Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Harris showed last night she is a real political talent with both charisma and policy knowledge. She may ultimately be the bridge between centrists and progressives, but so far she has been mostly in the Warren/Sanders lane on policy. It will be interesting to see if she tries to differentiate herself a little from them going forward.
She showed she is viscious, and has zero respect for a man that has served our country with dignity for many years.
She's an example of what must be some of today's vets--comparing veteran "creds"--because that sure as HELL isn't what vets of a different generation, or recent ones, in our military family have ever done.
Moreover, her This president's chicken hawk cabinet... comment said more about her, than it did about...let's see...Pompeo, Zinke, Perdue, Kelly, Sessions, Mattis, or soon-to-be cabinet Member Mark Esper. Or Trump.
There are, and were, plenty of vets in Trump's cabinet, so Tulsi Gabbard might want to shut her piehole, and comport herself as a vet should. And that doesn't include My service was better than yours comparisons.
Her issue is that the overwhelming majority of the Democratic electorate support a federal $15 minimum wage, a ban on for-profit prisons, much higher taxes on the rich, tuition free college, much higher social security benefits and support for the disabled, breaking up the big banks, 3 weeks paid vacation, paid overtime and sick leave for all workers and public funding of elections. Her track record shows she is not in that camp and her big donors will fight tooth and nail to prevent those policies from being enacted.
You definitely won't get any of that with Biden, he's just 1990's centrism warmed over. To some degree you are right, Harris is to the right of Warren and Sanders, but to the left of Biden/Clinton.
Biden vs Harris will be a battle in So Carolina and California. Lots of Clinton supporters in both states who will be loyal to Biden.
Her issue is that the overwhelming majority of the Democratic electorate support a federal $15 minimum wage, a ban on for-profit prisons, much higher taxes on the rich, tuition free college, much higher social security benefits and support for the disabled, breaking up the big banks, 3 weeks paid vacation, paid overtime and sick leave for all workers and public funding of elections. Her track record shows she is not in that camp and her big donors will fight tooth and nail to prevent those policies from being enacted.
I tend to agree that all the veto points built into our political system make big sweeping changes unlikely. But, I think that is the risk for Democrats going too liberal, they scare off moderates with sweeping rhetoric that they can never actually pass anyways. If they get elected then their voters become disillusioned when the sweeping changes don't happen.
IMO, a better approach is just admit we can't solve all the world's problems in the next 4 years. But, we can pick a couple issues and focus on making things a little better. Create a public option, raise minimum wages, criminal justice reform and maybe paid leave,etc.
I tend to agree that all the veto points built into our political system make big sweeping changes unlikely. But, I think that is the risk for Democrats going too liberal, they scare off moderates with sweeping rhetoric that they can never actually pass anyways. If they get elected then their voters become disillusioned when the sweeping changes don't happen.
IMO, a better approach is just admit we can't solve all the world's problems in the next 4 years. But, we can pick a couple issues and focus on making things a little better. Create a public option, raise minimum wages, criminal justice reform and maybe paid leave,etc.
Even among moderates these are popular positions. A sizable minority of Republican voters even support these positions. I think the problem with the approach of not pushing for bold ideas is that voter turnout stays low as people are already disillusioned by 40 years of "moderation" and wage stagnation. There has been no strengthening of labor rights for the past 40 years except the woefully inadequate FMLA from 1993.
I think people want to feel energized and not being told we cant have good things in America because the people who run this country dont want to lose their grip on their economic (and political) power.
Even among moderates these are popular positions. A sizable minority of Republican voters even support these positions. I think the problem with the approach of not pushing for bold ideas is that voter turnout stays low as people are already disillusioned by 40 years of "moderation" and wage stagnation. There has been no strengthening of labor rights for the past 40 years except the woefully inadequate FMLA from 1993.
I think people want to feel energized and not being told we cant have good things in America because the people who run this country dont want to lose their grip on their economic (and political) power.
Well it depends on the topic. In abstract people support a lot of liberal social policy, but in practice when it comes to the real world trade offs, they tend to get skittish. For example, people like medicare for all, but not if it means giving up their private coverage, impacting service or paying more money.
