Tildistas in the US, who do you support in the 2020 Democratic Primary?
~supplementary condorcet voting poll, if you'd like to answer in more nuance and provide some data to compare against when i ask this question later on down the road.~ poll has been closed as the week i said it'd be open has elapsed. thanks folks, and of course feel free to continue replying to this thread,
(foreigners are also welcome to chime in on who they'd vote for if they were eligible)
it's still 200 days to the iowa caucuses, but since this election cycle began literally six months ago already and we already have one debate under the belt, we're probably far enough along in the primary at this point that at least some of the billion candidates trying to run for the coveted position of democratic nominee for president in 2020 are making an impact on you, and nobody has actually asked this on here recently, weirdly enough.
i'll probably ask this question again in... i dunno, three months (so mid-october)? and see what changes between threads (if anything does).
I'm a Tilderino, so maybe not the intended demographic here, but I am still backing Bernie. Everyone is trying to copy him, but he has been consistent his entire life, unlike the pretenders. He was arrested protesting for civil rights in Chicago. He signed a decree for Pride Day as mayor of Burlington in 1982. For every major mistake in recent American history, there's a video out there of him being against it. Haim Saban, a major Democratic donor and big part of why the party is so terrible, likes every candidate except Bernie.
Warren would be my second pick, I trust her to be a salve for the country's soul after Trump.
The rest are bad and should mostly just drop out, they are in it for the book deals.
Your position echoes mine. Particularly after the Trump presidency and seeing what this country has devolved into, I value a candidates character as much as their policy positions and Bernies character is high quality.
And Bernie has been remarkably consistent in his positions, relative to most politicians, for decades now. At least from what I can see and research on the net. Bernie is my number one with Warren as a number two.
I'm not in the US so I don't follow candidates views as closely. However, I've been reading good stuff about Kamala Harris, why are your reasons for not supporting her?
She talks a good game, but her actions during her time as a prosecutor and district attorney is disqualifying to me. This piece from Vox takes a pretty fair look at her.. I supported Obama in '08, and felt incredibly betrayed that ACA became a giveaway to insurance and pharma companies, nobody went to jail for the Deepwater Horizon negligence or knowingly crashing the economy, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and so on. I don't want someone that can talk a good game, I want someone who has lived it.
I'm so happy to see people like @Diet_Coke and @Ellimist talking about what makes a candidate a good option. I think that a solid track record is really the only way to truly judge a candidate's metal. The adage "Talk is cheap" really comes into full use here with about 80% of the democratic candidates and serves as good gauge of how valuable and timeless acts of courage are. Actions are timeless and paid at a high price by some, and I don't mean the $25 fine he paid in '63 as a young man either.
Politicians that change with the prevailing wind will say anything they need to say just to get elected, but the ones who live by example will say it regardless of is popular at the time. Beware of talking heads like Kamala. She's got a gold lined tongue.
I agree with you. Experience should play a large role in considering the effectiveness in a presidential candidate, just as policy goals should. So should correct myself and say that Policy Goals, Track Record proving constant policy goals, and quality of experience in leadership play the largest roles in judging a president.
Now, talking all that into account, Sanders is top marks on two of those and mediocre (at worst) on the third. I don't think Kamala hits as high across the board. I feel like with those three areas of judging, it only leaves one other candidate who is close and I'd be a reluctant but willing voter for her. And I'm only reluctant because Warren is just not as tenacious in my opinion. But who knows, maybe that's what we need, as a nation, after four years of Trump and his toxic venom that's been plaguing us.
I don't mean to seem snarky, but whomever between (Sanders, Warren, Kamala, Buttigieg) has a chance to defeat Biden.
In terms of supporting their policy? Warren.
I like Bernie as a candidate, but he lacks the "winning" factor that really gets people to believe in him, and a fire that IMO is necessary to win this race. And of the other candidates (Harris, Warren, Buttigieg) I think Warren has the most solid policy background.
I like the things Warren says, and I like her, but I'm very nervous she's not as progressive as she makes herself out to be. The dems under Obama controlled the legislative and executive branch of government, and still didn't achieve change. Obamacare didn't go nearly far enough, and Obama made the Bush era tax cuts permanent. Let alone drone strikes and keeping our country in all these awful wars. This might sound stupid, because she's not Obama, but I'm using him as an example of someone who is much better at appearing to be a progressive than acting like one. My fear is being hoodwinked again.
My nerves might be misplaced, but I just have no issue trusting Bernie to aggressively take on the billionaire class in this country. The man marched and was arrested during the civil rights movement - you just don't get more authentic than that. He's been preaching the same message since the 80's, as the country became more and more polarized, and wealth disparity increased, and only now are people catching on. I feel like Warren, like many of the primary candidates, has adopted lots of Bernie's positions - Bernie truly moved the democratic rhetoric to the progressive left in 2016, and I think we can all thank him for that. I wonder if Warren would be pledging free public college, healthcare for all, and student loan forgiveness if Bernie didn't make these ideas mainstream when he did.
If I'm getting things wrong here, happy to be corrected. I like Warren, she's my senator and I wouldn't trade her, but the media is just so fucked these days I feel like I can't trust anything. She's absolutely my second choice after Bernie too, I should say.
Lastly, in regards to the "winning" factor thing, her and Bernie are both beating Trump in polls AFAIK - I definitely think Bernie can do it. Even Trump supporters I know generally admit that Bernie comes off as incredibly honest - even if they disagree with everything he stands for.
Perhaps me viewing Bernie as not having a chance to win is because of my own personal biases (I tend to consider myself right of Bernie, and more aligned with Warren on policy). I just see that Warren polls better with Democrats and Sanders right now, and I think there's a reason for that. I think she knows how to hold media spotlight which, for better or worse, is a necessary precondition to becoming president nowadays.
Warren sidesteps the irrational hatred that Clintonistas have for Bernie. There is a large segment of society who's entire view of Bernie is that he's "not a Democrat" (a plus in my book) and "how dare he" challenge the heiress to the presidency, despite his support and campaigning for Clinton when he lost the Primary.
I like Warren on policy. I think she has more energy than Bernie these days and can probably be more of a unifier. She's like 90% overlap with Bernie on policy and a hell of an explainer. Warren is raising most of her money with small dollar donations. The average donation to her $19.1MM is $28.
I have donated to the Warren Campaign. https://elizabethwarren.com/
The other one who's really good at this game is Harris, but she's almost definitely pretending to be more progressive than she is for the primary. While I suspect that Harris loves power for its own sake and her centrism bothers me, she's head and shoulders above Biden.
You've exactly highlighted how I feel about Warren vs Sanders. Bernie's long-term track record is a very strong draw for me. I view him as the single highest integrity candidate of the entire field. If we're going to go that route, I trust Bernie to see it through more than Warren.
I am 100% on board "Any Democrat 2020". I'll vote for Warren in the primary but I do not think she's going to win the nomination. My vote is a symbolic vote to hopefully get her a position in the cabinet.
The Democrat base is incredibly divided. Who is the candidate that will not only unite the base, but also woo independents into the fold? It's a tough battle and I truly don't know who can do it.
I would much rather have Warren in the Senate than the cabinet if she doesn't end up winning the nomination, ditto the VP slot. The Senate badly needs progressive legislators, especially ones as competent and practised as Warren.
Agreed. I'd definitely want Buttigieg for VP over Warren if she doesn't get the nomination.
