Here lies the problem. Warren’s “well spelled out” plans ALWAYS fall short of the goal post and the end result will be that the ball will ultimately always fall into the laps of the oligarchy. Warren firmly believes in the market and that with just a little bit of regulation, everything will work for working people. That may have played well if she had followed Eisenhower but in an age where fascist neoliberalism has our government and economy in a chock hold, a tweak here and a tweak there will always in the end play into the hands of the neoliberal oligarchs.
Biden is the Hillary candidate in this election. Out of touch, pushing incrementalism and ignoring what has happened in the last 40 years.
I don’t want another elite insider that doesn’t get the desperation so many Americans feel.
Biden is closer to Hilary to be sure but Warren is your Obama.
Biden’s not leading, so Liz and Bernie cannot be catching him.
What’s the news here, really?
At this point, we have zero reason to lay credence with corporate media, which was extensively implicated in the rigging of the prior Democratic nomination. Elementary consistency with 2016 performance, whether it is actually happening at present or not, would mean that they were taking direct copy from in the Joe Biden camp.
So we have here yet another article that glosses over differences between Sanders and Warren as though the candidates were somehow interchangeable. They are closer than Sanders and Biden, certainly, closer than some others. But whatever the state of either candidate’s compromises with power and money–and both have been significant–Warren strongly shares only one platform point with Sanders. Granted that both candidates relation to identity politics has some similarity, but that is also a de rigeur Democratic talking point. The point that we can be reasonably certain of is that financial institutions should be restricted. Warren is an authentic expert in such matters; Bernie has battled towards some sort of renewed New Deal position in such matters for decades. Warren was long a Republican, albeit one of the sort that is called “moderate,” until the clumsy and damaging abuses
Past that, there are differences enough. Sanders has been anti-war, albeit quite irregularly. This is a major issue. Few have given it play. The threat of violence from the MIC and CIA and loose associates allows populations to be manipulated with some workable margin of ease. This applies first and foremost to Americans, of course. Anything besides first steps in social reform as related to the federal government has to involve a disarming or reduction of this juggernaut, or it will simply move to create local conditions of extremis whenever considerable change beckons, as it long has in Africa, South America, and most of Asia.
An editing house does not always get the articles that it wants. But a good start, were such things available or could they be hired, might be a comparison of issues between Sanders and Warren, and not something designed to slough off the fundamental distinction in the choices that Democrats are actually apt to make in the primary. Around 80% of CD readers supported Bernie Sanders in '16, and by no means was the rest for Clinton. Biden is not really under consideration here.
The concern I have about a third party is that it is more likely to drain off votes from the wing that creates it. Better for the Democrats if the Right establishes a 3rd party, better for the Republicans if the Left establishes a 3rd party (or goes strongly for the Greens).
As long as there is a “winner-take-all” electoral college, whichever wing establishes the third party first loses.
’Even Worse Than the DCCC Blacklist’: Schumer Accused of Effort to Hamstring Progressives Trying to Unseat GOP Senators
‘Gatekeeper Mentality’ of DCCC Blacklist Adding to Divisions Within Democratic Party
THen there’s the Schumer Logic from 2016 that they still seem to be pushing:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
I"m not interested in being part of the “NEW Republican Party” that still calls itself 'Democrat"
With Demorats like Schumer and Pelosi we have two Republican partys.
ON edit - I just received this in an email from Our Revolution
The enemies of grassroots organizing are mobilizing. Again.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - following the lead of establishment House Democrats - is blacklisting vendors who are working to elect progressives to the US Senate.
We need to send Chuck Schumer a strong message - We won’t allow you and the establishment to rig primary elections with desperate and discriminatory blacklists.
The Corporate wing of the Democratic party just escalated their attacks on progressives by expanding the blacklist to the Senate as well.
That means candidates who believe in addressing climate change, getting big money out of politics and ensuring that health care is a human right are being kneecapped by the establishment.
We are dead serious about our mission to get big money out of politics, restore a democracy of the people, and pass bold progressive legislation like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.
That’s why it’s so important that we elect real progressives to help President Sanders in the Senate.
We will not back down in the face of the establishment’s pathetic attempts to stop voters from electing senators who represent what’s good for the American people, not multinational corporations.
