[Allison W]

Originally Posted by cathexis

Noone in this lineup has me all that impressed. Warren has some pretty progressive ideas, but to distinguish between her and Sanders will be difficult.
Also, I don't know about hearing her grating voice for 4+years. It really is kind of whiny.

Bernie is further to the left economically. They're both pretty left-wing by current Democratic standards, but Bernie is more open about moving towards democratic socialism as a long-term goal, which is why I'm still drinking out of a Bernie coffee mug at this very moment and have been for the past four years.

Originally Posted by Andrea

Currently my fantasy is a Sanders/Warren, or Warren/Sanders, ticket because I really like where they are pushing us and because I like how they plan to accomplish getting us there.

I honestly wouldn't want to put the two of them on the same ticket. My primary reasoning for that is that I'd much sooner have one of them in the Oval Office and the other as their ally in the Senate; making one of them the VP would be a bit of a waste, IMO. The only situation in which I'd want to see both of them on the same ticket is if it turns out that they can't both get their supporters on the same page about getting behind whichever one of them ends up being the left-wing primary candidate: they unfortunately have very different demographics of support and it's not clear that either one's voters would get behind the other. It's fucking incomprehensible but apparently a lot of Bernie supporters have Biden of all fucking people as their second choice and apparently a lot of Warren supporters have Harris as their second choice. (If it's not clear, Warren is my second choice, and I will get behind whichever of Bernie or Warren shapes up to be the one in the best position to beat the bourgeoisie-approved candidate.)

Originally Posted by charley

Yes, indeed, I did like Kamala and Bernie. But, I think Kamala was the only one who really showed that she could take on the Republicans. She won the night.

My take on Bernie is that he seemed out of place in the midst of all the other candidates, and I think it is because of all things, his platform indicates that while some refer to him as a socialist, a progressive, the main thing is that he is not a capitalist (just like me - chuckles). And all the other Dem candidates are capitalists, just like the Republicans, only the difference between the two parties is a question of degree. Of course, the Republicans are so far out in right field that they seem to have forfeited any sense of humanity. Bernie would have no chance of winning an election if he had been elected to run against Trump, because of his stance and because most Americans believe in capitalism - the American dream. So, yes, I agree with you, Martina, when you said that Bernie "is by far the only one who has not bought into corporate rule of our country." However, I don't think the Dem electoral peeps are prepared to accept Bernie's position. It would be a fantasy to imagine that most Americans would accept a pov that seems to attack capitalism in any form.

Most Americans don't actually have any ideological commitments; they generally have a political tribe at most. If you actually poll members of the general public to ask about specific policy ideas rather than overarching political labels, left-wing policies are frequently extremely popular and right-wing policies are frequently extremely unpopular (to the point that it's not unusual for a voter confronted with information on what right-wing candidates actually support to have difficulty believing what they're seeing). For instance, the single most socialist thing Bernie has proposed so far is his plan to require companies to pay their employees not simply wages but ownership, which is both far more socialist than anything else in American politics at the moment and, believe it or not, actually a very popular idea.

Also, we are actively in a moment of obvious crisis where everyone who isn't in a bubble knows, if only in the sense that they don't like to think about it, that the world is kind of actively ending while we sit around feeling helpless to do anything about it. What I'm saying is, now is the exact time to offer an alternative to the status quo, because the political landscape right now is not simply about the traditional left-right distinction but also about a significant chunk of the electorate wanting any alternative to the sinking ship we're on. If we run a status quo candidate, it continues to look like only Trump and the fascists he represents are even admitting that there's a crisis. The situation is ripe to shatter the veil of misinformation surrounding what capitalism and socialism even are, and to start advancing the notion that opposing the exploiter class is not only possible but also legitimate. Which is to say, we get to start mainstreaming the idea that the material interests of the small minority of employers, landlords, and other exploiters are inherently anathema to the interests of the vast majority of people whose income comes from their labor, and that it is these material interests that determine who shares your survival interests and thus whom it is possible to peacefully coexist with, rather than membership in a racial, ethnic, or national tribe.

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Might be useful to remember that you're trying to defeat a Fascist president not adopt a cute puppy.

I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say here--whether you're suggesting that a candidate should be chosen on the basis of being a "centrist" and thus able to appeal to "swing voters" or simply that we should watch our infighting--but I will use this opportunity to make something clear.

Donald Trump is not even the disease. He is a symptom. Biden, for instance, is building his campaign around the message that the only problem is Donald Trump and that once we're rid of him everything will be hunky-dory again. The problem is that the "normal" we would go back to was the exact disease that led to Trump in the first place: Trump did not create our current political environment; he was created by it. Biden could defeat Trump in 2020 because Trump is simply that much of a god damn embarrassment, but he has already committed himself to letting the disease (capitalism and its death throes) fester, and the exact crises that led to Trump's election will simply continue to progress until the next election comes along and the public is even more desperate for any escape from the status quo Biden represents.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Progressives should be their own party. And 2020 might be a perfect storm year for that.

Trump IS very weak. Bernie is very strong. Progressives may not get anyone as strong as Bernie for decades-- someone that could peel off enough support from centrism-- given the opportunity to run directly against it-- to outnumber what remains of Trump's base. There may be no other candidate for awhile who has enough grassroots support to be able to viably turn their back on a major party.

NEIN, NYET, NIX, NADA, NO

The two-party system isn't simply a political reality, it is a mathematical reality. The Spoiler Effect is so insurmountable that it would be more feasible to mount a hostile takeover of one of the two existing Actual Parties than it would be for a third party to win a presidential general election. Thankfully, it's looking like Bernie has a perfectly realistic shot at the nomination. His performance in 2016 wasn't half-bad considering he was up against one of the most powerful people in the Democratic Party at the time and the party machine was bending over backwards to coronate Clinton, and he's dealing with far less formidable competition this time around.

Originally Posted by cathexis

Agree that she's inappropriately suited for President, but don't see lack of class as the reason. She is not stateswomenly.

My primary concern with Harris is that she is a cop. (Well, that, and the capitalism, but I digress.)

also shout out to Katzchen, good to see you again too