Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

tsogud said:

My fav Krystal Ball back at it again, on her show The Rising she calls Elizabeth Warren's coziness to the Democratic establishment into question. She cites a new well reported piece in The New York Times in which Warren is supposedly vigorously reassuring the Democratic establishment that she's a team player and that she's aligned with them. Ball's breakdown and analysis of the situation is well articulated and makes a lot of sense. I HIGHLY recommend watching the video before commenting so you can better understand what I'm talking about, you can watch it here.

With this new information coming into light has your opinion on Elizabeth Warren changed? Do you favor her more or less now?

For me personally this really worries me a lot, she's still my second choice and by far a better candidate in every way compared to the rest of the field, apart from Bernie of course. Hopefully this doesn't mean she'll buckle under pressure from corporate establishment Democrats if she gets the nomination and becomes president but it's definitely worrying for me.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/democratic-establishment-elizabeth-warren-1369874

Are you familiar with Third Way centrism, the centrist ideology popularized by Bill Clinton that pretty much runs the establishment now? Their think tank supports Warren as an alternative to Sanders if Biden fails. I still support Warren as my second choice, but this is the biggest red flag against her I've seen thus far. If the king of establishment centrist think tanks, Third Way, says that Warren is so fundamentally to the right of Bernie Sanders that they see her as a way to contain the Democratic Party's leftward movement, that gives me serious pause with her.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

Wow. Bernie Sanders people are even more narrow-minded than I thought. ELIZABETH WARREN, who is running on a platform objectively LEFT OF Bernie's (think not just single-payer health care and tuition-free college and a $15/hour minimum wage, but also breaking up the tech giants, giving workers a minimum 40% ownership stake in the companies they work for, etc.), is a pro-corporate, establishment tool? Really?

There's no question that Warren is a registered and committed partisan Democrat, but I guess that's just not a dividing line for me when it comes to candidates running to be the Democratic Party's nominee for president

There is also no question that she has a race problem when it comes to who is supporting her as yet, but would point out that so did Bernie Sanders back in 2016 when the nation was first being introduced to him at this same level. But Krystal Ball is full of it when it comes to the income breakdown of her supporters. Warren regularly polls in third among low-income Americans, mirroring her overall position in the polls (which has mostly been third place). I would also duly remind the reader that Warren's average campaign contribution size in the second quarter was $28, which is exactly what that of Bernie Sanders was in 2016, and is only half that of candidates like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. And that Warren does not take corporate donations or attend high-dollar fundraisers.

As to all this "glowing media coverage" that Warren has received, one wonders whether Krystal Ball has been paying attention in the last two weeks because most of it that I've seen has focused on her "Pocahantas problem", as it's being termed, now that it's clear she's not going away.

If Bernie Sanders supporters really and truly believe that ELIZABETH WARREN is the establishment candidate in this race and their worst enemy bar none, then I have to conclude that what Bernie Sanders has going for him is called a personality cult.

This message brought to you by one of those "wealthy white liberal elites" on food stamps who supports Elizabeth Warren.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't paint us all with the same brush, Jaicee. Bernie may be my first choice, but Warren, so far, is a close second, and no one is close behind her for me. I'd also appreciate if you didn't make sweeping statements like "objectively to the left" because Warren is NOT "objectively" to the left of Sanders. I mean you do realize he wants to break up tech giants too, right? If I genuinely believed that Warren would break them up and Sanders wouldn't, I would switch to Warren immediately, so if you have proof there that this is unique to Warren, present it now. I'm under no delusion that Warren is an establishment tool, but there is absolutely no possible worse red flag to my trust in her trust than the Third Way think tank saying positive things about her. I'd rather the Koch brothers and their think tanks endorsed her, because I could believe that they just think she stands a chance of winning the nom and that perhaps they just think her as the nominee would give Republicans a better chance. For Third Way to talk about her as a way to stop Bernie, that gives me serious pause. This is the king of neoliberal politics we're talking about here, the demon we've been trying to exorcise from the party since the Clinton years, and they see her as a way to save the party from going full socialist. That scares me.

Again, Warren is no friend of corporate America, I know that, you know that, everyone in this thread knows that, and I doubt there's a soul alive that actually supports Bernie for ideological reasons and considers her an actual ideological enemy, but the people who support Bernie over Warren do so for a variety of reasons, and for many of us, it's that we're unabashed socialists that dislike that Warren proudly and unabashedly identifies as a capitalist, and see the election of Bernie as the more revolutionary act. If Bernie fails to get the nomination, Warren is the ONLY other candidate with an actual chance that I'd be genuinely ecstatically excited to enthusiastically campaign for. I just hope that if she does win, she learns from Bernie that continuous outreach and engagement with the people will be necessary to get done the revolutionary agenda that she shares with Bernie (name any policy of hers and I'll find you one from Sanders that's just as good or better).