Yeah, he definitely has the advantage of not depriving the Democrats of a mission critical position by becoming VP. That's one of the things that bugs me about discussions that turn to such and such senator being a good pick for VP or a cabinet position, those picks can be drawn from anywhere, and we'd do better to not weaken our incredibly precarious position in the senate. Gaining the presidency isn't going to mean a whole lot if we still have a senate that nakedly shirks its constitutional duties in order to sabotage a Democratic executive. As they've repeatedly shown, Republicans will absolutely pull a Merrick Garland on any Democratic presidential appointment, so long as they have the ability.
Back in 2015 (some time before Trump got his GOP nomination), I made a bet with a few friends: That Donald Trump will win the 2016 election, and Elizabeth Warren will win the 2020 one after a strong pendulum swing.
I'm still riding on that bet. I believe Warren is Trump's only serious contender right now, and if she doesn't win the nomination, the US is really fucked for another 4 years. Biden, much like Clinton, will draw a lot less from the left.
I also strongly support Warren. She is probably the most capable of all the candidates, and would make an excellent president. She is a good orator and knows how to talk to crowds, much like Obama; but she is also an excellent politician, capable of good-faith compromises.
Warren would also help counter the right-shifting US politics, and solidify the presence of liberal-democrats. I mentioned here before I believe the US democratic party will end up being a right-wing party within the next few decades (much like the swap that happened a century ago); the GOP far-right and from there we will see a new liberal-democrat party that more faithfully represents people like Warren, Sanders, AOC, etc.
I am having a very hard time with this primary. Sanders and Warren are fairly close in my estimation, but for me, Sanders wins out. I want to vote for him, but I'm torn because I think Warren has a better chance of getting the nomination. I don't want to vote against Sanders, but I also don't want to take a vote away from Warren if she'd closely win the nomination over Biden. I REALLY don't want Biden...
I just fucking wish we had ranked choice voting. I would feel so, so much better about things if we did.
Until you do get ranked voting, you have to be strategic about it. If you don't want Biden, you know what you have to do.
Warren didn't run in 2016 to improve Sanders' chances. Take from that what you will.
Ugh, I know. What I struggle with is that it doesn't feel good and I really want Bernie. Overall, I won't let emotion overtake logic. I just wish I could have my cake and eat it too.
Me too, for what it's worth. I mean I can't even vote, but US politics impact me and I believe Bernie would be a force for good, especially unchecked. But I also know that he would face much stronger political resistance and infighting than Warren will.
All in all, even though their intentions are similar, I believe Warren will be able to achieve more concrete positive change than Sanders, even though he is more left-leaning than her.
I thought that he only started his campaign after she stated she wouldn't be running?
Source on that being the reason she didn't run in 2016?
What the hell happened to Biden? Two years ago he was everyone's favorite person and now he's basically Satan incarnate. I'm smelling more divide and conquer shenanigans from the right.
All this division is going to give Trump a second term. The divide between Warren and Sanders supporters is even getting ridiculous. The two candidates are running nearly identical platforms.
I think Warren and Sanders need a suicide pact (whoever's behind in the polls early during the primaries drops out to support the other), and everyone needs to chill the fuck out about Biden. Every single front runner right now will be a massive improvement over Donald Trump.
I think that people's issue with Biden is basically that he's the exact same thing as Obama was. Don't get me wrong, I liked Obama a ton and think that literally any Democrat would be better than Trump, but I think that America's Democrats want a progressive president who will do something about wealth inequality, healthcare, etc.
Biden just doesn't come across that way to me (and, clearly, to a lot of other people). He seems like someone who will get lost in trying to compromise and, although some of it may be the right trying to take him down, he's said a decent number of things that make me skeptical of his ability to command important segments of votes.
"No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change" said former Vice President Joe Biden to a roomful of well-heeled donors at an evening fundraiser and added that he would not “demonize” the rich if he’s elected president in the 2020 election. “I need you very badly,” he told the group.
That's exactly what we can't have. It gives the right good ammo for the whole pile of "coastal elites" crap, and it's just plain harmful. America's billionaire class has exploited their wealth and power for too long, and we need to bring more equality.
biden is basically running on the ideas that 1) we need another obama even though obama really only set the stage for someone more progressive and in tune with policy to build off of because of the circumstances of his presidency and 2) that somehow how obama got treated was an aberration and like mcconnell is suddenly going to just be willing to compromise, as opposed to just telling him to go fuck himself and eat shit. obama was good for what he was and what he inherited; a second him is absolutely not what we need now, though, and his policies are not sufficient for tackling half the shit that's driving politics currently.
Absolutely agree. We don't need another compromiser, in my opinion. Bipartisanship is certainly important, but there is real, immediate harm that comes from not passing a lot of the policies that most of the more progressive candidates are pushing, especially those relating to climate, healthcare, and wealth inequality.
No. Biden was chosen to be Obama's VP to be the conservative white guy on the ticket so that the black man wouldn't scare people. This was widely reported in 2008.
During the Obama years, the quirky Uncle Joe meme took off, which had nothing to do with reality. Biden's a creeper and a drug warrior and a friend to segregationists as Harris pointed out during the debate.
Biden can only say Obama's name so often until people notice that Barak is not endorsing him and it gets really awkward.
Biden two years ago was the cool dude from the obama memes and that's how people knew him. What happened is he's now running for president and people are treating him as a presidential candidate.
Sanders and Warren do have a suicide pact as you say, I'm not worried about that. That's partly why I think Warren has the strongest chances right now; with the Sanders voters she beats all metrics.
Elizabeth Warren winning the Democrat nomination and the 2020 presidency would also fulfill another Simpsons prediction. America's first female president would come right after Donald Trump.
I'd have to agree that Warren should be the candidate that Democrats back. She's a bit more moderate than Sanders and unlike Clinton, she's a female candidate that doesn't reek of corruption and incompetence. Warren is also far less of a political insider than Biden is, which would benefit her greatly against Trump.
Accelerationism is quite a gamble Bob, we're about see if it pays off in the final round.
I understand I am The Minority, but I am pro-Warren, anti-Sanders. I think Sanders believes in a divisive nature of politics, where there are winners and losers and he has decided who the losers ought to be. Warren's style has always been more inclusive ("How do we make this system work for everyone, not just those at the top"), and that has always jived with my personal rejection of Trump's divide-and-conquer view of politics.
Simply put, to me, politics at its best is the art of finding common ground. Sanders and Trump are wholly disinterested in common ground, and I struggle to see how Sanders improves very much on the toxic political environment that led to people choosing Trump. Warren, however, offers a way out by promising a stalwart and excellent focus on policy that few can match, especially considering that this has been her bread and butter since forever.
Such as? I don't see how Sanders is remotely comparable to Trump since one wants to make life easier for those who have the worst and the other is an actual white supremacist. When has Bernie ever been "toxic" to anyone but the oligarchs?
The vibe I've always gotten from him is that anyone who Bernie disagrees with is either ignorant or "supporting the top 1%". There simply is no room in Bernie's rhetorical playbook for people who agree that something is an issue but disagree about how to solve it. Or for people who genuinely disagree for valid reasons (you know, that thing in good faith debate where reasonable people can disagree and still believe the other person reasonable).
To that extent, Bernie has been "toxic" to literally everyone who disagrees with him about any individual thing. I think if you can't engage in good faith debate, you are a strain on democracy. That's not so much an ideological stand as a approach to talking about ideology.
I agree, in that I think Sanders would be neutered by hostile senate forces both within and beyond his party. I simply don't think he's an effective leader when it comes to uniting political forces, which is necessary in today's climate.
Part of the reason people love Sanders so much, IMO, is his refusal to compromise. While people support his ideological consistency, I think we need more pragmatism in the office.
Why should progressives want political unity with white supremacists and corporate democrats?
