Here we go again… It’s all about the money! That means Trump already won!
Thanks, Elizabeth. Just what we needed, a split in the progressive vote. I’m sure this could not be a deliberate plan. Aren’t you?
It’s sad that even some who seek a more progressive candidate (then most of the field) will choose to back Warren over Sanders; even though he is clearly the more progressive of the two on every issue and has demonstrated that throughout his history. There is nothing to attribute this to, unless it is the coincidental identity politics that eschews a white male and elevates a(ny) female.
If this is not so, can someone please explain to me why they feel Warren is preferable? Is there something more important than the candidate’s positions and history?
I have supported both Warren and Sanders financially (to a very limited amount!) and while I do not prefer her over Sanders, she’s a strong woman with a plan - several plans on a range of issues that get us headed in the right direction. The biggest reason, however, is that she may be more electable than Sanders. And she’s vastly preferable to Biden or Harris.
I see nothing to indicate this, in terms of the general election. Sanders has remained the most popular political figure in the U.S. and has broad support outside of the Democratic Party; esp. among independents, and younger voters in general. I heard from various people in 2016 that their lifelong GOP parents were even going to vote for him over Trump, if both were nominated, but that switched when HRC was nominated.
Yes, by a long shot. And also to “Mayor Pete”, Beto, and all the rest. But we have to get it not just better, but right - both to win the election and to address the existential threats. This is where we need Sanders.
Now she just needs to take back her comment about taking PAC money if she is the nominee in the General Election.
That is not a valid concern. If Bernie and Warren are the top 2 vote getters in the primary (and that is a real possibility), and neither has enough to give them the majority of delegates at the convention, but between the two they have a majority, then a deal will be struck for number 2 to support number 1 and give them their delegates and the nomination. If Warren is that nominee, and eschews PAC money in the General, then she would be a strong candidate for progressives to rally around. Currently, as I post in another comment here, she has said she will take PAC money in the General. We need to put pressure on her to switch that position. If she is the nominee, she must not be beholden to big money.
Unfortunately she seems to be a chameleon with a plan–somebody else’s plan. I have given her money in the past but she has proven, to me at least, that she does not have any political principles. The best candidate is a woman–Tulsi Gabbard. She has principles.
Why should we have to pressure her not to take PAC money? It’s a pretty clear indication of who she is. It’s getting a little tiresome to have to have this debate over and over again. Why not just face reality–most of the Democrats are corrupt too. Bernie and Tulsi excluded.
I’ll bet she doesn’t.
Liz showed her true colors in 2016 when she failed the profile in political courage test by staying on the sidelines rather than support Bernie EARLY (and vociferously) against the clear evidence of Clinton/Wassermann-Shultz/Brazile shenanigans.
Yes. Personally I don’t put a lot of stock into what a candidate says they’re going to do if elected. I don’t care how many great policies the candidate, and their staff can come up with, they’re probably not going to do even a small portion of what they say they’ll do. They probably won’t even try.
I look at the candidate’s record, what they’ve done, and, more importantly, I look at them as a human being, whether they seem more interested in helping make people’s lives better, or whether they seem more like they’re mostly interested in their own power.
Bernie and Tulsi pass that test, in my estimation. Warren, not so much.
I could care less what Warren does.
She stayed on the sidelines to wait until a she saw Clinton being favored by the DNC and Wall St… Then she climbed aboard the Clinton train. She’s a gold digger while Bernie has remained true to his words since 2015. Bernie accomplishes more in one week than Warren ever did with her Plans that never amounted to anything. Remember her Plan to take on the Big Banks? She took them on alright by taking their Donations. People don’t realize she’s made of glass and can see right thru her.
Trump has already exposed Warren as vulnerable to his brand of name-calling: She just had to have that DNA test because the Pocahontas taunts got under her thin skin.
And Trump’s just getting warmed up. I can hear the chants of “Pocahontas” at Trump rallies already. I mean, c’mon, they’re still chanting “lock her up.”
You nailed it Tower.
