this is actually a good demonstration of the differences.
the sympathetic liberal writer at the atlantic is presenting the situation as ridiculous.
bernie is trying to figure out the best way to win, the best way to advance the cause.
"but, what's in it for me?", asks the confounded senator for massachusetts.
exactly.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/bernie-sanders-running-against-warren-president/573529/
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
"Warren’s team doesn’t like the Clinton comparisons. They see any of that talk as reeking of sexism,"
ahahahaha.
i'm sorry. that was just kind of priceless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign/579214/
ahahahaha.
i'm sorry. that was just kind of priceless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign/579214/
at
22:13
it's, like, right out of animal farm.
Sometime last year, the progressive group most closely aligned with the senator, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, changed its logo: “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party” became “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.”
Sometime last year, the progressive group most closely aligned with the senator, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, changed its logo: “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party” became “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.”
at
21:36
i think that a lot of the media presumed that sanders was mostly an anti wall street candidate, and his support for social programs was secondary to the message. if that's your position, then warren is an even better candidate than sanders.
i get it.
but, i think it's wrong.
we'll find out...
i get it.
but, i think it's wrong.
we'll find out...
at
21:02
no. listen.
it was always an open question as to whether sanders' support came from his get-tough-on-the-banks spiel (which i personally largely wrote off as empty politicking) or his proposals to move towards a scandinavian welfare state model, because he presented the two ideas together. i'm sure that most people reacted to the two things in differing proportions.
so, i was basically willing to ignore bernie's sometimes very silly rants against wall street, in order to support his plans for universal health care.
warren, on the other hand, has no interest in turning the united states into denmark - she is solely about trying to save capitalism from itself, so we can more effectively compete against each other. and, when you take away the socialism, you lose me.
so, we're going to find out who really supports what.
it was always an open question as to whether sanders' support came from his get-tough-on-the-banks spiel (which i personally largely wrote off as empty politicking) or his proposals to move towards a scandinavian welfare state model, because he presented the two ideas together. i'm sure that most people reacted to the two things in differing proportions.
so, i was basically willing to ignore bernie's sometimes very silly rants against wall street, in order to support his plans for universal health care.
warren, on the other hand, has no interest in turning the united states into denmark - she is solely about trying to save capitalism from itself, so we can more effectively compete against each other. and, when you take away the socialism, you lose me.
so, we're going to find out who really supports what.
at
20:59
if we ignore the newspeak around it, the actual middle class is a bourgeois layer that should be abolished.
i don't want to save the middle class; i want to smash it.
fuck bosses.
fuck the middle class.
i don't want to save the middle class; i want to smash it.
fuck bosses.
fuck the middle class.
at
20:14
for that reason, dragging o'rourke through the process would be useful, just to subtract out texas as irrelevant.
at
18:59
there are some southern states where you might not even need to run multiple black candidates to split the vote, but just a number of centrists.
for example, i'm sure that gore would have cut into clinton's vote in tennessee, which, iirc, was about 70-30. enough? maybe not.
but, what our currently unknown leftist champion needs here is a field with a large number of centrists in it, and if we end up going into the southern primaries with 8 centrists and one leftist, our champion could mitigate the damage well enough to win by sweeping the midwest.
for example, i'm sure that gore would have cut into clinton's vote in tennessee, which, iirc, was about 70-30. enough? maybe not.
but, what our currently unknown leftist champion needs here is a field with a large number of centrists in it, and if we end up going into the southern primaries with 8 centrists and one leftist, our champion could mitigate the damage well enough to win by sweeping the midwest.
at
18:57
the single biggest opponent a leftist candidate is going to have in front of it is these black churches.
at
18:33
so, how does the left defeat the black congressional caucus and win a primary?
well. that's the reality of the task ahead of it. they won't support a leftist, and they control the vote.
the first thing you have to do is stop denying it. you won't convince them; stop trying.
so, what tactics are there? well, you've gotta split the field, basically.
so, if i'm bernie sanders, i'm actually looking at the field rather favourably, despite what the media is suggesting. he has a ceiling of something like 30% in the south - and warren won't do much better. she could easily poll in the low single digits, really. but, if you get kamala harris and cory booker splitting the vote, sanders all of a sudden has a path up the middle.