The problem is y'all are calling some people white supremacists when they're not, and thus pushing them away and making it more likely in the future that they'll be sympathetic to white supremacists. Y'all should be looking to maximize the allies on your side and minimize the amount of enemies on the vitally opposing side. Choose your fucking battles rather than calling anyone who disagrees with you about an approach to dealing with climate change an enemy.
What you're arguing for is being sympathetic to white supremacists and people that would want to take away rights of women and LGBTQ individuals. You're arguing to choose people in the center which has already shifted right due to the overton window rather than the growing progressive base of voters.
And we've tried compromise on the ground of climate change. It didn't work. So when faced with global crisis, we're maintaining the status quo because people are more worried about compromise than solving the actual problem.
You're misreading what I am saying and end up doing exactly what I'm criticizing you of doing. A lot of people in your camp argue that all Republicans are white supremacists, an obviously untrue fact. By taking that approach, even those who might otherwise not like the white supremacist elements on the right might become angry with you because you're being an overgeneralizing dick, and then they'll become more sympathetic than they were initially toward those white supremacist assholes whom we all should hate.
The fact you can't tell the difference between someone who disagrees with you about how to approach climate change and a white supremacist is very disturbing and counterproductive. Maybe you don't want to tell the difference? Either way, that mentality should take a long walk.
If they don't like the white supremacist elements on the right, then maybe they should stop associating with the white supremacists. It's always striking to me when people get upset at being called white supremacist or having to call them out, while at the same time ignoring the various murders and violence committed under the guise of white supremacy. That, is why I call them out. Is it being an overgeneralizing dick? Maybe, but I wouldn't feel a need to be a dick if they actually gave a shit about the actions of white supremacists. Instead we have those same people on the right introducing measures to denounce 'left-wing activism' as domestic terrorism.
And if they choose to go further towards the alt-right because calling a spade a spade makes them angry, then it just further proves they really didn't give a shit about anything except what allows them to operate without criticism. Frankly I have little patience for this bullshit nowadays.
And I find it especially funny that you get mad at me for overgeneralizing while you do the exact same thing in your arguments.
You seem to assume anyone who you call a white supremacist associates knowingly with white supremacists. If you kept to that definition, we wouldn’t have a problem. It’s all the grey area people who are genuinely disagreeing with your policy prescriptions who then get lumped in with white supremacists that you’re being an overgeneralizing dick to.
It’s like saying left leaning people are necessarily Anti-Semitic because some representative somewhere bought into and perpetuates anti-semitic tropes. It’s not just not true, but more likely to push people who genuinely disagree with Israeli policy towards Palestinians to embrace overtly anti-Semitic stances.
If you don’t have the patience to refrain from counterproductive name calling, maybe you shouldn’t call people offensive names. Idk. Why you think I’m mad at you when I point that out is beyond me.
honest question: if people don't call out white supremacy when they see it or in any way oppose it where it sprouts up either politically or policy-wise, what's the practical difference between them and the white supremacists to people who are directly impacted by the implications of white supremacist rhetoric and activity? that those people don't explicitly hate minorities, they just aren't willing to stand up for them in any way? because you don't get brownie points just for the act of not actively hating minorities--that should be a literal prerequisite for being any semblance of a decent person--you get them by actually doing something to confront the spread or existence of those beliefs.
The same can be said literally of any hate group. I tend to think people are just trying to get by in most cases. It isn’t always obvious for some when another person is engaging in hate versus other political noise that rarely impacts the person. Even after that, it’s not always clear what that person can do to push back against the hate, especially if they’d have to alienate themselves from their friends or family to do so.
Acting like morality is a thing of black and white with not shades in between is an alienating action. You will make enemies of people that could’ve been allies if approached even a little bit more respectfully.
You've been essentially claiming progressives are over-eager on calling someone a 'white supremacist' which is not only an incredibly generalizing remark in itself but also one frequently used by people like Stephen Miller (an actual honest to goodness white supremacist) and saying that they're just 'disagreeing with policy'.
And I don't have the patience to deal with this 'counterproductive name calling' because you do the exact same thing you claim I'm doing. It's hypocritical as all get-out.
This isn’t about what “progressives” do as though it’s some line in the sand that only people of a certain ideology do. The only reason I care about (some) progressive people shooting themselves tactically in the foot is because I am progressive myself. You are thinking I’m making an ideological condemnation when it’s exclusively tactical. By no means are progressive people the only ones making over-broad generalizations that hurt their persuasive power with their audiences. It’s only the progressives who generally have a political philosophy I want to see gain success.
Becuase 40% of the population are white supremacists and another 30% are corporate democrats so if you want to pass any legislature you at least need consider their desires.
Unless of course you believe we'll just Gulag them all, and I do know a few people who do consider that.
Well, being as I am not a legislator and do not pass legislation, no I do not have to compromise. I'll just stand on the sidelines yelling about ending wars and capitalism and then I guess it's on the "representatives" to decide what that looks like. As a disenfranchised voter/consumer of American politics I find the notion that I need to optimize my personal beliefs for mass appeal distasteful - given the shit state of the market of political ideas.
Also I don't think the 40% of Americans who voted for Trump are white supremacists. Sure they all enable a racist xenophobe. But certainly only a portion of them what a white ethno-state. I also don't deny that I have common cause with any or all of them on a limited number of issues.
I am not the person that needs to sign off on all your politics before I let you into the tent. For instance, I am sure there are guys with Trump Pence 2024 signs in their yards and swastikas in their garage who would agree that the federal government is screwing farmers and consumers. Similarly we would probably agree that offshoring all the manufacturing in the name of cheap, disposable crap was a raw deal.
This is Democracy. The best we can do is try and change the views of Americans to be more in line with ours.
You're right. Which is why I'm not looking to compromise with the supporters of the Grand Ol' Party of women in kitchen and gays in the closet or the Democratic Party, brought to you by Exxon Mobile and Goldman Sachs. I would rather stick to my guns and show them all how they're being fleeced by their representatives - since this is a republic more days a year than it is a democracy.
I unfortunately don't have anything new or particularly poignant to add that hasn't already been said and heard by someone and everyone, but I'm supporting Bernie Sanders. I did in 2016 and I will in 2020. His platform hasn't changed and, since no one else's platform matches (though obviously quite a few get obnoxiously close) or improves upon it in my eyes, I'm sticking to my guns.
I don't have high hopes that he'll get the nomination, of course. I think he'll go the way of HRC in that respect (that is to say, robbed of what was rightfully theirs).
I really like Buttigieg. Biden is an absolute no-go for me. I've been a Bernie fan, but I'd like to have an idea of who his running mate would be. We have to face facts that he is extremely elderly and could absolutely pass while in office, so who he chooses as his VP is wildly important. I see lots of people in here giving props to Warren, which is super interesting to me because I don't think I've actually met anyone in person who is particularly excited about her. I don't really take issue with much of her policy platform, but, if I'm being totally honest, I don't think she's aggressive enough to go head on against foreign leaders like Putin and and I'm really unsure of her ability to handle aggression in contested regions like the South China Sea.
I'd really like to hear from anyone who is more familiar with Warren's potential/actual foreign policy chops.
I'm a huge Buttigieg fan. Back in 2016, I backed Sanders and donated to the campaign (then voted Clinton, don't worry). But this time around, I'm feeling a lot of concern over how Sanders might expand the office of the presidency and how Trump has already used the office to go over the law. I'm looking for a moderate that I can understand, especially since my views have changed since then and since I like his ability to express himself without buzzwords and all that old political crap; the dude knows how to talk.
