention in his speech.
The contrast indicated that Trump won’t be running for reelection on a policy platform, but on the strength of his appeal to his base, a relatively strong economy, and overheated attacks on his Democratic rivals. Oh — and by making America great again by turning the clock back to a time before wimpy liberal toilets.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-01-15--The Russian government’s dramatic shake-up, briefly explained

It ’ s not every day an entire government resigns , but that ’ s what happened in Russia on Wednesday as President Vladimir Putin announced plans for major constitutional reforms that could extend his grip on power long after his term in office is supposed to end .
Because Putin ’ s power is really what this surprise announcement is all about .
Putin ’ s tenure as president is up in 2024 , but because authoritarian strongmen don ’ t tend to just quietly retire , the Russian leader is trying to secure his position long after those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for staying in power past 2024 “ has been in the works for years , ” Alina Polyakova , director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution , told me .
“ It ’ s not a power grab , it ’ s a plan to ensure that Putin de facto remains in power for life.
” Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned abruptly Wednesday , right as Putin announced the new constitutional reforms .
It ’ s still unclear if Medvedev and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s move or whether they were part of the plan all along .
But Medvedev , a longtime Putin ally , will still have a role in government , as Putin has placed him as the deputy chairman of Russia ’ s Security Council , a powerful body that advises the president on national security decisions .
Just a few hours after Medvedev ’ s resignation , Putin appointed a new prime minister to take his place : Mikhail Mishustin , a technocrat who ’ s been in charge of Russia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me that Mishustin is not a well-known or influential figure even within Russia , so Putin likely sees him as a placeholder — a loyalist type who isn ’ t looking to accumulate too much power for himself .
Which all kind of works out as Putin prepares for his future .
How to be in power for life , Putin edition Putin ’ s proposed constitutional reforms broadly seek to limit the power of the presidency and give more responsibilities to the Parliament , including the job of choosing the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intends to give more power to the State Council , an advisory body to the head of state that doesn ’ t have a ton of authority right now .
On paper , this all doesn ’ t sound too bad ; vesting more authority in the Parliament and checking some of the president ’ s powers might not be a bad move , and Putin is a perfect example why .
The problem is that Putin ’ s constitutional changes intend to limit the power of a president who is not him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weaker than he was .
And what Putin hasn ’ t quite revealed yet is where he ’ ll , personally , end up .
There ’ s speculation he may become prime minister again ( a role he held in 2008 , when Medvedev took over as president ) , who will have more power under the reforms , or he may put himself atop this newly elevated State Council as a sort of shadow figure running the show behind the scenes .
But Brian D. Taylor , a professor of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these constitutional tweaks are clearly designed to give him “ multiple options ” for how to maintain control of Russia beyond 2024 .
“ I ’ m not sure his plan is fully worked out from A to Z , ” Taylor added .
“ He might only know A to E — and we ’ re at about A to C right now.
” Putin was always going to find a way to stay in power .
The question was how .
Nobody really expected Putin — who has effectively been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retire after his tenure ended in 2024 .
Putin served as president between 2000 and 2008 , then stepped into the role of prime minister when his term limits were up , from 2008 to 2012 .
His close ally Medvedev took over as president , where many saw him as a placeholder for Putin .
Then , Medvedev let Putin come back as president in 2012 .
Putin , then , has attempted this kind of power reshuffle before .
The question was how exactly he would orchestrate it this time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ option was to extend or eliminate presidential term limits again , buying him more time in the role .
Putin is almost certainly not choosing this route , as his proposed constitutional changes include limiting the president to two consecutive terms .
Another option he apparently considered : creating a brand-new country and becoming president of that place instead .
This is not a joke — it just doesn ’ t look like it will pan out for Putin .
The country in question is Belarus , a former Soviet Republic in Eastern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its independence in 1991 , but in 1999 Belarus and Russia signed a union pact that outlined , albeit vaguely , closer integration between the two countries .
The Moscow Times likened the agreement to trying to replicate something like the European Union ’ s Schengen zone , with no customs checks and the same currency .
Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the pact , which jump-started talks between Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko over what a union between the two could look like — and whether it would ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This led to some speculation that Putin would try to become president of a united Russia-Belarus and basically get around term limits that way .
The talks haven ’ t been going all that well , though , and a lot of opposition exists , so the prospects for that avenue looked pretty grim .