Stand against the Senate Blacklist : https://go.ourrevolution.com/Senate-Blacklist
I’d rather spend my time doing and END-Run and organizing a third Party than fighting a machine with unlimited resources
But I wouldn’t put too much money on ByeDone’s imploding.
Bernie isn’t gaining on Biden, he blew past him and left Joe in the dust. How many of these pollsters contact people who use Twitch, listen to the Feel The Bern podcast, or don’t answer a phone call from an unknown number. Half of the pollsters still try to contact people on land lines. Biden’s run is just a zombie campaign, already dead but still stumbling around trying to find some brains. Polls are junk science; Hillary beats Trump, Kerry beats Bush, Dewey beats Truman. Warren is just a sheepdog candidate and Wall St/Dem leadership’s poison pill they’ll swallow to stop Bernie but progressives won’t be fooled by “Hope and Change” again.
He’s already falling apart.
His supporters are unenthusiastic.
He leads in polling that asks “Which candidate would you never vote for?”
I offer this artcle for your reading pleasur:
Also, I don’t know about other Biden supporters, but I really have no loyalty to him other than front runner status and head-to-head matchup polls against Trump.
If Warren overtakes him, well… Bye bye Biden.
Just piling on PERSONAL INSULTS on Luttner tells us NOTHING about the issues at hand. MAKE A DAMN ARGMENT with SPECIFICS about what you disagree with about Kutter’s ana;ysis. And if all your “sound & fury” is due to your searing support for SANDERS over Warren—yuo’re NOT HELPING with th3e big Blowhard Routine. (And I SUPPORTED Sanders in 2016—am torn between Sanders & Warren this time)
You’re right, I should make a damn argument. But I find Kuttner’s style of writing, as if he’s sitting in a high stool reading stories to the kindergartners, so infuriating – it leaves me in the mood to summarily dismiss his nonsense in commentary, as I have done consciously.
Oy! Now I’ve reread this dreck again to respond to your plea for an intelligent response to what the man writes, but it’s so challenging for me to get past his zero-visibility condescension. I persist forth through the dense fog of liberal and progressive bromides sprinkled everywhere to identify the originating realm as “progressive-land” – only Kuttner has to make up his own unfascinating terms of nonanalysis (the “majority-minority” electorate) to divert us.
Divert us? Well, yeah. His actual message is betrayed early on, hiding in the plain sight of headline and subhead: Liz or Bernie, pretty much the same, take your pick, doesn’t matter. (Needless to point out to most here: Kuttner’s proferred strategy of neutrality is a guaranteed disaster.)
Kuttner thinks he can help readers digest the undigestible with a lot of liberal gift-wrapping. It’s an old, lame ploy. He’s not very good at it, because he’s an utter fool. Diminished capacity. Nothing to see here.
Thank you, Skeptic–just what I was looking for.
Are you considering voting Libertarian, WW?
That a third party will siphon votes is a positive and not a negative. Here in Canada when the NDP started to siphon votes form the Liberals, the Liberals adopted many of the NDP proposals and this one reason we got single payer health care. The current NDP is seeing support lost to the Green Party and now tries to make their own platform more environmentally friendly.
The end results of there being no third party to siphon off votes is evident in the devolution of the Democrats in the USA . They have moved further and further to the right feeling if they have the vote on the left anyways (there being no third party to siphon away those votes) they might as well go for the Corporate dollars.
A Duopoly is really no different then a single party system.
Warren has captured Hillary’s a woman must be president supporters.
I agree with much of what you’ve said however I would add that Warren is the new Hillary. If she manages to win the primary perhaps she’ll ask Hillary to be her running mate, eh?
REPORT: Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton Teaming Up To Take On 2020 Democratic Field
Phred - my logic is that whoever establishes a third party first is going to split their vote while the other side will remain more united, thereby winning in our “first past the post” system. Unless there is proportional representation, splitting a wing tends to lead to defeat.
I’m in MA bardamu. The Democrats have an absolute lock on Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional elections. So in MA, at least, one can always vote their principles, because the vote doesn’t really matter.
Defeating the party who continually offers little and delivers even less is the point.
Maybe getting punished by voters will wake them up. Hell, we’ve been trying the LOTE thing for decades, and it’s clearly not working.