I feel very similarly, Bernie to Buttigieg seems to be a thing. I was a big Bernie fan back in 2016, and I still think he's a decent politician, but I'm concerned because he hasn't really developed his platform very much. Buttigieg is progressive where it counts, lines up really well with my own views on foreign policy (an area Trump has done a ton of damage), and he's done a good job of defusing attacks directed at him. I think he'd make a great president, and it's why he'll be my primary vote in New Hampshire.
Totally agree. Buttigieg has three major characteristics for me that make me want to vote for him:
Military Experience: My best friend is in Afghanistan right now and I want a president who has foresight and the knowledge of what it's like to pack up and leave to go to a warzone. It's something the office has been in dire need of since Bush41.
Taking back the faith: I'm a Christian and I don't like the kind of stuff that's been coming out of the far right and alt-right these last two decades. Christ's message has been warped and twisted so much that Republicans have forgotten the tenants of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love thy neighbor as thyself." It's a shame, because I tend to be moderately conservative, but I'm sure as fuck not a Republican. I can't believe what I hear sometimes. Buttigieg's calmness and his steadfast faith in the face of adversity is truly inspiring.
Moderation: This dude is even-keeled. There's not a radical bone in his body and I think that gives him a certain insight into the things that people are tired of arguing about and just want done. There are very few things he's rabidly into, which are still dealt with with an even hand. He's talked about the existential threat climate change is, but he's not screaming to the sky about it; he knows that it's a long road. Also going on FOX was the right call and I hope people see that as a moderating characteristic.
I like Warren's policies a lot but I think Buttigieg has what it takes to get everyone under the same tent, for exactly the reasons you point out here.
My Dad was in the Navy, and voted pretty reliably Republican and/or Libertarian until Trump came along. (He was huge on Romney.) He likes Buttigieg. Not "oh well the GOP has gone off the deep end so I guess I better vote Dem now," but actually likes Buttigieg. I have another friend who oscillated between moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats, was horrified by Trump, and is already donating to Pete.
I already see the Bernie-or-Bust crowd demonizing Buttigieg for firing Darryl Boykins, labeling him as a corrupt centrist no better than Biden and it's maddening. Absolutism only works for Republicans, not Democrats. It's like they learned nothing in 2016. Moderate Dems will never fall in behind Bernie. They might not even fall in behind Warren: I walked my parents through Warren's policies and they smiled and nodded, right before telling me "those policies sound great and reasonable but she's so unlikable, so I don't want to vote for her."
Pete's likable. Pete's moderate enough to peel off the Obama-Trump voters, and maybe even some suburban white voters who voted McCain-Romney-Trump, but held their nose while voting for Trump. I don't think any other Democrat can pull that off: Warren and Bernie are counting on firing up the base, and Harris wants to improve turnout among women and people of color, but those tactics won't flip the rust belt back to blue. Pete will.
In fairness to the Bernie crowd, the number actual bernie absolutists is pretty small. They get amplified above their punching power by social media, but at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of people who supported Bernie in 2016 also supported Hillary. The loud absolutists were really annoying, but it isn't like they're even a sizeable minority of Bernie supporters. Those types of Bernie supporters were likely never going to vote for a Democrat anyway.
Yeah. The funny thing about Bernie is that I like his message and his policies. I’d gladly vote for him without hesitation in the general. But the sizable minority you speak of—which unfortunately is the face of his movement for anyone who spends time on social media—is insufferable.
That's really what it comes down to. I'm a right-leaning voter, like what your father might identify with, and in local elections I tend to vote split ticket, but I'm disgusted with the Republican Party and what it's become in the last ten(-ish) years and vote almost straight blue in all nationwide and most statewide elections. And when I do vote Republican, it's because I want that Democrat to remember to moderate himself. I am a conservative, but Trump and his goons make me sick.
Almost everyone in my family lives in the Rust Belt. And almost everyone I know here is a solid conservative, but they are tired of Trump. My racist old uncle who once said "them n------ should be happy: we brought them to America" is tired of Trump. I live in an upside-down world right now. No way in hell any of them will ever vote for a socialist, or hell, even a cop like Kamala (weed is strangely well-liked, by hippies and rednecks alike... I wonder if this is largely the same elsewhere, but I digress), but a religious white vet from the Midwest? They could probably get on board with that (homosexuality not withstanding, though that's also gaining some traction where I am, again: in some areas) and I would love to see it happen.
This is really interesting. Ten years ago, marijuana was the enemy and no one, not even Democrats, were pushing for legalization. I mean, Bill Clinton needed to be “tough on crime.” Colorado is really pushing the envelope these days on drug policy and I’m interested to see what this mushrooms situation in Denver becomes.
Yeah, that’s definitely his weak spot. Hopefully he can extend an olive branch to black voters and overcome it.
Shouldn't we be packing up and leaving war zones though? Will Pete be a hawk? Isn't Bernie's policy the most "Christ-like?" In that, Bernie wants to heal the sick and thinks its easier to pass a camel through the eye of a pin than get a rich man into heaven? Don't we need someone radically minded? We need to totally overhaul the economy and means of production to avert a massive catastrophe? How are we supposed to rise to such a challenge with a moderate-compromise-minded approach when that would mean compromising with the people making millions off of robbing our children of their future?
No, I mean like that knowing what it's like, personally, to pack up, leave home, and go to war is a strong deterrent to sending other kids to war.
I also don't think that we need someone radically minded. Buttigieg talked about this in an interview (I wanna say it was the FOX Town Hall, but I can't remember off the top of my head), where he said he thinks it's unwise to have the pendulum swing as far in the opposite direction. It's important to remain moderate and to get things done the right way, instead of playing the same game as Trump, just with a liberal agenda. I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat; I think that if he were elected, he would do a phenomenal job, but I'm a moderate, I have moderate views, and I don't agree with everything the Democrats want to see happen in America.
There are some things we should absolutely be unwilling to compromise on (climate change, Russian influence in our elections, etc.), but compromise is what keeps this country in check, from making the mistakes that other nations have made in the past. All of history's great dictators had no opposition, or no opposition they couldn't get rid of quickly, when they decided that they needed to do X, Y, and Z to make their country safe/great again. I'm not saying that our radicals are ANYTHING like that, but it's important to understand what CAN happen if we lose our sense of cooperation and understanding of the other side. I'm sure you'll agree, but I hate that things have gotten so far out of control in our politics, not just in our houses of government, but now pouring onto the streets every day. I have valid concerns when I disagree with you, just as you have valid concerns about what I want to get done; this is not a zero-sum game, we can work together and get things done in a way that A.) protects all of us and our rights and B.) keeps the ideological pendant from swinging every four years. It's detrimental to our society and acts in a way that is damaging to our democracy and the people it's built to serve.
The problem is that if the pendulum is swinging really far to the right when that is allowed, and then swinging only to the middle when it swings away from the right then the movement as a whole is very far rightward over and over again. This changes the range of what seems to be possible, and moves the government (if not the people) rightward over and over again. If you're disgusted by what the Republican party has become, maybe you should fight for something different than their goals rather than trying to halt the pendulum when it starts to swing left.
I can see where you're coming from and maybe I didn't express myself in the best way, but the reason I don't like the Republican Party is because it's all talk; it's all faith and no works. The reason I don't like liberalism (as we know it today) is because I don't agree with numerous polices that are cornerstones of the Democratic Party. For instance, I am almost sickeningly pro-2A, but you can't run as a Democrat on that; I want self-determination for the states, namely on abortion, but you can't run as a Democrat on that; and I don't think we should abolish the death penalty, but you can't run as a Democrat on that.
