2020 Democratic presidential primary

I like Warren but I'm willing to admit that that's because I'd be happy with a competent executive in charge of things. That understandably doesn't vibe with everyone even if it does understandably vibe with ILXor types.

I seem to recall reading something that made a reasonable case that Warren's progressivism was sort of organized around an anti-trust approach, while Sanders's was more focused on redistribution... this might have been like a longform Jacobin piece, like "the four different progressive wings of the democratic party" or something of that nature. But it's pretty obvious that someone could incorporate pieces of both, and that piece was a while ago - feel like all of Warren's policy documents over the course of the campaign have maybe shifted this a bit.

who doesn't love factionalism?

Politics isn’t just about policies, it’s about narratives. Bernie’s vision is about restoring mass politics and fundamentally rethinking cherished American myths about the entrpreneurship, individualism and capitalism.

Warren, whom I also love and would 100% support, is telling a slightly different story about rooting out corruption and restoring balance to a system that, at its core, could be stable and just.

I think narratives are important. They shape the way voters will think about the country, what they will push for in their representatives, etc

I think we need a reckoning so right now I support Bernie. He is the candidate who puts minimum wage workers at the center of his agenda

I like Warren but I'm willing to admit that that's because I'd be happy with a competent executive in charge of things. That understandably doesn't vibe with everyone even if it does understandably vibe with ILXor types.

competency alone isn't 100% of it for me, but it's probably 90%. i yearn for a president that will appoint other competent people. competent people who actually want to do good things for the program or agency to which they were appointed to lead.

holy shit, someone slap me, i must be dreaming

I may have said this here before but Bernie would make an excellent Secretary of State in a Warren administration.

I can't imagine Bernie Sanders caring to be anything in between Senator from Vermont and President

Bernie’s vision is about restoring mass politics and fundamentally rethinking cherished American myths about the entrpreneurship, individualism and capitalism.

i dont disagee entirely, although i doubt bernie's efficacy to do this. and i think if you dont deliver on policies you risk losing the opportunity to seize the narrative your talking about.

This Warren vs Sanders discussion reminds me of the (minor but important) differences between Wilson and TR during the 1912 election.

i mean if we use bernie's run in 2016 he straight up did not campaign in southern states, the fuck kind of poor people's campaign is he running??

xp

xp alfred, do tell!

secretary of state is an odd position for bernie given that 95% of his campaigning and stumping has been about domestic policy. unfortunately none of our cabinet-level positions have the same ring/cachet as State, so they would all feel too 'small' for a figure of his prominence, i think.

"in 2016 he straight up did not campaign in southern states" he lost southern states I cant find any sources that say he didn't actualy campaign in them, care to elaborate?

xp alfred, do tell!

^^

the only thing i know about that election is that TR kept tapping a big stick against his palm while wagging his finger at everyone who didn't support him, to which wilson would say "my opponent may have a point. but i have over a dozen"

Speaking broadly TR's New Nationalism called for federal government control the economy, family, education, and the military; only the government could be a fair arbiter between the powerful and powerless.

Whereas Wilson's New Freedom, indebted to Louis Brandeis' fear of what he called "bigness," limited itself to three proposal: tariff lowering, a banking system, and antitrust laws. Stuff would take care of itself if Congress passed these agenda items. He was essentially a capitalist who wanted a fairer free enterprise system.

Obv considerable overlap happened once Wilson took office.

Brandeis is really one of the most important figures of the early 20th century who never gets mentioned as as key figure in the evolution of 19th century liberalism (when it meant something else entirely) to a system of thinking that tried making sense of market forces.

xxxp im exaggerating, he just didn't focus v much there

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-south-carolina-schedule-219708
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/18/why-bernie-sanders-will-rue-his-deep-south-dismissal-of-black-voters/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6b447463c5cf
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/

and now he's pulling an anemic 9% in South Carolina.

right, and 3rd/4th in texas. i don't know how well he's learned the lessons of '16.

sorry i haven't really been paying attention to this election yet but reading the last few posts.. is bernie really still a thing??

he's one of 4 or 5 legit contenders, yes. his fanbase is v devoted and he's still the most ardent supporter of social democratic policies in america.

democratic socialist policies, and don't you forget it!

It's kind of amazing that Treeship doesn't support what could be the first female president, because the white man makes for a better narrative...

Don't vote for the narrative of it.

what lessons exactly should he have learned from 16? he took a 100 to one protest candidacy that absolutely no-one took seriously against a DNC appointed shoe in and built an unprecedented grass roots small donation campaign that was tremendously successful nationally. his platform of medicare for all and 15 dollar minimum wage have spread throughout the democratic political landscape almost as prerequisites for progressive democrats.

yes, and those are all reasons why i voted for him in 2016! but there is a heap of difference between (a) elevating from protest candidate to respectable 2nd in a narrow field and (b) adding to your coalition to secure the nomination.

he can essentially run the same campaign as four years ago and finish well, maybe even better given the billion candidates in the race. but if he wants the nomination he will absolutely need voters he didnt have in 2016 and i dont think he's flexible enough a thinker/campaigner to try anything new.

democratic socialists of bamerica xp

knock it off with the well-poisoning, fred

otm

hey its not too late to make me a mod so i can ban fred from us politics threads

I may still vote for warren fred, it’s not either or. But there is a reason many people feel a strong connection to bernie and its because he was the first national politician to say that people shouldn’t be working multiple jobs and facing eviction and not have access to healthcare. He’s the one that is standing up to amazon and wal mart.

that matters a lot. bernie has earned the trust he has with supporters bc of his consistent messaging on these issues over the decades.

to warren's credit, she's someone who's actively campaigning to break up amazon.

so I posted my Wilson vs TR explanations for nothing

hahaha no it was good!

the anti-trust analogy was well taken

I read them and appreciated the comparison

as hardbitten realists, I think we can all agree that we live to be disappointed

seems like if you were a hardbitten realist you would be constantly proved correct and have your conclusions validated because of your uncanny ability to accurately foresee outcomes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election

hmmm

"The (Progressive) party was funded by publisher Frank Munsey and its executive secretary George Walbridge Perkins, an employee of banker J. P. Morgan and International Harvester. Perkins blocked an anti-trust plank, shocking reformers who thought of Roosevelt as a true trust-buster. The delegates to the convention sang the hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers" as their anthem. In a famous acceptance speech, Roosevelt compared the coming presidential campaign to the Battle of Armageddon and stated that the Progressives were going to "battle for the LORD." However, many of the nation's newspapers, which tended to be pro-Republican, harshly depicted Roosevelt as an egotist who was only running for president to spoil Taft's chances and feed his vanity."

The Progressives' often appalling civil rights record (and support for Prohibition) is not often mentioned in the history books.

this is interesting alfred. i didn't know all that much about TR

Don't vote for the narrative of it.

but seems right to me

Treesh, I recommend this eye-opening book, Melvin Urofksy's 2009 Brandeis bio (y'all should know about his SCOTUS career), and John Milton Cooper's Wilson bio from the same year.

It's kind of amazing that Treeship doesn't support what could be the first female president, because the white man makes for a better narrative...

I am convinced Fred is now posting with Transformer assistance

I hate to even vaguely agree with the Airy Danish but "narrative" should only be used by bad journalists

yes but in what world does Bernie make for a better narrative than Warren?

maybe he doesn't and idgaf

(he was never a Republican tho)