2020 Democratic presidential primary

bernie has never once positioned himself as anticapitalist AFAIK (which is too bad)

What Bernie calls "democratic socialism" mostly seems like "strong, healthy markets with limits on corporate power" to me, as J. D. notes: he wants single-payer health care (a system which is itself a compromise between NHS-style socialized medicine and a privatized system), tuition-free public colleges, a higher minimum wage and protections for labour, restrictions on tax evasion schemes, a shift to green energy, higher taxes on those who can pay, most of which I think Warren would be in favour of. Does anyone see him as an Attlee or Nehru who would e.g. nationalize banks and major resources? The models he always cites are Canada and Nordic social democracies, which are all capitalist systems with stronger welfare states. xp to milo

this was bernie in 2015:

So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this:

I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.

I believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas.

Yeah, what a radical.

the people who like him don't like him because he's "radical." they like him because he directly addressed many of the things that ail our stupid, bloated, unfair and violent country.

warren addresses these things to. in practice, i feel like they're similar even though warren has said she is a "capitalist in her bones" or whatever.

she would be a less effective person for like, the DSA, to rally around because she doesn't use the word socialism. but it's possible she would be a more effective president.

He’s pragmatic and I like it.

Sund4r otm

xxp - as I said, Bernie isn't as radical (I'd also call him a social democrat now rather than a socialist), but his rhetoric (and IMO underlying ideology) is openly hostile to corporate capitalism (Wall Street acting as 'gangsters and loan sharks'), where Warren is not.

I think that difference matters and is real - as that tweet thread said, the difference doesn't necessarily show up in Senate votes or in ways that primary voters care about, but it's a real difference of opinion.

warren is hostile to wall street

Warren created the CFSB wtf did Bernie get passed of comparable significance

It’s been one of her defining characteristics in political life

In terms of “hostile to wall at” legislation

Xp

probably stating the obvious here but warren and bernie running in the primary, and speaking frankly about M4A and corporate taxation etc, will hopefully move the needle to the left for whoever does end up the candidate (assuming it's neither of them).

and while I agree that misogyny in america is a well that isn't drying up soon, i do think that the right will not be as successful at demonizing warren as they were HRC. that said, i don't think the demonization of hillary clinton was what caused her to lose the electoral college. she just wasn't that inspirational to minority voters, in general, and the voters of wi/mi/pa specifically. i'm not totally convinced warren would excite the former, but her specific policies could drum up turn out in those states that hillary lost (and should have won). i'd happily vote for her. and i'd love to see a completely female ticket. the only dude that's bringing anything unique to the table ideologically is bernie, and i'd much rather see him throw his support and influence behind a younger candidate than run himself

Also, Hillary Clinton had been a boogeyman of the right for 25 years. Warren is still comparatively new to most Americans, even if political junkies have known about her for 10 years. She wouldn't enter the horserace with nearly as much machinery already aligned against her.

also she is an outsider. no one believes shadowy corporate forces are pushing her forward.

right. and not just machinery, but grist for the mill. hillary, for all her good qualities, has been involved in some scandalous shit, some real and some not. warren's only ~controversial~ (vs ideological or political) baggage is the 23&me stuff which was a little boneheaded and not even remotely disqualifying for the vast majority of voters

xp

yeah. honestly, besides gender and age, i see nothing in common between hillary and warren

they represent different eras in the democratic party. warren emerged as a national figure post-occupy

xxxp - Warren isn't hostile to capitalism, she's pretty clear about supporting it and wanting to regulate it (and Wall Street) into being better. Warren herself draws the distinction between her and Sanders as socialist vs. capitalist. You can call it a narcissism of small differences situation but I don't think that's true - Bernie's vision is fundamentally different from hers (which is what I responded to about him 'passing the torch' - they're not of the same movement).

Warren drawing that distinction was more about her avoiding socialism as a brand.

You’ve yet to cite any actual significant policy differences

at this point in history they probably don't have significant differences. i'd be willing to believe that, down the line, bernie thinks an ideal society includes more public control of the economy than warren does.

You’ve yet to cite any actual significant policy differences

You could say that about most of the players at this point. Sanders in the Senate and running for President has been less radical than his past.
Rhetoric and underlying beliefs matter, though, when you're talking about "passing the torch" of a political movement. The difference in being a former member of the Socialist Party USA and being a former Republican is not small when you're talking about ideological heirs.

to give credit where credit is due though, bernie's primary campaign helped to create this new reality where all the serious candidates are expected to support policies like single payer

it wasn't solely responsible for this leftward shift, but it was important, i feel

Yeah, Bernie dgaf. He was like "You want me to say it? I'll say it! SINGLE PAYER!" and the DNC was like "shit, he wasn't stuck by lightning or anything" and now the path is cleared to move in that direction.

It’s something Bernie should probably take credit for if he mounts a serious campaign, might keep him from getting neutralized by other candidates now sharing some of the policy positions he ran on in the last campaign.

Christ, I see these things and I feel like we are a century behind.

we are!

gbx otm

Everyone's NY resolution is to think of how an ideal US could be in 2075. Then aim shallow and stupid to 2040. Because I don't really have faith in how quickly people can catch up.

2075 US is going to be a Mad Max/Waterworld combo platter, so ideally the next generations grow gills.

It’ll be fine

your theory is flawed because waterworld was already a mad max derivative

Studying up on what people like about Beto O’Rourke’s public policy vision for the country:

- tall & skinny but also strong-ish
- perfect teeth with that loveable goofy 10% off thing
- adam’s apple
- total top but lets you fuck him on your birthday
- good genes to reproduce with

— James Adomian (@JAdomian) December 28, 2018

Adomian is a Seth Rich truther brah

don't give a fuckitty

Speaks badly of mainstream Democrats = A-OK in Morbius's book, always and forever.

I went looking for evidence of that and all the relevant tweets were deleted, so I'd wager he ain't one anymore xp

He’s smugly demeaning people who like the guy who ran the progressive campaign in Texas as being indifferent to policy when he’s obviously way way worse

if the jokes are good i'll use em

even from a murderer like [redacted]

Don't remember if we posted this tweet yesterday, but after watching the video it makes sense:

Warren's 2020 launch video is genuinely interesting because it offers Dems something they have not nominated in ages: A nominee who identifies specific sources of trouble and will fight them, instead of suggesting that a good politician can get everyone to work together.

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) December 31, 2018

It’s too bad a thing to be hand waived away like that. Like, it doesn’t matter if he simply stopped talking about it because he was getting heat for it instead of correcting the toxic misinformation he actively spread.

pic.twitter.com/cpoowbdHCP

— 🌾Peasant Gang Porno Matt🌾 (@MattAlwaysWrong) November 19, 2018

it's going to be fucking nonstop "pocahantas" shit if Warren wins the primary and I'm not very excited by the prospect of that due to her stupid fumble on DNA testing; and unless she starts advocating exceptionally hard for natives she won't get many native votes as a result of this either (not that natives are a big voting block but the Dems can use every vote they can muster)

Morbius there’s (maybe) still time for you to deal w the whole “hates liberals more than fascists” thing

who the fuck is james adomian and why do I care about his twitter?

James Adomian is a national treasure and who gives a shit if he’s a conspiracymonger in his spare time

Are Native Americans upset about the DNA test thing though? There was one statement from the Cherokee nation but that person was under the misconception that Warren was claiming tribal membership (whereas her announcement video made it clear she wasn’t and showed sensitivity to those issues)