I don't agree with the Democrats, but I respect many of their members. That's the difference and that's the only thing that compels me to vote for them. I don't want them to do half the shit they say they're gonna do, I just want upstanding members of my community who will represent the most sacred office in our country and treat it like the honor it is.
I want a moderate. Period. And Pete Buttigieg is the closest thing I'm gonna get to that.
Makes sense. Thank you for the further explanation.
Anytime. Discourse is what leads us to better conversation :)
I vote based on policy plans alone, everything else can pound sand. I should also point out that I'm far more libertarian than liberal - I favor the individual over the state, almost without exception. I like liberal policies (like universal health care, no private prisons, equal rights for everyone) just fine, but when I look at how they want to implement them I usually cringe. Capitalist/Market friendly solutions are the ones I want to see, not large bullshit government programs that fail more often than they succeed. This is why I have an issue with most democratic proposals - but hey, at least they try, which is more than the republicans have done in decades.
I'm full in for Andrew Yang, it isn't even close for me. He flatly kicks Warren's ass in the policy department (more, and better, across the board) and she's the strongest of the rest of the field there. I've listened to plenty of interviews and Yang has the unique benefit of being factual and correct more often than any candidate I've seen in my entire life (not all the time, just most). I've watched him go on several dozen 'hostile' interviews from conservative outlets and almost without fail he wins them over. He's the only democrat I see speaking to the center, rather than the right or left.
I don't actually expect him to win the nomination, though - he has the donors in spades, but unless he starts cracking 3% in the polls like right now, or does something to distinguish himself in the next debate, he's not looking like he'll make the final cut.
Any of the other candidates who adopt the freedom dividend (seriously, not just as a bullshit talking point) will also get my full attention. So far, there are no takers, it's a bit too progressive for the field it seems. Everyone's still hemming and hawing over how we pay for it (as if that's even hard). I'm with Friedman on UBI and I think that policy as an avenue for welfare reform will have more positive effects than anything else being proposed by anyone. I wouldn't call it my 'single issue' but it's definitely a heavy factor for me, when I look at what that would do for the area where I live. Just for once, it'd be nice for America to get ahead of the curve for a change.
I want nothing whatsoever to do with Biden. He's another empty head, not interested. I'll gladly vote for Bernie or Warren, but I'm far, far, far less confident in their ability to beat Trump. There's this fairytale notion that he'll be easy to beat this time, just like last time, and I'm kinda laughing at the democrats who think that way. I'd be willing to bet that nearly everyone who voted for Trump is looking for any excuse not to do so again, but stacking that up against naked socialism in America is still a hard sell, despite what young people (who vote less) think. When Trump christens Warren 'other hillary' she's done right there. Bernie has a much better shot imo.
I've reached the point where when someone talks about 'qualifications for the presidency' my fist stops right at their face. 35 and natural born, that's it, shut the fuck up. I'd like to see experience managing anything large be it businesses, prior government posts, etc (vs ye random rutabaga farmer) but beyond that I don't care. Actual degrees in real subjects (not liberal arts) are a big bonus - and guess what, Yang wins the field there too.
I'm also sick of hearing about identity politics. Any candidate who wastes time on that crap while the planet is heating up, infrastructure is failing, and people are losing jobs to automation is going to lose points with me for living in a fantasy world where that shit is somehow more important. I'm just not interested given our many and far more pressing concerns, and I'm pretty sure that's the same feeling about 95% of Americans have on that issue when it's time to vote. I honestly think if the dems go that route, they are going to lose to Trump worse than Hillary did. Besides, isn't the entire democratic field on the same page there? If they are, why are we wasting time talking about a settled minor issue then? I just don't get it.
Anyone else wins the nom and I'll probably hold my nose and vote for them, just to get that windbag and his endless river of mindless distractions the fuck out of our lives. We're wasting all of our time talking about whatever his latest bullshit is, rather than taking steps to get things done. That bothers me a lot.
I get the attraction to certain types of education, but you wouldn't consider degrees in things like philosophy or sociology to be qualifiers for the presidency? The thinking and decision making skills one learns in liberal arts programs seem like they would be extremely helpful to any politician trying to get things done.
Any degree is a bonus, but I'm going to take a degree in economics more seriously than a degree in psychology, and that more seriously than a degree in literature. Some degrees are more relevant to the job than others are, and that goes for any job, anywhere, not just the presidency.
It's not the president's job to set economic policy. It's their job to hire a qualified economist to set economic policy. No president will be well-versed in all of fields necessary to effectively govern a country, and they don't need to be. I'll take someone that has a full picture of world history, has uncompromising principles, and demonstrates the ability to delegate and lead over an economist any day.
Ok, I'll agree with you on that. I was mostly just struck by the "not liberal arts" part of your comment, as I think that there is certainly value in many areas of the liberal arts.
What issues do you group under "identify politics?" It's a broad, often derisive word, and I never really know what people mean by it. Police brutality? LGBT discrimination protections? Reproductive rights?
My main issue with it is the gargantuan amount of time spent debating and dividing groups based on their race, gender, or sexual preferences. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to do whatever they like with their bodies, the right to make whatever lifestyle choices they want, and the right to equal treatment with any other persons or groups. I honestly can't believe this is even a controversial issue, it's always boggled my mind that there are asshats who want to exert influence over those life choices. Perhaps that's why the debate bothers me - the logical conclusion is blindingly obvious to me and it frustrates me when I see it talked about as if it were even a rational discussion. There's nothing rational about it at all. The first premise - that people shouldn't be treated universally equally - isn't a rational one for me. Of course they should, and that's where the conversation ends, because any arguments against that are pure bullshit.
What I see is these topics being used to divide people into groups, and then set those groups at each other's throats arguing over who gets what rights why where and when, rather than granting all of those groups all of those rights in perpetuity across the board. I see that division and the endless arguments sapping our collective mindshare and diverting us away from other more pressing issues that concern every single one of us. It's like a giant air raid siren that drowns out or polarizes conversations. It's a weaponized distraction technique.
I don't mean to marginalize any of those concerns... however, I wish more people would keep in mind that most of those issues concern the small number of americans who fall into those groups, and don't score a lot of points with just plain regular people who are not any of these special classes. The tendency to focus on identity politics as a major issue for the democrats is, in my view, simply putting a lot of their audience to sleep or making them change the channel during the debates. I'll make an exception here for women's rights, though, since that does concern half of the population.
So, I suppose when I say 'identity politics' what I mean is any language and any discussion that exchanges the words 'person' or 'people' with any kind of race or gender or sexual preference label. The instant those labels start flying around, the conversation goes to hell and people start fighting, rather than coming together around solutions. That's why I'm tired of it.
I realize this isn't a common view, but that's how I feel about it. :P
minority here: i hope you understand that this position is--whether you intend it or not--basically advocating for democrats to ignore minorities because they're minorities and minority issues don't "win over" culturally conservative white people (who would never vote democratic even if you were to actually drop the "identity politics", for the record).
the idea that policy should just address things on a majoritarian basis is also ridiculous and, frankly, ignorant of how things actually work in a lot of this country. black issues for example are broadly not and have never been the same as white issues; almost all white people don't have to fret over their socioeconomic situation permanently holding them and their children back because the social programs which allow them to live at all are constantly under threat, or 99% of their interactions with police, or being deprived of their representation because it's inconvenient to the majority, or having their voice represented at all in political discussions or in social issues, or about whether they can put food on the table and whether or not they're slowly killing their children with that food, or about whether they can send their kids to even a modest education much less a good one, and so on. there may be commonalities, but you can't dictate everything from how the 'majority' feels. there's nuances that exist, and it's not identity politics in the pejorative to acknowledge those nuances and make policies surrounding them.