That brings us to option three , which seems to be the one Putin chose — what Taylor dubbed the “ half leave ” scenario : Putin won ’ t be president anymore , but he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s leaving the presidency , but he ’ s almost certainly going to take some other position and try and stay on , ” Taylor told me .
“ But we still don ’ t know what this position is , or when this is going to happen.
” “ There were multiple options under consideration , ” Polyakova told me .
“ This was always the most straightforward one.
” Right now , the two most likely options , experts say , are the prime minister or the head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be getting new powers .
But it ’ s still not clear what his ultimate move will be .
Putin has said that he will seek these constitutional changes through a national referendum — something that isn ’ t actually required to change the constitution but which he said would give the reforms legitimacy .
Or , at least give Putin ’ s initiative the veneer of consent .
Putin ’ s proposal isn ’ t a done deal , though .
Far from it .
Putin has faced pressure in recent months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this summer .
Putin and the ruling United Russia party ( from which Putin keeps his distance ) have been slipping in popularity as more Russians become disillusioned with the state of the Russian economy , including rising inequality and falling incomes .
Declining oil prices and sanctions have squeezed the Kremlin , and the government had to push through unpopular measures in previous years , including increasing the retirement age .
Experts told me this resistance is partly why Putin is making this announcement now .
The Kremlin is under pressure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help distract from those issues .
Polyakova told me it helps give Putin an “ image of stability and strength.
” Putin ’ s future , though , is still not decided , and obstacles remain .
Challenges with the economy and questions of corruption can ’ t totally be ignored .
David Szakonyi , a professor of political science at George Washington University , told me that reforms and other changes will need to accompany these tweaks to the power .
Russia also has parliamentary elections in 2021 , which means Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support there if he wants to stay in power .
“ I think it would be a mistake to assume that he ’ s got this all under control and everything ’ s going to go smoothly , ” Taylor said .
“ We ’ re at the early stages of a multi-process , multiplayer game and lots of things can still go wrong .
”

It’s not every day an entire government resigns, but that’s what happened in Russia on Wednesday as President Vladimir Putin announced plans for major constitutional reforms that could extend his grip on power long after his term in office is supposed to end.
Because Putin’s power is really what this surprise announcement is all about. Putin’s tenure as president is up in 2024, but because authoritarian strongmen don’t tend to just quietly retire, the Russian leader is trying to secure his position long after those term limits.
Putin’s plan for staying in power past 2024 “has been in the works for years,” Alina Polyakova, president of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told me. “It’s not a power grab, it’s a plan to ensure that Putin de facto remains in power for life.”
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned abruptly Wednesday, right as Putin announced the new constitutional reforms. It’s still unclear if Medvedev and the other officials were surprised by Putin’s move or whether they were part of the plan all along.
But Medvedev, a longtime Putin ally, will still have a role in government, as Putin has placed him as the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, a powerful body that advises the president on national security decisions.
Just a few hours after Medvedev’s resignation, Putin appointed a new prime minister to take his place: Mikhail Mishustin, a technocrat who’s been in charge of Russia’s tax services for a decade.
Experts told me that Mishustin is not a well-known or influential figure even within Russia, so Putin likely sees him as a placeholder — a loyalist type who isn’t looking to accumulate too much power for himself.
Which all kind of works out as Putin prepares for his future.
How to be in power for life, Putin edition
Putin’s proposed constitutional reforms broadly seek to limit the power of the presidency and give more responsibilities to the Parliament, including the job of choosing the country’s prime minister. He also intends to give more power to the State Council, an advisory body to the head of state that doesn’t have a ton of authority right now.
On paper, this all doesn’t sound too bad; vesting more authority in the Parliament and checking some of the president’s powers might not be a bad move, and Putin is a perfect example why.
The problem is that Putin’s constitutional changes intend to limit the power of a president who is not him, thus ensuring his successor is far weaker than he has been.
And what Putin hasn’t revealed yet is where he’ll, personally, end up. There’s speculation he may become prime minister again (a role he held in 2008, when Medvedev took over as president), who will have more power under the reforms, or he may put himself atop this newly elevated State Council as a sort of shadow figure running the show behind the scenes.
But Brian D. Taylor, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, said all of these constitutional tweaks are clearly designed to give him “multiple options” for how to maintain control of Russia beyond 2024.
“I’m not sure his plan is fully worked out from A to Z,” Taylor added. “He might only know A to E — and we’re at about A to C right now.”
Putin was always going to find a way to stay in power. The question was how.
