Thanks for the link. Corroborates what most progressives already know: America is really a plutocracy; not a democracy.
Nobody has a perfect past, including Sanders, who voted twice for the Commidity Futures Modernization Act, votes most of his colleagues in the progressive caucus did not join him in. I am glad we have multiple choices to look at, that’s a good thing. Bottom line is whoever wins the primary is likely going to be seating two more justices on the Supreme Court if they attain the presidency. Do we want Trump filling those spots or not? That’s a key question everyone here will have to ask themselves after the primary is over.
Will we get dirty campaign in the primary’s, like the republican shouting match of 2016? Even some of those seemed uncomfortable slinging barbs back and forth?
I agree with KC, that the more the merrier. We might see a white horse emerge from the dark forest of institutional dem’s.
I read a bit on this including https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_us_5617f634e4b0dbb8000e5a58. I do think the first vote was a mistake - a blemish on a not too bad record overall on this issue. The second vote was one of those “hey are you going to block the entire budget bill because you don’t like the new terms” and I blame him for that one less.
I agree everybody has warts. Sanders has the least and Harris is looking like shes got a very big one. It doesn’t matter how CA voters vote - she would win CA in the general easily - but I’m not going to vote for her in the general, but I would vote Sanders and a few others (and many I just don’t know well enough yet like Castro). Again, my vote is only messaging though - I wish our country wasn’t so moronic about its reluctance to shed the EC - the popular vote for president would mean everybody’s vote really did matter.
Correct, because no matter who becomes POTUS in 2020, one thing we know for sure: HE OR SHE WILL NOT BE OUR PRESIDENT!
That article is after-the-fact justification that Sanders’s at-the-time progressive caucus colleagues in the House certainly did not share. By the standards commenters here put on candidates, Sanders chose to vote twice for fairly monumental “neoliberal” legislation his progressive colleagues opposed strongly, including Paul Wellstone in the Senate and others. It was also legislation that most economists feel had far more bearing on the financial crisis than any other. If we are going to give him a “yes but” for it, I don’t see why we shouldn’t offer the same to other candidates. That’s my only point. Life is complicated, not all decisions are easy.
Kamala Harris another smart well qualified candidate. Anything but Trump is better and she is an excellent candidate.
I totally agree. The issue with prosecutorial misconduct (which it sounds like it is on my first read) is more serious than a bad vote (which it was - not as bad as the Iraq War vote Clinton made, but it was bad). I’d be interested if a lawyer here (there is at least one poster I almost always agree with who is a lawyer - but I don’t recall his name or I would invite him to comment) thought this was as serious an issue as I’m seeing it.
Misconduct is a strong word that she herself was never accused of. It was her office that prosecuted Madden after police received a tip from Madden’s sister in 2009, after all. By then, Madden was a longtime employee (30 years), well predating Harris’s tenure in the office. As someone who watched the story at the time, I find some of the pieces intimating wrong-doing on her part—never outright saying it of course, a feature of all good hits—to be more political than factual.
This doesn’t mean she’s all-good, but it does mean that we should take a measured approach to accusations, just as we do with other candidates.
this so-called progressive candidate for president did nothing progressive imho while she supposedly served the people of my state California. no way would I vote for her. There is a black man sitting in prison who she did everything in her power to keep there when he is no doubt innocent of the crime he was accused and convicted of. I refer you to a recent column in the NYTimes which tells it all. No one to bother your progressive heads about. Not her.
Well, I do agree that disillusionment is a built-in feature of electoral politics. When your candidate loses your work seems to have had no influence. When your candidate wins, they are not likely to be the savior you had supposed.
When I work to build a house with Habitat for Humanity - at least I know someone will gain housing that might have been homeless. When I donate to Doctors without Borders or RESIST at least I know that my money helps provide medical care for refugees or needed resources to progressive movements.
But electoral politics do determine the environment in which organizational/mass movement politics operate - and I want those conditions to be optimal so they can feed off of each other.
I want solid voting rights legislation, a Supreme Court that advances human rights, accessible educational opportunities for all, a health care system that advances health rather than bankruptcies, a livable wage for all who labor and for those who can’t, a more equitable sharing of resources, policies that enhance rather than destroy the balance of nature, and relations with people everywhere based on self determination and peace rather than imperialist exploitation. These things take both an electoral and a mass movement strategy that build on each others successes by mobilizing millions with some degree of unity under a coherent strategy. They are not born of whole cloth - as you seem to espouse. My take is that a couple of the items on my list are attainable and such advances are the only way to build more.
If they are free from any and all PAC money, I will at least give them a listen. Otherwise they are a definite no.
I was all in on Gabbard, since the 2016 primary in fact, but recent revelations have soured me somewhat. She would have to come out and denounce all her questionable positions (torture, war on terror, links to Hindu supremacy etc.) for me to even think of supporting her again.
That’s a very healthy and logical point. Well said.
Way too premature for her to run. In addition, she may throw a bone or two to “The People,” but ultimately she’ll side with her largest benefactors.
I’ll say it every time this comes up - if the Democrats really want to show they are the people’s party, they will give us nationwide Ranked Choice Voting during for a primary and then we can forget all this vote splitting distraction stuff. As is with our current system there will be big pushes for people to get out of the race to bump a particular person’s numbers. I don’t see how both Warren and Sanders (if he decides) could both run and not reduce each other’s chances. The Democrats could be talking right now about how that aspect of the current primary is really completely broken.
Oh, and of course I’m with you on all your goals. I sure hope we end up ousting Trump with someone who will nominate better judges.
My guess is that the limited reforms they just instituted with less power for super delegates is as far as we’re likely to see for awhile from the Democrats. I think your suggestion for a primary system makes much more sense for the Green Party. Third parties should be the incubator of that type of innovation - and the Greens badly need to go beyond their current system which is less democratic than the Democrats.
Bernie ran a somewhat purist campaign. I think if he does so again, the only competition he would worry about, is another purist.
Is that where Harris is hailing from?
And thus the Dems appointed 2020 nominee announces her candidacy. I wonder who will get more media coverage. Her, Warren, or Tulsi? Actually don’t answer that, I already know the answer.
The word misconduct has been used in some articles about her (e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-law-enforcement-record-is-facing-renewed-scrutiny-2019-1). I’m aware that she wasn’t accused in a forum were she could have been disbarred or something.
I just read the NYT piece (sounds like there is likely an innocent man in jail thanks to her):
A good first step would be to apologize to the wrongfully convicted people she has fought to keep in prison and to do what she can to make sure they get justice. She should start with George Gage.
and the David Doel video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym_MnjUWDak (in addition to summarizing some the NYT piece, it becomes clear she is a big donor candidate, not a small donor one like Sanders or Warren).
I don’t think I need to know any more, but like David Doel, in the unlikely event she won the nomination, I would like her to beat Trump (I still won’t vote for her though).