See, that's where you lose me, and I don't believe that is the way things have to work - in fact, I think that's why these topics fail to make progress so often and piss off certain groups of people. I find it funny that you think it's ridiculous, because that's how I feel about not treating it that way, so I guess we're thinking about this in very different ways. I think going that route with the policy implementations is the best way forward, because it builds the largest coalition base possible. I'll give you an example.
If you want paid maternity leave, it should be for everyone, not just for women. Some men need to stay home to care for their children - what about a gay couple that adopts a child? Do they get excluded because maternity leave was phrased as 'for women' rather than 'for parents'? What if the wife is the breadwinner in a normal family, are we saying the husband can't take maternity leave to take care of the kids? Why not let both parents take the leave? Make it a maternity leave and child health issue, rather than a women's rights issue, which instantly triggers certain groups. I'd say the same thing for equal pay - if that's going to be a right, then it should be phrased to safeguard the right to equal pay for everyone.
When it comes to drug use, gender reassignment, and assisted suicide, giving the right to do whatever you want with your body covers all of those issues for all people, and thus builds a far larger coalition than just a drug issue, or gender issue.
Spare me the pitch about majoritarianism being some major evil. We communicate far better and more widely now than we ever have, and that's changing the game a bit. The goal is not to become some all knowing, always correct body of governance (because there's no such thing and it never works). The goal is to be as inclusive and fair as possible with whatever rights and policies are on the table. If there's a right that one group deserves, you'll be hard pressed, I think, to make the argument that only that group deserves it, rather than everyone. Rights are universal, that's why they are rights.
When you leave that specific language for specific groups in the laws, I see it as a weakness that can be exploited by the government or by other groups to muddle up the policies in the future. More fighting, more bickering, more divisions. Decades down the road, the world will be different. Policies phrased only in today's terms will be weaker in tomorrow's world when the culture changes.
If you want to solve the cop problem, stapling a camera that's always on to every cop's head to keep them honest, and having that stuff regularly reviewed by not-cops with some kind of oversight would go a hell of a long way. So would better training and real psychological screening as a requirement for the job. The police need reform. Just because they predominantly fuck up when dealing with black people does not make this into only a black issue - it's a corrupt cop issue. Everyone should be concerned regardless of their race. I think framing it as a racial issue muddies the waters. I don't care what color the people the cops are shooting happen to be - I care that there are cops who are powertripping psychos that are getting away with murder. If they were shooting purple people or white people or persians I'd have the same response.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but don't expect to be able to change my mind on having this perspective either. I'll hear you out, but if you really want to change my mind, find me a good book on this sort of thinking that better explains the roots of your perspective and I'll give it a read to expand my perspective. I do appreciate the conversation. <3
Forgive me, but this seems extremely idealistic to me. Sure, I agree that many of these issues stem from concepts of bodily autonomy or however you want to describe it, but as long as there are people trying to discriminate against LGBT people, restrict reproductive rights, etc., Democrats will have to address these issues specifically, rather than running on a general "bodily autonomy" platform.
If a Dem candidate was asked about abortion and gave a general answer about how everyone should be able to have the medical care they and their doctor decide upon, without following that up with specific ways they'd combat anti-abortion laws, I'd assume they had no real ideas on how to tackle the issue and were just spouting platitudes they thought people wanted to hear.
I'll grant you the abortion case, because that one even splits libertarians who think like I do into camps (over the woman's body vs child's body - they have to share one for a while). That's why I mentioned it in the previous post too - it's a bigger issue and unfortunately it's been a red vs blue team issue for decades, we can't make it go away.
I come down in the camp that gives women the choice, based just on it being impossible for anyone to take that choice away from them, since it is their body. They could take a morning after pill, have an abortion in a hospital, or go to some vet in a back alley with a coathanger - no matter how it happens, the woman has the power to make the choice regardless of what the law says. I'd rather they get hospital care than have to take other measures. I'd rather genetically engineer ovulation into an at-will phenomenon but we're a number of centuries away from that solution yet. :P
It kinda irks me when I see conservatives talking like women are just racking up dozens of abortions so they can enjoy promiscuous sex. That's a poisonous, ludicrous perspective. No woman approaches that choice in a cavalier way, period.
I support Elizabeth Warren 100%. She is an anti-corruption policy machine. She is the vaccine that the self-dealing, United States of Conflict of Interests needs ASAP. My family emigrated from a Soviet Satellite nation to escape from this crap. She is the solution.
isn't his like... whole and only thing to replace social welfare programs with a state-sponsored allowance? Doesn't that put welfare recipients in a much more precarious position? Rather than cutting a variety of programs, those seeking to harm the poorest could just argue we need to reduce the allowance given to the poor.
sorta? it's vague, but if you take the freedom dividend as far as i'm aware, you apparently forfeit/have to choose between receiving the benefits of at least some of the welfare programs you might benefit from:
Oh god. You know they're up to no good when the words "freedom" or "liberty" are getting tacked on to stuff.
He called it that because it polls better with people than calling it UBI or welfare.
Milton Friedman called it the 'negative income tax', Martin Luther King called it 'guaranteed minimum income', Thomas Paine called it 'basic income' way back in the early 1800s. The idea is older than America is, and the problem is we never could figure out how to pay for it effectively. The gains from automation are the first real major development that hold out the hope of footing that bill. The world has never seen capitalism that doesn't start at zero before. I like that option better than socialism - though we need to do something, so if I can't vote for basic income, I'll hold my nose and vote for socialism.
Freedom dividend is as good a name as any, I guess. I don't particularly care what it's called, as long as it becomes reality - and soon, before things get much worse for the nearly half of Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck.
UBI does sound like a gastric disorder, doesn't it? :P
Not sure I like that SSI/SSDI solution, at least based on that short description. It glosses over disabled people who have never been able to work and can only receive SSI. Both groups need more benefits than they currently get, but people on SSI live on $3000 below the poverty level. Why not address that, instead of focusing only on people who were once able to work?
i have no clue, frankly, but it's part of why i dislike yang's idea of UBI in particular. it's pretty unlikely to help many people because of how it'd be implemented, and if he somehow actually ends up having the capital to implement it at all on the negligible chance he becomes president, he'd also presumably be in a position to push policies which are more both radical and more likely to impact people beneficially (i.e. rent control, healthcare reform, minimum wage increases) without making them choose between benefits or having their benefits offset mostly or completely, because UBI isn't even supported by most democrats currently, much less republicans.
Nope, that's a misrepresentation of his position, and one of about a hundred and twenty detailed policy plans - Yang is far more than just UBI. If you see a two sentence version of one of his policy positions, it's too short to be accurate. He goes into detail.
The dividend is $1k per month to everyone who opts-in from 18-life. If you opt in, you are forgoing access to other federal government welfare programs that have a cash and cash-like nature, such as assisted housing and food stamps. We currently have more than 126 such programs and they are a poverty-trap shitshow of bad administration that needs to go.
This has no bearing whatsoever on your state welfare programs, those aren't impacted unless the states each decide to change them in response to this. They'd be smart to do the same thing, so that you get two dividends, one from state, one from country - as those in Alaska already would. Social security is not affected by this, so if you get social security, you get it along with the freedom dividend as well with no reductions. It's a $1000/mo raise for anyone on social security right now.
Most people opt for the cash over the other programs for two main reasons.
First, the cash is usually higher, and even if it isn't, the freedom dividend comes to you no matter what your income is, so you aren't pressured into not working because volunteering somewhere or taking a low wage job would reduce your welfare benefits. You also don't have to be limited to the bread/cheese/peanut-butter hell of food stamps if you get cash instead.
