2020 Democratic presidential primary

or is it because he wanted that committee chair and this vote (which affected nothing, really) was the price for that?

ok, and that context and the forces upon a politician in a primary are different than those in a general election or when they actually have to govern

again, as I said in my original post, I care about a person’s voting record insofar as, taken over a large sample, it seems likely to me to predict their progressive resoluteness when those forces pull from either side. you seem confident that that is not the case, so I assume there are data...

xp

I mean is the argument seriously that, given a choice between two democrats, the one with the more progressive voting record would be no more likely to be more progressive in the future? that is a fascinating, counter-intuitive claim that I would need to see substantiated by something other than cherry-picked anecdotes to believe

I don't think you can reliably predict "progressive resoluteness" at all tbh, esp when you're talking about a President, who is subject to a unique set of political pressures unlike any other office

You should base it on the policy promises they make for the office they are currently running for. The “politicians always break promises when in office” cliche is historically the opposite of true.

Nixon wasn't progressive by any measure and was a total asshole, yet he championed the EPA and the Clean Air Act. Reagan was a super-belligerent sabre-rattling anti-communist who managed to negotiate the end of the Cold War, (as opposed to ushering in the nuclear oblivion many of us on the left were expecting at the time). We all figured Obama to be pretty anti-war and anti-middle east adventurism, and then he was the first president to order the extra-judicial murder of an American citizen. The presidency is rife with contradictions like this, that could not have been predicted based on voting records. I dunno if all this anecdotal evidence adds up to anything convincing, I don't have an academic study to hand, this is just off the top of my head.

Nerdstrom hits closer to the truth I think - voting record is part of it and does tell you *something* about the candidate, but what they are promising to get elected, how they are running their operation, who their allies are (in the party and without), those things all add up to give you a more complete picture.
xp

Yeah I’m curious to see who they align w and who they talk about appointing as a indicative. Beto would have to talk a good game to overcome the experience deficit that someone like Bernie has for example if they were both running on Single Payer

I agree that there are other factors than voting record to be taken into consideration. when it comes to primary elections, when campaign promises are necessarily similar, and voters have to choose among candidates, I am wondering whether past voting record, relative to party, is predictive of future voting record (or presidential priorities, or results), relative to party line. this is something that I imagine has been studied empirically and I'll try to look into it myself

watching Bernie play against a whole bunch more moderate Dems with less name recognition will be interesting, in terms of how far left the others will be willing to bend at least in terms of messaging in order to not seem like sellouts by comparison

Potentially he has the move where he can say “I was the only one the stage saying this four years ago and now look”

Who knows where we’ll be but I agree w whoever said the one who is most anti-Trump will get the most momentum.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

kind of a weird piece insofar as it feels like Yglesias can't decide whether he wants to emphasize the fact that Beto's voting record is comparatively conservative or that duh, of course it's comparatively conservative because Texas. the two perspectives end up undercutting each other and the whole thing essentially resolves into a shrug emoji.

It is mostly just shrug emoji. Beto O'Rourke has about the voting record you would expect. That's kinda what the conclusion is. I think this part is the most important part: In the grand scheme of things, the differences between these voting records are not enormous, and if you’re thinking about policy outcomes, the limiting factor is going to be what the most conservative Democratic Party senators can swallow, not whether the president is a bit more liberal than those senators (or a lot more liberal).

Conservative Democratic Senators gain or lose influence in a Democratically controlled Senate in direct proportion to the extent they constitute the votes necessary to pass legislation. If there are five of them and you only need, say, one or two of them to vote in favor, it's much easier to peel off those votes and get your bill passed. It's all a numbers game.

the odds that the Dems will have a comfortable margin for passing legislation in the Senate are very long

You are right about the odds. But two years can bring incalculable changes, especially under the present regime.

that's true. obviously my fear is that significant progressive legislation will be at the mercy of the likes of Joe Manchin (just as Obamacare was at the mercy of Lieberman and Nelson)

The bigger the wave, the more that gets swept aside or carried in. If the country swings in a definite direction, the politicians all see that trend and tend to swing along with the voters. And 2020 will have a more favorable map for dems in the senate. Good luck, USA.

it's more favorable, but it isn't 60-gettable seats favorable

A (mostly) earnest question for those who like Beto for 2020: Is there a policy you like that he supports and other likely candidates do not support? An idea he talks about that other likely candidates don't?

— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) December 23, 2018

Threads of Sanders supporters going on about how supporters of other candidates don’t know/care about issues and are mere fans. Never gets old.

Interesting that he thinks this

It's interesting to me that centrist Dems haven't been buzzy about any candidate in particular until Beto. There's been no comparable push for, say, Booker or Harris. https://t.co/aVMwi6AcL1

— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) December 24, 2018

Hm yes what is the difference between those candidates, let me think on it for a sec

There was some mild talk about Harris last year that resulted in a similar freak out

Lol yes, every bit of criticism and scrutiny amounts to a freak out w you ppl.

The Sirota stuff can’t be called honest vetting. That kind of got exposed. It’s particularly transparent when he was saying Beto should be speaker two weeks earlier and then suddenly starts w an oppo blitz

All of these people have problems. I’m voting Trump.

The Speaker is not the President IIRC

Yeah no the tenor of the criticism isn’t “we’ll still like him but he’s not ready” it’s “we decided he’s an evil centrist overnight”

What is the center point between the moderate social democracy of the democrat’s “progressive wing” and the extremist death cult of the modern GOP? Does it make any sense at all to be wary of universal healthcare, say, or taking bold action to save the planet from climate change and renew our infrastructure in the process? Why give that hp to be closer the the death cult?

The whole conversation is weird to me because the “left wing” solutions to our serious problems seem like the obvious ones. There’s no moderate line on addressing police brutality—there needs to be accountability and reform. Same with every other makor issue. The form of politics we were practicing—which led to things like the absurd bank bailout—has reached its endpoint. It’s not a sustainable game.

I’m supporting the primary candidate who has shown that they grasp this.

The thing is centrism IS effectively evil at this point for those reasons and that's why I don't mind people being vigilant in opposition to it

It’s a meme-y buzzword for attacking democrats.

Are Democrats your dad

Haha that’s really cool.

Are Democrats your daddy?

I’ve gotten multiple direct mailings from John Delaney, the most recent indicating he for sure is targeting the primary

I am not even completely sure what his deal is, but the material is very wtf

like the first one is “if you want a guy to take on Trump..” and is a partial reprint of a friggin George Will column

that is who he is targeting I guess, very early primary voters registered Democrats who don’t know what George Will is

treesh and simon otm

I am not voting for another hetero white man for office for the rest of my life.

I'm voting for the Democrat literally no matter how bad they are for the rest of my life, and urging others to do the same, and repenting daily of my once-deeply-held "it has to be a candidate I'm excited about" position

^^this is also the position held by...let's say at least 90% of those who are brutally critical of establishment Dems. (barring of course the formation of an actually viable third party, which really would not be the wildest thing to ever happen)

yeah, r&f Dems can be taken for granted

that's why we get such a bounty from the Dems

hoping yerac and joanie keep getting variations of Dianne Feinstein

Happy Holidays to you too!

xp joan rivers, i will vote for the democrat enthusiastically no matter who it was, as i did for hillary. but in the primaries i want someone who isn't afraid to say what needs to be done.

I can't imagine any good reason to take offence to the Osita Nwanenu thread NP linked, especially when read in full. He even rejects the "Beto couldn't even beat Cruz" low blow (which I absolutely would not) and pisses off Bernie fans by mentioning he didn't vote for him in the primary

What a novel argument we're having!

can anyone even tell me who John Delaney is, without looking it up, because his promo material is vague on this