Nobody really expected Putin — who has effectively been in power since 2000 — to quietly retire after his tenure ends in 2024. Putin served as president between 2000 and 2008, then stepped into the role of prime minister when his term limits were up, from 2008 to 2012. His close ally Medvedev took over as president, where many saw him as a placeholder for Putin. Then Medvedev let Putin come back as president in 2012.
Putin, then, has attempted this kind of power reshuffle before. The question was how exactly he would orchestrate it this time.
The first, and most obvious, option was to extend or eliminate presidential term limits again, buying him more time in the role. Putin is almost certainly not choosing this route, as his proposed constitutional changes include limiting the president to two consecutive terms.
Another option he apparently considered: creating a brand new country and becoming president of that place instead.
This is not a joke — it just doesn’t look like it will pan out for Putin. The country in question is Belarus, a former Soviet republic in Eastern Europe that borders Russia. Belarus declared its independence in 1991, but in 1999 it signed a union pact with Russia that outlined, albeit vaguely, closer integration between the two countries. The Moscow Times likened the agreement to trying to replicate something like the European Union’s Schengen zone, with no customs checks and the same currency.
Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the pact, which jump-started talks between Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko over what a union between the two could look like — and whether it would ultimately lead to Belarus being absorbed by Russia.
This led to some speculation that Putin would try to become president of a united Russia-Belarus and basically get around term limits that way. The talks haven’t been going all that well, though, and a lot of opposition exists, so the prospects for that avenue looked pretty grim.
That brings us to option three, which seems to be the one Putin chose — what Taylor dubbed the “half leave” scenario: Putin won’t be president anymore, but he’ll still be Putin-ing.
“He’s leaving the presidency, but he’s almost certainly going to take some other position and try and stay on,” Taylor told me. “But we still don’t know what this position is, or when this is going to happen.”
“There were multiple options under consideration,” Polyakova told me. “This was always the most straightforward one.”
Right now the two most likely options, experts say, are the prime minister or the head of the State Council, which Putin said would be getting new powers. But it’s still not clear what his ultimate move will be.
Putin has said he will seek these constitutional changes through a national referendum — something that isn’t actually required to change the constitution but which he said would give the reforms legitimacy. Or at least give Putin’s initiative the veneer of consent.
Putin’s proposal isn’t a done deal, though. Far from it.
Putin has faced pressure in recent months, including massive pro-democracy demonstrations in Moscow this summer.
He and the ruling United Russia party (from which he keeps his distance) have been slipping in popularity as more Russians become disillusioned with the state of the Russian economy, including rising inequality and falling incomes. Declining oil prices and sanctions have squeezed the Kremlin, and the government had to push through unpopular measures in previous years, including increasing the retirement age.
Experts told me this resistance is partly why Putin is making this announcement now. The Kremlin is under pressure, and what better than a shake-up to help distract from those issues. Polyakova told me it helps give Putin an “image of stability and strength.”
Putin’s future, though, is still not decided, and obstacles remain. Challenges with the economy and questions of corruption can’t totally be ignored. David Szakonyi, a professor of political science at George Washington University, told me that reforms and other changes will need to accompany these tweaks to the power structure.
Russia also has parliamentary elections in 2021, which means Putin has to make sure he retains overwhelming support there.
“I think it would be a mistake to assume that he’s got this all under control and everything’s going to go smoothly,” Taylor said. “We’re at the early stages of a multi-process, multiplayer game and lots of things can still go wrong.”


vox--2020-01-15--The feud between Warren and Sanders supporters feels like 2016 all over again

Things were already tense between supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren going into Tuesday night ’ s Democratic presidential debate .
Then the snakes came out .
The immediate cause of the conflict was a CNN story , published Monday , in which unnamed sources said that in 2018 , Sanders had told Warren that a woman couldn ’ t win the presidency in 2020 .
Warren soon confirmed the account ; Sanders denied it .
Both candidates took the high road during Tuesday ’ s debate , refocusing attention on their campaign ’ s core messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to refuse to shake Sanders ’ s hand , fueling further speculation about a rift between the two .
Ordinary voters took up the conflict , with Sanders supporters on Twitter filling Warren ’ s mentions with snake emojis , implying that she ’ s untrustworthy and evil .
On Wednesday , # NeverWarren was trending .
So was # WarrenIsASnake .
To many people , the conflict had echoes of the 2016 primary contest , when supporters of Sanders and Hillary Clinton clashed in often-bitter online feuds .