Second, there are no strings attached to the freedom dividend, so no one will be required to report in and be bothered with miles of government forms and red tape to request aid. In other words, it gets the apparatus of state welfare completely off of everyone's backs. No meetings, no forms, no phone calls, no state-sponsored spying on recipients, nothing. It's freedom from being hassled by the welfare police.
Since everyone gets it, there's no stigma, it's not seen as a rich to poor wealth transfer. Instead it's like having stock in America that pays you every month. As automation makes more and more money, that dividend goes up. As Obama said, we're going to be debating giving people lots of unconditional free money as the 4th industrial revolution takes off.
As to who gets helped by this and how much, stick to the numbers. You'll find Yang does his homework. Plenty of citations on his policy pages for further reading.
I do find Yang is guilty of somewhat charitable estimates in some cases - I think it likely some of his programs will have mild cost overruns at least at first while the transition goes in. After a couple years they should be saving us money lost on bad programs and poor administration rather than costing extra to transition. I'm happy to take any excesses out of the military budget's hide to get it done. Yang's happy to put them to work rebuilding infrastructure too.
Check his policy page. It'll only take you a week read them all. ;)
I support Sanders. My problem with Warren was outlined well by jelly_donut in a comment above.
I'd like to add that in the last election, my experience with the left did not align with the media's portrayal of Sanders being unable to bring anyone to the right over. My best friend is a far right, religious fundamentalist, homeschooling, anti-vaccination, moon landing is sham, government are coming for our guns person (she is much more than that, as most people are, but I wanted to give you an idea of the culture she lives in, her big exception being me).
We broach political subjects with each other warily, so I was surprised when she started talking about the presidential elections during the last election cycle. I expected her to be a trump supporter, and I braced myself, but the candidate she and her church wanted didn't make it through the primaries, and none of them wated to vote for trump. I remember just looking at her, wondering where this was going. She then said, "Have you heard of Bernie Sanders?" I was like, "OMG, yes..." Turns out her church and some people from the local agricultural community were putting on a fundraiser for Bernie, and she wanted to know if I wanted to participate.
The event itself was weird. On the one side we had my friend, her church and some other local conservative people, and on the other side was well, people to the left of that. The farmers on either side of that divide had things in common, but no one else mingled. But they did raise around 5k and sent it off to Bernie's campaign.
My friend and her people had a deep fear surrounding Hillary. I've never been able to puncture that bubble. In the end my friend refused to vote, but she told me her husband filled out her and her oldest daughter's ballots. She doesn't know for sure, but suspects he voted for Trump (as a side note, that is why I am against mail in ballots which is how we vote in my state).
I guess my point is, that in my limited experience, I believe Sanders could have brought some of those votes in, and it's possible he could do so again.
I also want to say, that I am ashamed that I ever thought she would support Trump. I have known her for a long time, and even after all the ways that I have seen her be an incredibly loving and compassionate person, I stereotyped her.
Wow. Where I am from you'd get kicked out with a coup d'état if you ever dared to mention to have considered to offer to discuss such a thing. How can you trust your votes after putting it in an envelope and giving it away to someone who really really won't fiddle with it at all?
They're pretty helpful for disabled folks like myself. I can see on a website when my ballot is received. Beyond that, it doesn't feel any less secure than other things we have, like electronic voting machines. And it has the benefit of being paper.
FWIW here we have mobile ballots for folks that can't easily come to the ballots (which are always very close to the voters), they are taken to the residence of such voters.
The benefit is that each and every box is opened in the presence of many lawyers and politicians from all the major parties, and no tricks are possible while counting votes, except very remote parts of the country or the Southeast where there are lots of trouble with terrorism and state brutality.
That sounds neat. I don't think I'd qualify for that if it existed here - I'm not on disability, and I can technically get to the polls. (It would just be rather tiring depending on the day, and I'd like to save my limited energy for my part time job, which is very busy around elections.) But that would be good for disabled folks who face more of a barrier.
Currently like Warren and Sanders as the front runners. They have clear positions that I agree with. Would like to see Buttigieg and Harris a bit longer to get a better idea on where they stand though.
I'm supporting Warren. She has the policies I support with actual details on how she would inact them.
Warren/Sanders. I think Warren probably has slightly better (more nuanced?) policies than Sanders, but Sanders has name rec and a devoted following. I'm not very educated on the matter, though, and I'd honestly be fine with any actual progressive/anti-corporate candidate.
On a semi-related note, does anyone else find it odd how many Sanders supporters are anti-Warren? It seems like by and large they're on the same team, and may even end up being on a ticket together. The conspiracy theorist in me feels like a lot of this sentiment is artificial, or at least started that way. Potentially an attempt to divide the left?
not especially. while they stand on mostly the same things policy wise, sanders self identifies as a socialist and is very much a labor-oriented candidate and as such attracts a lot of far-left support, while warren self identifies as a reformist capitalist and is more broadly progressive, which earns her the support of many center-leftists and "establishment" types who are otherwise put off by sanders's identification. their bases overlap, but where those bases don't there are massive points of friction.
That's an interesting point. I wonder how much of their differences boil down to semantics and labeling (mislabeling?), then.
I know this comes down to a debate of semantics, but I feel like Sanders self-identifying as a socialist is a mistake. I'm not the most well-read, but thus far none of his policies or stances that I've seen have stood out to me as particularly socialist, but rather reformist capitalist, similarly to Warren. It seems like he's effectively alienating any moderates who are scared of the word thanks to the Red Scare, as well as frustrating any "true" socialists by perpetuating the misunderstanding of the term.
I'm also uncertain if this explains some of the negativity towards Warren from Sanders supporters. Along those lines, I'm interested why so many first-choice Sanders people are second-choice Biden, when it seems to me like Warren is a much closer candidate policy-wise. I don't have any evidence of anything nefarious, but after everything that went down last election, I'm more likely to believe in an organized misinformation campaign. Some of the comments I read on Reddit raise my suspicions of potential astroturfing. Then again, it could just be my own misunderstanding of different people's expectations for a candidate.
from a purely policy standpoint sanders is definitely not advancing policies which would constitute socialism, so warren is the more accurate of the two, but sanders is almost certainly further to the left in his personal beliefs than warren ever will be and just doesn't have much more room to run left and still be viable, which would explain the discrepancy in labeling.
most leftists don't care if sanders is technically misusing the term because he's destigmatizing it in doing so and opening the door to moving people and the broader political conversation to the left. as one example of this, part of why you're seeing self identified democratic socialists winning office for the first time in recent history is in part because sanders has made the term a lot more politically acceptable and in doing so also rendering the "red scare" approach much less politically sound. it only works as long as people think socialism is bad, after all, and if they identify socialism as healthcare for all, jobs for all, living wages for all, etc, who's realistically going to object to socialism?
That's a good perspective that I hadn't considered. Thanks for the insight!
you're coming at it from policy, but most voters don't actually back candidates because of policy this early, they back them on pragmatism or name recognition or other relatively abstract ideas even if their preferred candidates are polar opposites, so there are a lot of current biden-sanders or sanders-biden voters. as policies and personality play bigger, those sorts of voters will likely dwindle, but they're definitely genuinely extant and particularly common among those who aren't politically active or in tune with the news cycles.
As far as the first-choice/second-choice logic, that's what I had thought too. But according to these poll results at least, it looks like Biden beats Warren as second choice by a healthy margin (32% versus 23%). Interestingly, this shows Warren supporters preferring Harris over Sanders by a similar margin (31% versus 21%). My initial impression was just based on reading Reddit comments, then later the outdated poll from this article showing Warren supporters preferring Sanders. In my opinion, preferring Harris over Sanders is comparable to preferring Biden over Warren, although I can't consider myself completely educated on Harris. She seems like another corporate Dem to me, and her history as a prosecutor is problematic.