Warren has spoken out with courage and detail as she did after the 2008 crash but when Obama was publicly pressured to create the CFPB which she advocated he cut her out and put a toady in to head it. My memory is that Warren did not fight him on this.
I believe she is a little bit more of a public advocate than most Wall Streeters are comfortable with but they will support her if necessary. She is sufficiently pro Israel which lets the military know she will follow them. She is stealing Bernie’s domestic agenda for now and some of Tulsi Gabbard’s position on Iran for now but don’t count on either of them to be brought into a Warren administration.
Many common dreams commenters voice very detailed and accurate points. My ongoing question continues to be one of strategy: what do we do about it? I don’t have one answer but I think we need to keep working on how we will shift and evolve into more action and hopefully some consensus on what to do. The democrat primary is rigged-- I’m convinced of that. Should we start reaching out to third parties? pushing our favored candidates (Tulsi and Bernie in my case) to begin considering a breakout and go independent?
She stole all of Bernie’s Ideas and made them her own. People need to wake up and revisit the last election and what Warren did. Had she backed Bernie, there would never have been a Trump. We’d be on a much better timeline. She waited…until she saw HRC was ahead, then joined the winner and stabbed Bernie in the back. Not 1 plan of hers ever came to reality…and never will.
Yes, I was struck, at the time, by what some might call her scheming duplicity in 2016, in her refusal to endorse Sanders - despite the fact that his positions were a lot closer to hers (at least some of them) than Hillary’s. That kind of cold calculating …i.e. the waiting to determine which way the wind might blow, isn’t the hallmark of one who would be a serious force for systemic change.
And you’re probably correct that, had Warren endorsed him early enough on, he might have overcome the rigging by the Party and certainly we wouldn’t have Trump; and we might well already be on a much better trajectory for dealing with the existential crises.
But that’s not the only problem I see. She is too much the defender of the system itself to deal with the systemic issues. And that calculating nature might lead to too much willingness to “compromise” with the oligarchs in order to make "incremental’ steps that might look good to those who value rhetoric more than reality.
No doubt she’s substantially better on some domestic issues than the rest of the pack outside of Sanders and Gabbard; but she comes in a distant 3rd to the latter. And even if she could win the nomination, it would be a tough call for many progressives, and she doesn’t have the national , broad-based appeal that Sanders has.
This is a segue to reply to
I’m certainly not in the “vote Blue no matter who” camp; but at this point, two things strike me as true:
- None of the Democratic Party candidates might be “perfect” in terms of reaching my own standards. Sanders’ occasionally frustrates me by undermining his own otherwise strong positions (as when, e.g., in the midst of making a statement against regime change efforts in Venezuela, he gave credence to the regime-change justification by saying the Venezuelan people were suffering and deserved a “fair election”, ignoring in that statement the fact that the U.S. was to a significant degree responsible for any “suffering” and that Maduro’s election was considered fair by most independent observers and that he obviously had the support of the majority of citizens.
Yet his track record has been amazingly consistent and he has been generally the best representative of the 99% for his entire political career. One needn’t merely trust in campaign-time rhetoric.
So I think it’s time to redouble efforts to get him the Democratic Party nomination.
Do I think the latter will again be rigged? To an extent, it is already happening. I am suspicious that perhaps Warren’s candidacy is insurance (for the economic elites) against a Sanders nomination…to keep that $&#@ “red” away from the White House and the Party leadership. But perhaps this time the riggers will fail.
If this fails and the D’s again nominate a corporatist neoliberal, I will again vote Green; because I saw what my holding my nose enabled the D’s to become over my lifetime.
But at this point, I think it’s a little late in the game to try to build any competent independent or 3rd Party campaign. Sanders likely won’t go against the D’s (given Trump and the all-but certain blame that he and progressives will get should the “liberal” vote be split); and the Greens haven’t yet figured out a way to get their act together to become relevant nationally or otherwise to overcome the “2 Party” system that almost assures the voters will continue to be forced to make strategic, LOTE choices.
I don’t trust she will change her spots. She has great ideas and policies. But she also caves on any push-back from he mainstream. Plus, where it really counts, she has already said she’ll take corporate PAC funding.