During that campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and , sometimes , Sanders himself — with sexism , while Sanders supporters saw the allegations as bad-faith defenses of a flawed candidate .
Many of the same dynamics are at work today .
But some say the conflict threatens to obscure a necessary conversation about how sexism works in American politics and the pressures any female presidential candidate will have to face .
Misogyny likely did play a role in Clinton ’ s 2016 loss to Trump , and it plays a role in how female candidates are perceived today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who studies women leaders , told Vox .
A productive conversation around gender would have to include “ an acknowledgment that there has been this association of the American presidency with masculinity , ” she said — and a reckoning with the effect of that association on candidates of all genders , not just women .
Warren and Sanders are in conflict for the first time in this campaign .
It ’ s spilling over onto social media .
Some of the intensity of the current conflict comes from the fact that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly agreed not to attack each other on the campaign trail .
Things started to change this weekend , when Politico reported that the Sanders campaign was using a volunteer script calling Warren ’ s supporters “ highly-educated , more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what.
” Warren responded that she was “ disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me , ” as Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen reports .
But the conflict got much more heated when allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate on Tuesday night , Sanders again denied that he had told Warren a woman couldn ’ t win in 2020 .
“ Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes , ” he said .
“ How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States ?
” Ultimately , he said , “ the only way we beat Trump is by a campaign of energy and excitement and a campaign that has , by far , the largest voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Warren , similarly , repudiated the notion that a woman can ’ t win , while also making an argument for herself as the most electable person on stage : “ We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party , bring everyone in , and give everyone a Democrat to believe in .
That ’ s my plan , and that is why I ’ m going to win.
” It was by no means a negative exchange .
But when the two met on stage after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t shake Sanders ’ s outstretched hand , and the two seemed to have a heated conversation .
By early Wednesday morning , Twitter users were replying to Warren ’ s tweets with snake emojis , presumably implying that she had double-crossed Sanders by violating their reported non-aggression pact .
As Vox ’ s Constance Grady explains , the use of the snake emoji has its roots in celebrity fandom culture and is “ designed to signal your overwhelming loathing of a celebrity who you believe to be sneaky , slimy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the only criticism .
Others , like documentarian Michael Moore , explicitly accused Warren of back-stabbing .
The over-the-top language — likening criticism of an opponent to a knife in the back — was familiar .
When powerful men have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years , they and others have often complained that they ’ ve been “ killed ” or that their “ lives are over ” — even if , as in the case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh , they ’ ve faced no career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of the Me Too movement .
But the exaggerated language around a woman ’ s decision to speak out is strikingly similar .
The controversy has echoes of 2016 The conflict between Warren and Sanders supporters was also reminiscent , for many , of the 2016 primary campaign , during which Clinton supporters often reported sexism and online harassment by Sanders supporters they described as “ Bernie bros. ” Many Sanders supporters saw these arguments as deflections from Clinton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t end when Clinton won the nomination — or when she lost the election .
Among Sanders supporters , “ Bernie would ’ ve won ” became , as Jezebel ’ s Ashley Reese puts it , “ half cynical meme , half sincere lament.
” Meanwhile , resentment among former Clinton supporters continued to fester , so much so that former Clinton staffers were still complaining to the media about Sanders ( and finding an audience for their complaints ) in 2019 .
For many , the prospect of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is why some supporters of both candidates were calling for an end to the Twitter war on Wednesday and urging their fellow progressives to support whichever candidate becomes the nominee .
The conflict is a sign of larger issues in American politics The desire for the two camps to end hostilities notwithstanding , there are real systemic issues at play .
On the one hand , the idea that Sanders supporters were all white , male “ bros ” was always a stereotype , not reality .
As Dara Lind explained at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie supporters in 2016 was primarily age , not gender .
And this time around , young women actually make up a bigger share of Sanders ’ s base than young men , as Marie Solis noted at Vice last year .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Sanders ’ s female opponents — Clinton then , Warren now — don ’ t face sexism when they run against a man .
On social media , critics of Warren often say things like , “ you just can ’ t trust her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or “ she ’ s opportunistic , ” Jalalzai said — criticisms similar to those lobbed at Clinton in 2016 .
“ There is a tendency to portray especially strong women candidates as overly ambitious , as willing to do anything at all costs to win , ” Jalalzai explained .