Your second paragraph is pretty much exactly my suspicion. Obviously not all anti-Warren Sanders supporters are Russian bots, and actual toxic people exist in all communities. But it's terrifyingly easy to astroturf on places like Reddit. I see it on a daily basis in obvious advertisement posts and comments by small marketing teams; a larger corporation or national power could theoretically do so much more effectively and subtly. And once it becomes a feedback loop, as you mentioned, it can even reach content creators and more influential members of the community outside of social media.
It's an interesting thought. And as much as I hate it, there's definitely a nonzero percentage of voters who wouldn't vote for any woman due to either conscious or subconscious sexism. Similarly, there likely are people who would vote for the first female president regardless of policy. I'm not sure which side would be larger, but I've personally seen cases of the former, but none of the latter (small sample; anecdotal).
The runner-up second choices are intriguing as well. Sanders supporters strongly favor Warren versus Harris (23% versus 8%), whereas Warren supporters are much closer with Sanders versus Biden (21% versus 16%). Biden supporters prefer Sanders, but are within a margin of error between Warren and Harris. Looking at the Harris and Buttigieg supporters, Sanders doesn't make the top-three second choices. I'd like to know exactly where he polls there. These runner-up numbers suggest to me that Sanders is out of favor with moderate voters.
People are largely not very ideological. Bernie and Biden are seen as being on the side of the working class (in reality, Biden obviously is not) while Warren is an aloof Harvard professor (in reality, she'd obviously be better for working ppl than Biden).
Or, everyone is a Russian bot. Either way.
Like a lot of folks here, I am strongly in favor of Warren/Sanders. If either win the nomination, I feel we can all be happy with the outcome. Beyond those two, it's Pete or Kamala. Both are upright and will fight the good fight, but they don't quite go far enough for me.
Ah yes... Kamala Jail-for-parents-of-truants Esq. Hard for me to stomach the idea of another tough on crime Democrat.
Oh there's definetly a large gap between Warren or Sanders and Kamala for my support.
Her record made me not like her at all for a while, but she's not Biden and not some billionaire jackass hogging the spotlight.
I'm in for Sanders until he inevitably doesn't become nominee. I'm not a fan of his gun policy stance and I think he tends to rely on his stump speech a bit too much, but more importantly by being in the debate sphere he's shifted a lot of candidates and arguments to the progressive sphere. A lot of what's on the table now is because Bernie helped get things started.
So past that point, I think Warren is going to be the likely nominee and I'd be perfectly happy with her as a president.
Currently? Yang. I don't follow politics a huge amount – to be honest Tildes is my primary source for it and I barely heard anything prior – due to widespread toxicity that's become ever more present in it, but I have become interested enough to read his policies and such, and a lot of what he's suggesting really does sound like it would help a lot if properly executed.
The question then is if it'll get a chance to get executed. He's doing better than a fair chunk of the 2%-or-less folks from the looks of things, but I'm not sure he really has a chance at this stage despite that, so it may be more a situation of whether or not his presence gets the ideas enough attention to make actual headway.
On policy, I like both Warren and Sanders. Warren has the detailed Harvard professor plans, Bernie has the FUCK IT LET'S HAVE A REVOLUTION attitude.
On charisma, I like Buttigieg and Harris. Harris has a bit too much "law & order" in her background for my tastes, but I also recognize that she was in a double-bind where she never could have advanced her career without some of that. Her prosecutor attitude might be exactly what we need to go up against Trump, though. I like BootyJudge's youth but recognize it's enough of a turn-off for older people that it'd be an general election liability, so as much as I like him he's not my first pick for Presidential nominee (at least not in 2020 - Buttigieg/AOC 2024)
Whichever of Warren & Harris doesn't get the nomination or VP pick, is an obvious choice for Attorney General if the Democrats win. Personally I'd love to see AG Warren rappelling down from a helicopter in full SWAT gear to arrest some corrupt payday lender CEOs.
If this were a draft, I'd take Harris for President, Buttigieg for VP (the two charismatic figureheads, and able to play good cop/bad cop when necessary) with AG Warren and Senate Majority Leader Sanders. Booker would get HUD Secretary, Inslee gets EPA. Obama would be the first Supreme Court nominee.
I rather like that about Bernie. I think it is well past time to get pissed off about this stuff. I'd like my democrats to fight like rabid wolverines more often, rather than trying to play nice in a world that's far too dirty and dishonorable to reward the niceness. The republicans are not going to play nice, so what exactly is the point of trying to placate them? They are going to be angry no matter what, so let's give them something to be angry about and ram some progress down their throats. It won't happen any other way.
How about Warren POTUS, Buttigieg VP, Harris AG?
I supported Bernie back in 2016, even though I couldn't vote yet. I still support Bernie and he's still my number one choice. Warren is a very close second, especially after her debate performance. I'll most likely vote for whichever one of those two has the most momentum coming into my state's primary.
Beyond that... I don't really have any candidates that I really like. I outright can't stand Biden and Beto. Buttigieg is light on policy and experience and is too moderate. Kamala is a cop. Most of the other candidates aren't even worth bringing up at this point.
Bernie Sanders has more than any other candidate, and maybe any politician, period, used his position and candidacy for the greater good. To me it makes him the strongest pick for president since before I was born. Anyone who would use his campaigning time to join strikes, take people to Canada to highlight the cost of drugs, and so on, is priceless. It's no wonder basically the progressives are aligning with his views, while the power politicians and the corrupt media work at squashing him. I'm this close to moving to Canada if the oligarchy isn't taken out of power. Climates better up there anyway.
alright, my supplementary poll to this thread has completed the week i gave it to be open, and as you can of course see if you click through, here are the results:
here is some analysis of the votes:
Average candidate rank
this skews a bit toward the low end because you don't have to obligatorily rank everybody on CIVS, so it's not the best measure, but it's useful enough in a broad sense to draw some conclusions about popularity.
Top 5 and Bottom 5 ballot positions
probably a better method is this, which shows broadly who people like and who people don't like (or don't know).
as you can see, by all accounts and measures there's a left-skew in the userbase which is not surprising--but perhaps not as much as you might assume, based on the reasonable popularity of harris, buttigieg, booker, o'rourke, gillibrand, and even biden to some extent. whether that's a product of pragmatism or genuine like is not within my purview, alas.
Mike Gravel. Best candidate, nobody knows.
Also, Bill Weld.
We need more of these people.
Not American, not even in America. But in my household we love that Latina with the Netflix documentary. We’re latinos too, so take that as you wish.
AOC does not qualify as a candidate for 2020.
If she manages to make a real career out of politics, I wonder how viable she could be in 2028/2032 after she's garnered some real experience on the political battlefields
She is definitely on the list of people I expect will run for President in the future, along with Gavin Newsom.
I think she would be very viable if she can keep what she's doing right now up. She popped into the picture as a scrappy Latina fighter and has kept playing hardball since, near as I can tell. Her policies also seem like exactly what a lot of people are looking for right now.
I'd bet quite a bit that we'll be hearing her name for a long time to come.
I mean, she is a candidate running in 2020, she's just running for a house seat instead of the Presidency.
Related (?) : my third choice right now (after Bernie and Warren) is Castro. He really impressed me at the first debate, and no one has mentioned him in these comments yet. Won't get the nomination given his current polling numbers but he'd be a swell VP.