That is the one thing I feel I can point to for Bernie over Warren, that while their policy agendas are in all practicality nearly identical, Bernie's political strategy for getting those policies enacted is better, in my mind. Warren wants to make nice with the neoliberal establishment of the party, which will involve allowing her amazing plans to be watered down through compromise after compromise, long before compromise is actually politically necessary. Bernie will not do that. He'll engage the people, FDR fireside chat style but more modern, to bring about an honest to God political revolution. That phrase isn't just rhetoric to him. And lets be clear, this isn't "only he can do it" personality cult speaking, this is just trust of his consistent record and faith in his strategy talking that keeps me supporting him. Warren has the record (with very occasional stains like her unwillingness to endorse in time for Super Tuesday in 2016) but not the strategy. Williamson is the only other candidate to come close to talking like Bernie on strategy, perhaps that's why I liked her so much, but she stands no chance and frankly I like Bernie's and Liz's visions and plans better, and trust their leadership more.



A quote from the article I linked:

"
Like many centrists, Bennett, the Third Way co-founder, views Sanders as destined to lose against Trump. But Warren is a different story.

“We really like the idea of using government to rectify market failure. And that’s what she’s about,” Bennett said. “We don’t agree on everything, but she’s fundamentally rowing in the same direction.”
"

So in other words, they see Warren as fundamentally a capitalist and not a threat to the status quo, while Bernie is a socialist and an existential threat to the system that made them rich.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

As I expected, Tulsi didn't reach the required polling % based off the highly selective bs cherry picked "approved" polls of the DNC - despite her reaching the threshold in a ton of others... Fuck the DNC, I'm still supporting her. Donated to her all ready and this makes me want to do it again. I think the Dems weren't too keen on her destroying one of their establishment darlings, Kamala Harris, in the last debate haha.

At least she's still technically in the race, and Andrew Yang - my second favorite candidate is go for the next debate. Though I have a bad feeling he's next on the chopping block when it comes to boxing out "undesirable" candidates. And I truly think they're going to come for Bernie yet AGAIN - though he's a ways off, well after they get Yang..

I can tell already - the establishment lapdops are Biden, Harris (though she received a major blow thanks to Tulsi), and to a lesser extent, Warren. They will absolutely be the last 3 standing. You can take it to the bank - bookmark it if you want lol. You can just tell based off the media favoritism and the shouting of "RUSSIA!! Secret Trumper!" "Assad apoligist!!1" to those who oppose them.

Have mixed feeling about Warren at least, would consider voting for her. Absolutely would NOT vote for Biden or Harris. 

Done  ^^

Also, if either Harris or Biden would make it (which I'm very sure they don't btw), why not vote for them. I mean, not going to vote will only strengthen Trump in your state. They might be less than ideal, but still miles above the alternative.

My state of Illinois is MASSIVELY leftist (or at least Chicago is, which is where most of the population resides), so it wouldn't make a difference anyway. The Dem candidate would have to be absolutely MISERABLE for my state to ever vote Trump lol. 

Biden is a relic of the old Dems, which part of me respects that he's at least moderate, but to me he still represents the sort of Neo-lib Status quo that I'm not into. He just doesn't draw any enthusiasm to me - and I'd imagine he'd largely just be "more Obama." His footage of being super touchy-feely around women and even little girls also raises an eyebrow for me..

Harris rings as a "Hillary lite" to me and her track record as a prosecutor (if what Tulsi says is true) is deplorable. She also sounds HIGHLY Authoritarian. No thanks. 

Warren at least goes after Wallstreet and the big bankers, and has even called out the information monopoly Big Tech is gathering and its unbalanced censorship, which I LOVE. She's sort of Bernie-esque which I like. As I've said, I just wish she'd drop the "eliminate the electoral college!" and reparations nonsense. Otherwise she'd pretty much have my full support.



HylianSwordsman said:
tsogud said:

My fav Krystal Ball back at it again, on her show The Rising she calls Elizabeth Warren's coziness to the Democratic establishment into question. She cites a new well reported piece in The New York Times in which Warren is supposedly vigorously reassuring the Democratic establishment that she's a team player and that she's aligned with them. Ball's breakdown and analysis of the situation is well articulated and makes a lot of sense. I HIGHLY recommend watching the video before commenting so you can better understand what I'm talking about, you can watch it here.

With this new information coming into light has your opinion on Elizabeth Warren changed? Do you favor her more or less now?