And while the snake emoji may have gotten its start with Kim Kardashian stans , the snake image is similar , Jalalzai said , to images used to criticize other female world leaders as disloyal or two-faced .
And whatever happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no surprise that Warren has been criticized for alleging Sanders said something that could be interpreted as sexist .
“ When women call sexism out it often falls on deaf ears , or people get really angry with the notion , ” Jalalzai said .
The response by both candidates to the conflict , at least as of Tuesday night , was to try to defuse the situation and assert that of course a woman can be elected president .
But there ’ s growing evidence that sexism against Clinton played some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election , even if it wasn ’ t the whole story , Jalalzai said .
“ To pretend that that ’ s not the case is sort of unproductive.
” Instead , the current conflict is an opportunity for a real examination of how gender stereotypes affect all candidates , not just women .
“ How much is Bernie given a pass because , whether or not people acknowledge it , there ’ s something about him that seems more presidential because he ’ s a man ?
” Jalalzai said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ What makes someone like him the obvious frontrunner ?
Part of it , I would assume , is because he ’ s a man and because he ’ s white.
” Gender also impacts how Americans see our current president .
“ When President Trump goes down in history as the worst American president we ’ ve ever had , no one is going to say that that means that men should no longer be president , ” Jalalzai said .
“ Women presidents have been subjected to that in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not even at the point yet where a female president can be criticized for her performance .
But we are at a point where multiple female candidates are close to the highest office in the country , even if they don ’ t ultimately win .
And that ’ s an opportunity to have an open conversation about our country ’ s enduring biases about who is “ presidential ” — and begin to dismantle them .

Things were already tense between supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren going into Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate.
Then the snakes came out.
The immediate cause of the conflict was a CNN story, published Monday, in which unnamed sources said that in 2018, Sanders had told Warren that a woman couldn’t win the presidency in 2020. Warren soon confirmed the account; Sanders denied it.
Both candidates took the high road during Tuesday’s debate, refocusing attention on their campaign’s core messages. But after the debate, Warren appeared to refuse to shake Sanders’s hand, fueling further speculation about a rift between the two. Ordinary voters took up the conflict, with Sanders supporters on Twitter filling Warren’s mentions with snake emojis, implying that she’s untrustworthy and evil. On Wednesday, #NeverWarren was trending. So was #WarrenIsASnake.
To many people, the conflict had echoes of the 2016 primary contest, when supporters of Sanders and Hillary Clinton clashed in often-bitter online feuds. During that campaign, Clinton supporters charged some Sanders supporters — and, sometimes, Sanders himself — with sexism, while Sanders supporters saw the allegations as bad-faith defenses of a flawed candidate.
Many of the same dynamics are at work today. But some say the conflict threatens to obscure a necessary conversation about how sexism works in American politics and the pressures any female presidential candidate will have to face.
Misogyny likely did play a role in Clinton’s 2016 loss to Trump, and it plays a role in how female candidates are perceived today, Farida Jalalzai, a political science professor who studies women leaders, told Vox. A productive conversation around gender would have to include “an acknowledgment that there has been this association of the American presidency with masculinity,” she said — and a reckoning with the effect of that association on candidates of all genders, not just women.
Warren and Sanders are in conflict for the first time in this campaign. It’s spilling over onto social media.
Some of the intensity of the current conflict comes from the fact that Sanders and Warren are longtime friends who had reportedly agreed not to attack each other on the campaign trail.
Things started to change this weekend, when Politico reported that the Sanders campaign was using a volunteer script calling Warren’s supporters “highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what.” Warren responded that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me,” as Vox’s Ella Nilsen reports.
But the conflict got much more heated when allegations of sexism came into play. At the debate on Tuesday night, Sanders again denied that he had told Warren a woman couldn’t win in 2020.
“Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes,” he said. “How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?”
Ultimately, he said, “the only way we beat Trump is by a campaign of energy and excitement and a campaign that has, by far, the largest voter turnout in the history of this country.”
Warren, similarly, repudiated the notion that a woman can’t win, while also making an argument for herself as the most electable person on stage: “We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That’s my plan, and that is why I’m going to win.”
It was by no means a negative exchange. But when the two met on stage after the debate was over, Warren didn’t shake Sanders’s outstretched hand, and the two seemed to have a heated conversation.
