| HylianSwordsman said:
Warren seems pretty good, and would be an amazing President. She seems like basically what I wanted Obama to be, but he disappointed me. She really saddened me by not having the courage to stand for something in the 2016 primaries. If she'd endorsed early enough, it could have changed the whole primary, and we might not be in this mess right now. Since the election however, she's been reminding me why I loved her before. Warren would have trouble winning though. It's not fair, but while women won a ton of seats in this election, there's still a clear bias against them in government, and it would hurt her. People who see a huge difference between her and Bernie are imagining things. The main difference is she still believes properly regulated capitalism can deliver for human progress, whereas Bernie thinks direct but democratic interventions in markets are necessary. He isn't entirely anti-market however, and for that has gotten a lot of criticism from communists and straight socialists, and even some democratic socialists. Many argue he's more of a social democrat, and based on his actions and disregarding his rhetoric, they'd pretty much be right. Warren is also a social democrat, so if a social democrat is what you want, you might as well go for Bernie, because he will push for pretty much the same policies as her (higher wages, Medicare-For-All, free public education extended down to preschool and up to community and other public college degrees, better regulation and even breaking up of big banks, more action on climate change) while avoiding sexism. Again, it's not fair, but it is reality, and the cost of losing, for both America and humanity, is just too great. If you want a girl for the sake of history making, however, Warren is probably your best bet. Bernie or Warren, these policies are popular and anyone with the courage to fight for them on the national stage and the ability to communicate them properly will do very well, and no Dem girl has more popular policies more clearly communicated than Warren at this point. |
I am in agreement with you on Warren.
IMO - she'd make the best President out of any politician I am aware of in the US.
At the time of nominations, I think it seemed obvious that her endorsement of Bernie would have been redundant. Saving it for the winner of the Democratic primary was ultimately the best strategy. The problem is that Bernie Sanders actually lost. If she had endorsed Bernie and he still lost the primary, that would have hurt Hillary's chances even more in the general. HOWEVER, I wasn't considering gender politics as relevant in that time, and her endorsement of Bernie could have alleviated the female resistance vote against him. She couldn't exactly run in the primaries either; while it would have hurt Hillary for her to do so, it would have hurt Bernie more. It was a strategic miscalculation on Warren's part, but I don't think it should be held in any way against her.
As for political reputations. It's unfortunate that these little tiny brownies have been blown up into behemoths. It's unfortunate the "Pocahontas" name is something that holds sway given how ridiculous of a label it is. From the media and comments I see of Warren, even amongst the left, her reputation is effectively ruined for 2020. 2024 would be a different story, by then I think people will clearly consider Bernie too old, and wouldn't hold it against Warren if she ran as the leading social-democrat in his stead; in 2020, if she ran instead of him, I can see a lot of dissenting "We want Bernie instead!" people. I also hope the culture around women in politics changes, otherwise, Ocasio-Cortez is going to be deep in the mud before she's even old enough to be on the ticket.
Bernie Sanders has described himself as a Democratic Socialist even though he is running a Social Democrat platform. Some people (left wing media sources like Secular Talk and David Pakman Show) assume he is just confusing the two terms, but I don't think that's the case. " human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who’s making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well." - that's Social Democracy. I think what trips people up is that they assume social democracy refers to the systems used in the USSR and PRC; but if you look at his statement, it is clear that isn't the case - he's far more Westernized than that. In the 80s he was very optimistic that the USSR would return to attempts to implement the pre-October 1917 philosophies before the downfall.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