For me personally this really worries me a lot, she's still my second choice and by far a better candidate in every way compared to the rest of the field, apart from Bernie of course. Hopefully this doesn't mean she'll buckle under pressure from corporate establishment Democrats if she gets the nomination and becomes president but it's definitely worrying for me.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/democratic-establishment-elizabeth-warren-1369874

Are you familiar with Third Way centrism, the centrist ideology popularized by Bill Clinton that pretty much runs the establishment now? Their think tank supports Warren as an alternative to Sanders if Biden fails. I still support Warren as my second choice, but this is the biggest red flag against her I've seen thus far. If the king of establishment centrist think tanks, Third Way, says that Warren is so fundamentally to the right of Bernie Sanders that they see her as a way to contain the Democratic Party's leftward movement, that gives me serious pause with her.

Yeah I'm familiar with Third Way. You expressed my sentiments exactly. I'll remain cautiously optimistic though because the future isn't written yet but yeah it's a big red flag for me as well.



 

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Jumpin said:

That's a bit of a shame, I liked her. If Bernie wins, she should be one of his potential options for Vice President (Although I think Warren would be his #1 choice, and vice-versa for Warren).

Anyway, best case scenario at the moment seems to be Warren vs Bernie in the end. I don't think you can go wrong with either as President of the US.

Anyway, question, IF it was Bernie/Warren (in either order), would it remain possible for one of them to be the leader of the Senate down the road? (probably Warren due to age). Also, which position is more powerful, Vice President or Senate Leader?

Senate Leader.  I mean look at the power McConnell wields versus Pence. It's not even close.

I should qualify this by saying it needs to be the Senate Majority Leader.

So maybe Elizabeth Warren would be better as Senate Majority Leader than Vice President if Bernie wins (she would have a chance in 2022). I also think she would do a fantastic job. So maybe Elizabeth Warren isn't Bernie's best option for Vice President, perhaps it is Gillibrand.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Senate Leader.  I mean look at the power McConnell wields versus Pence. It's not even close.

I should qualify this by saying it needs to be the Senate Majority Leader.

So maybe Elizabeth Warren would be better as Senate Majority Leader than Vice President if Bernie wins (she would have a chance in 2022). I also think she would do a fantastic job. So maybe Elizabeth Warren isn't Bernie's best option for Vice President, perhaps it is Gillibrand.

I think I'd cry actual tears of joy if Bernie were President and Warren was Senate Majority Leader. Since she works better with her Senate colleagues, it's perfect. We'd have the best Congress in my lifetime if that happened.

That said, for VP, I say Stacey Abrams. It's clearly what she's gunning for with sitting out both a Senate run (in a probably blue cycle with two seats open and Georgia as a battleground!) and a presidency run. She's doing her thing with voting rights, and that's crazy important as well, but VP is one position that rather than get in the way of that, would actually help that initiative, by giving her a better platform with minimal obligations. Also, she's a popular politician from Georgia, in a year when Georgia is actually flippable to blue for the first time in a generation or two, so having her at the top of the ticket is a pretty good strategy, in my mind. It helps that she has fairly good progressive credibility, is on the same page with Bernie on voting rights and their importance, and as a woman of color from the South could help with outreach to communities that Bernie might otherwise struggle with.



Jumpin said:
SpokenTruth said:

Senate Leader.  I mean look at the power McConnell wields versus Pence. It's not even close.

I should qualify this by saying it needs to be the Senate Majority Leader.

So maybe Elizabeth Warren would be better as Senate Majority Leader than Vice President if Bernie wins (she would have a chance in 2022). I also think she would do a fantastic job. So maybe Elizabeth Warren isn't Bernie's best option for Vice President, perhaps it is Gillibrand.

That's a valid strategy if we knew we could take the Senate during the election.  If Republicans retain control, Warren would be relegated to Minority Leader which wouldn't be of much use (see Chuck Schumer).



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Andrew Yang has adopted the slogan "Not let, not right, but forward" which is interesting, because it's not a Democratic Party slogan but one used by Green Parties. I don't think the US one, in particular, uses it (at least I can't find any reference), but just next door it is the main slogan of the Green Party of Canada, and they've used it since 2008.

I can't seem to find reference of affiliation, is Yang a former Green Party member?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

Andrew Yang has adopted the slogan "Not let, not right, but forward" which is interesting, because it's not a Democratic Party slogan but one used by Green Parties. I don't think the US one, in particular, uses it (at least I can't find any reference), but just next door it is the main slogan of the Green Party of Canada, and they've used it since 2008.

I can't seem to find reference of affiliation, is Yang a former Green Party member?

His main slogan is "Humanity First". He might have been a former green party member or just stole the phrase.