By early Wednesday morning, Twitter users were replying to Warren’s tweets with snake emojis, presumably implying that she had double-crossed Sanders by violating their reported non-aggression pact. As Vox’s Constance Grady explains, the use of the snake emoji has its roots in celebrity fandom culture and is “designed to signal your overwhelming loathing of a celebrity who you believe to be sneaky, slimy, and manipulative.”
The snakes weren’t the only criticism. Others, like documentarian Michael Moore, explicitly accused Warren of back-stabbing.
Elizabeth & Bernie have appeared in my films. I love them both. Why Elizabeth chose to stick a knife in Bernie’s back is beyond me. At a time when job #1 is to remove Trump, how did this help? My new RUMBLE podcast “The Sad Downfall of Elizabeth Warren.” https://t.co/uFwOFNka9U — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 15, 2020
The over-the-top language — likening criticism of an opponent to a knife in the back — was familiar. When powerful men have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years, they and others have often complained that they’ve been “killed” or that their “lives are over” — even if, as in the case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, they’ve faced no career consequences whatsoever.
The situation between Warren and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of the Me Too movement. But the exaggerated language around a woman’s decision to speak out is strikingly similar.
The controversy has echoes of 2016
The conflict between Warren and Sanders supporters was also reminiscent, for many, of the 2016 primary campaign, during which Clinton supporters often reported sexism and online harassment by Sanders supporters they described as “Bernie bros.” Many Sanders supporters saw these arguments as deflections from Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate.
The conflict didn’t end when Clinton won the nomination — or when she lost the election. Among Sanders supporters, “Bernie would’ve won” became, as Jezebel’s Ashley Reese puts it, “half cynical meme, half sincere lament.” Meanwhile, resentment among former Clinton supporters continued to fester, so much so that former Clinton staffers were still complaining to the media about Sanders (and finding an audience for their complaints) in 2019.
For many, the prospect of a repeat of all this is exhausting, which is why some supporters of both candidates were calling for an end to the Twitter war on Wednesday and urging their fellow progressives to support whichever candidate becomes the nominee.
The conflict is a sign of larger issues in American politics
The desire for the two camps to end hostilities notwithstanding, there are real systemic issues at play.
On the one hand, the idea that Sanders supporters were all white, male “bros” was always a stereotype, not reality. As Dara Lind explained at Vox, what separated Clinton fans from Bernie supporters in 2016 was primarily age, not gender. And this time around, young women actually make up a bigger share of Sanders’s base than young men, as Marie Solis noted at Vice last year.
But that doesn’t mean that Sanders’s female opponents — Clinton then, Warren now — don’t face sexism when they run against a man.
On social media, critics of Warren often say things like, “you just can’t trust her, she’s a liar,” or “she’s opportunistic,” Jalalzai said — criticisms similar to those lobbed at Clinton in 2016.
“There is a tendency to portray especially strong women candidates as overly ambitious, as willing to do anything at all costs to win,” Jalalzai explained.
And while the snake emoji may have gotten its start with Kim Kardashian stans, the snake image is similar, Jalalzai said, to images used to criticize other female world leaders as disloyal or two-faced.
And whatever happened in the 2018 meeting, it’s no surprise that Warren has been criticized for alleging Sanders said something that could be interpreted as sexist.
“When women call sexism out it often falls on deaf ears, or people get really angry with the notion,” Jalalzai said.
The response by both candidates to the conflict, at least as of Tuesday night, was to try to defuse the situation and assert that of course a woman can be elected president. But there’s growing evidence that sexism against Clinton played some role in voters’ choices in the 2016 election, even if it wasn’t the whole story, Jalalzai said. “To pretend that that’s not the case is sort of unproductive.”
Instead, the current conflict is an opportunity for a real examination of how gender stereotypes affect all candidates, not just women.
“How much is Bernie given a pass because, whether or not people acknowledge it, there’s something about him that seems more presidential because he’s a man?” Jalalzai said. As for former Vice President Joe Biden, “What makes someone like him the obvious frontrunner? Part of it, I would assume, is because he’s a man and because he’s white.”
Gender also impacts how Americans see our current president. “When President Trump goes down in history as the worst American president we’ve ever had, no one is going to say that that means that men should no longer be president,” Jalalzai said. “Women presidents have been subjected to that in other countries.”
In the United States, we’re not even at the point yet where a female president can be criticized for her performance. But we are at a point where multiple female candidates are close to the highest office in the country, even if they don’t ultimately win.
And that’s an opportunity to have an open conversation about our country’s enduring biases about who is “presidential” — and begin to dismantle them.