I agree in the short term, a swing for the fences message can be more inspirational. But, when it doesn't happen then what? Look at Obama, some now dismiss him as too tepid. But, he had a massive agenda on immigration, climate change, energy, education, poverty/inequality, guns, campaign finance, corporate power and many other topics that never saw the light of day. He accomplished a decent amount. But, was ultimately hamstrung by Congress, the courts, the bureaucracy, uncooperative states and funding constraints.
I'm not sure that had he simply adopted a more aggressively liberal posture he would have been more effective.
She showed she is viscious, and has zero respect for a man that has served our country with dignity for many years.
That's what I saw too, and her pitiful tear jerker story was mostly BS. When she was bused to school her neighborhood school was 41% black, hardly what you would call a "segregated school" https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...232076402.html
Well it depends on the topic. In abstract people support a lot of liberal social policy, but in practice when it comes to the real world trade offs, they tend to get skittish. For example, people like medicare for all, but not if it means giving up their private coverage, impacting service or paying more money.
I agree in the short term, a swing for the fences message can be more inspirational. But, when it doesn't happen then what? Look at Obama, some now dismiss him as too tepid. But, he had a massive agenda on immigration, climate change, energy, education, poverty/inequality, guns, campaign finance, corporate power and many other topics that never saw the light of day. He accomplished a decent amount. But, was ultimately hamstrung by Congress, the courts, the bureaucracy, uncooperative states and funding constraints.
I'm not sure that had he simply adopted a more aggressively liberal posture he would have been more effective.
But Obama had extremely powerful and wealthy donors who had to be served once in office. It was never realistic that he would ditch his Wall Street and medical insurance donors. I definitely agree that it can be damaging to claim to support good things for the average American and then serve the special interests that funded the campaign once elected.
At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves who the democracy should work for. The big donors or the people.
Jessie Jackson has now called out Biden about being on the wrong side of the busing issue.
The old man's attempt at being given the nomination is falling apart. The debate was a disaster for Biden. I don't think the old fellow has it in him to answer for the 45 years on being on the wrong side of just about everything. Jobs, War, Outsourcing, Banksters, Cronyism, you name it, Biden was there giving it all away to the wrong people every single time.
First, I still believe Joe Biden is most likely to win the Democratic nomination for President. While his debate performance last night wasn't great, it also wasn't terrible.
To answer your question, I think we have to first ask what it will take for the Democratic nominee to win. I think it's maximizing black turnout, winning rural white working-class voters who voted for Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Trump, and winning over enough independent voters. Another words, I believe the best path to victory for the Democrats is by rebuilding the coalitions that elected Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. I happen to believe Biden is best positioned to do that.
So, here is my answer to your question with explanations:
Senator Amy Klobuchar: Based on her style and policy positions, I believe Senator Klobuchar has tremendous appeal to independents and rural white working-class voters. She is essentially doing what Biden is doing, taking positions left enough to win the nomination, but not too far left as to alienate general election voters.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg: I think Mayor Pete's coalition is a bit different than the Clinton/Obama coalition. His biography, style, and ability to articulate knowledge of policy without getting too wonkish are his strengths as a candidate. Mayor Pete would do better than Hillary Clinton with black voters, though not as well as Obama or even Bill Clinton. Where I think he's strong is 1) driving up turnout with voters ages 18-34 2) winning the support of independents and 3) winning the support of college educated white males who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, plus I think he'd also do better than Hillary Clinton with white women.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard: I think a lot of what I said about Mayor Buttigieg applies to Congresswoman Gabbard; she'd drive turnout up with voters ages 18-34 and would do better than Hillary Clinton with white women. I would add that I actually think she'd do better than Hillary Clinton with all women. I am not sure she would do as well as some of the more moderate candidates with independents, but I do think she'd have some libertarians supporting her because of her views on foreign policy. This helps in states like Colorado and New Hampshire which the Democrats won in 2016, but let's remember that Gary Johnson's share of the vote was greater than Trump's margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2016.
Governor John Hickenlopper: First, he won twice in a swing state in difficult years for Democrats (2010 and 2014). Hickenlopper is center-left on economics like Bill Clinton, yet socially he's much more in line with his party's base. I think he would win the overwhelming support of independents and would outperform Hillary Clinton in suburbs across the country. I even think some more moderate Republicans would vote for him.
Former Congressman John Delaney: See Hickenlooper other than winning in a swing state
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