if it's not sanders, maybe it's jeff merkley. nobody knows yet. but, whoever it is needs to come to grips with this: if they want to win, they have to find a beat to beat the black caucus, somehow.
well. that's the reality of the task ahead of it. they won't support a leftist, and they control the vote.
the first thing you have to do is stop denying it. you won't convince them; stop trying.
so, what tactics are there? well, you've gotta split the field, basically.
so, if i'm bernie sanders, i'm actually looking at the field rather favourably, despite what the media is suggesting. he has a ceiling of something like 30% in the south - and warren won't do much better. she could easily poll in the low single digits, really. but, if you get kamala harris and cory booker splitting the vote, sanders all of a sudden has a path up the middle.
if it's not sanders, maybe it's jeff merkley. nobody knows yet. but, whoever it is needs to come to grips with this: if they want to win, they have to find a beat to beat the black caucus, somehow.
at
18:25
the point i'm going to want to make is just to make it clear: warren is not on the sanders/kucinich/nader side of the american left, she's inside the obama/clinton axis of the party's centrist wing.
if you support that, so be it.
i'll just want to ensure that you understand it, before you go voting for a mirage and get burned. again.
if you support that, so be it.
i'll just want to ensure that you understand it, before you go voting for a mirage and get burned. again.
at
15:27
it's a bunch of republican talking points interspersed with some tepid liberal platitudes. no details. and, you'll likely be disappointed by them when you hear them - her idea of expanded opportunity for the middle class is going to be more market theory, rather than attempts to balance out the violence of markets with redistributive mechanisms.
so, she is many ways projecting what is the next logical step in realignment, after obama. fool me once...
again: i'm curious. are democrats going to get excited by this? is this where the party is in 2019? do people really understand what she's running on? but, i don't expect i'll end up too supportive of it.
so, she is many ways projecting what is the next logical step in realignment, after obama. fool me once...
again: i'm curious. are democrats going to get excited by this? is this where the party is in 2019? do people really understand what she's running on? but, i don't expect i'll end up too supportive of it.
at
15:24
i'm actually curious how this goes.
elizabeth warren was a republican into her late 40s. this isn't a case of somebody who was raised a democrat and switched parties as she grew into herself, it's a case of somebody that spent the majority of her adult life as a conservative. and, what was her reasoning?
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets." - elizabeth warren
in past years, she'd have been written off as a fringe candidate on the right of the party. but, there's been a realignment happening since 2009, if not since 1993, and in many ways a warren candidacy - let alone presidency - could really flip it over.
much of what she's saying here might sound like far-left boilerplate to a contemporary listener, but the reality is that these are actually mostly recycled talking points from the gingrich-led congressional majority of the 90s. stop for a second and realize it: she sounds like a republican.
it's because she is one.
so, i'm curious. i suspect she'll do well amongst this influx of suburban white voters, who have also been republicans for most of their lives - and that whether she wins or not depends on how many "progressives" and "socialists" she can trick into voting for her with this phony republican populist rhetoric about big banks. in the end, what many are going to project and interpret as the triumph of the left is going to be it's death.
elizabeth warren was a republican into her late 40s. this isn't a case of somebody who was raised a democrat and switched parties as she grew into herself, it's a case of somebody that spent the majority of her adult life as a conservative. and, what was her reasoning?
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets." - elizabeth warren
in past years, she'd have been written off as a fringe candidate on the right of the party. but, there's been a realignment happening since 2009, if not since 1993, and in many ways a warren candidacy - let alone presidency - could really flip it over.
much of what she's saying here might sound like far-left boilerplate to a contemporary listener, but the reality is that these are actually mostly recycled talking points from the gingrich-led congressional majority of the 90s. stop for a second and realize it: she sounds like a republican.
it's because she is one.
so, i'm curious. i suspect she'll do well amongst this influx of suburban white voters, who have also been republicans for most of their lives - and that whether she wins or not depends on how many "progressives" and "socialists" she can trick into voting for her with this phony republican populist rhetoric about big banks. in the end, what many are going to project and interpret as the triumph of the left is going to be it's death.
at
15:03
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)