Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter

  1. #1
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,545
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26288

    How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter

    How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter


    I thought this was interesting.


    FiveThirtyEight has been tracking endorsements throughout the Democratic primary. There have been more than 150 of these so far, out of the fairly broad universe of potential endorsers that we’re monitoring. But most endorsements don’t make national news.

    Tuesday night was an exception — probably the first time all cycle that an endorsement has led the news cycle. Just as the fourth debate was concluding, reports surfaced that at least two of the four members of the “The Squad,” a group of first-term congresswomen who are outspokenly on the left of their party and often critique their party’s leadership, would be endorsing Bernie Sanders. Specifically, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has already officially announced her endorsement of Sanders, and Rep. Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez of New York will reportedly endorse Sanders at a rally in Queens this weekend. (Contrary to earlier reports, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan has not yet officially endorsed Sanders. A fourth member of “The Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, has no imminent plans to endorse Sanders or anyone else.)

    I have quite a few thoughts about this, which partly go to how I think Sanders’s campaign, and Elizabeth Warren’s, are going overall. If you want a takeaway headline, though, it’s basically that this is the kind of thing I’d want to see more of from Sanders. In other words, it’s good news for him, but it will be better news for him to the extent it presages a more coalition-oriented approach to running a campaign, which includes building alliances with diverse groups of voters and winning endorsements in an effort to expand his coalition. If, on the other hand, it signals a desire by Sanders to provoke an establishment vs. anti-establishment confrontation with Warren, I’m not sure that’s as helpful to him. OK, here we go: Nine quick-ish thoughts about the AOC and Omar endorsements of Sanders:

    1. There’s reason to think endorsements matter. Historically, endorsements have been a good predictor of presidential primary outcomes, often rivaling early polls for how well they anticipate how the vote will eventually turn out. The theory behind the importance of endorsements, as perhaps best articulated in the book “The Party Decides”, has come under attack in recent years, mostly because Donald Trump’s nomination in 2016 despite a lack of support from Republican endorsers was a poor data point for the theory (to put it kindly). In addition, some Democrats who received a number of endorsements earlier this year, such as Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, have not yet gained much traction in the polls. Nonetheless, the theory has a fairly good long-term track record. Incidentally, the theory is not necessarily that the endorsements directly influence voters — for instance, that a voter says to herself “Senator Such-and-Such is endorsing Governor So-and-So; guess I’m going to vote for So-and-So!”. (Although, an endorser with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez could be an exception.) Rather, it’s that endorsements are a proxy for support from “party elites,” and that party elites’ preferences tend to be a leading indicator of voter preferences.

    2. But endorsements matter more when they cross ideological lines — and these ones were more predictable for Sanders. Imagine that, rather than AOC and Omar, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had endorsed Sanders on Tuesday night. That would have been quite surprising, given that Manchin is fairly conservative while Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. It would have sent a signal, however, that Sanders’s populism could resonate beyond his left-leaning base. Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, by contrast, are more in line with Sanders’s current base, being both quite left-of-center and quick to rebuke the Democratic Party establishment. Those sorts of endorsements matter less, according to “The Party Decides.”

    3. The timing was smart for Sanders, and will help to fend off the media narrative that his chances are fading. This is a very pundit-y type of observation, so I’ll be brief. But dropping these endorsements after a fairly strong debate for Sanders1 — and after concerns about the long-term viability of his campaign following his heart attack — strikes me as smart. It could contribute toward a “Bernie comeback!” narrative, especially if Sanders gets a boost in post-debate polls.

    4. This is going to intensify intra-left fighting. Want a fairly safe prediction? The primary is going to get nastier. In my read of the various Warren vs. Sanders spats, they’re less about who is further to the left per se and more about how to achieve change, with Warren wanting to work within the Democratic Party and Sanders wanting to upend the Democratic Party and “the system” overall. (To bring about a “political revolution,” as Sanders might say.) One reason I’ve been skeptical about Sanders’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination is that while seeking to upend the system is perfectly valid as a theory of change, it’s a fairly hard way to win a party primary when the party sets the rules, those rules are designed to achieve consensus rather than to reward factional candidates, and voting is restricted in many states to party members. In any event, because Ocasio-Cortez and Omar have a somewhat anti-establishment message — although less so than Sanders himself does — their endorsements are likely to send additional tremors down emerging Sanders-Warren fault lines.

    5. “The Squad” is a potential general election liability. A July poll by YouGov found all four members of “The Squad” with negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters. (I’d love to cite a wider sample of polls, but I can’t find many others that asked about Omar, Tlaib or Pressley. A number of earlier polls on Ocasio-Cortez found her with negative ratings, however.) They are reasonably popular among Democrats, of course, and Sanders’s objective for now is to win the nomination, not the general election. His campaign has sometimes tried to emphasize his “electability”, however, and these endorsements won’t necessarily be helpful in that respect.


    Particularly, it was interesting to me that, for all the hoopla about them, "the squad" members have "negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters."

    Screenshot_2019-10-17 How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter.png

    Of particular interest is their negative ratings among my group - the Independents.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  2. Amen KingsGambit, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,293
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    19564
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter


    I thought this was interesting.


    FiveThirtyEight has been tracking endorsements throughout the Democratic primary. There have been more than 150 of these so far, out of the fairly broad universe of potential endorsers that we’re monitoring. But most endorsements don’t make national news.

    Tuesday night was an exception — probably the first time all cycle that an endorsement has led the news cycle. Just as the fourth debate was concluding, reports surfaced that at least two of the four members of the “The Squad,” a group of first-term congresswomen who are outspokenly on the left of their party and often critique their party’s leadership, would be endorsing Bernie Sanders. Specifically, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has already officially announced her endorsement of Sanders, and Rep. Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez of New York will reportedly endorse Sanders at a rally in Queens this weekend. (Contrary to earlier reports, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan has not yet officially endorsed Sanders. A fourth member of “The Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, has no imminent plans to endorse Sanders or anyone else.)

    I have quite a few thoughts about this, which partly go to how I think Sanders’s campaign, and Elizabeth Warren’s, are going overall. If you want a takeaway headline, though, it’s basically that this is the kind of thing I’d want to see more of from Sanders. In other words, it’s good news for him, but it will be better news for him to the extent it presages a more coalition-oriented approach to running a campaign, which includes building alliances with diverse groups of voters and winning endorsements in an effort to expand his coalition. If, on the other hand, it signals a desire by Sanders to provoke an establishment vs. anti-establishment confrontation with Warren, I’m not sure that’s as helpful to him. OK, here we go: Nine quick-ish thoughts about the AOC and Omar endorsements of Sanders:

    1. There’s reason to think endorsements matter. Historically, endorsements have been a good predictor of presidential primary outcomes, often rivaling early polls for how well they anticipate how the vote will eventually turn out. The theory behind the importance of endorsements, as perhaps best articulated in the book “The Party Decides”, has come under attack in recent years, mostly because Donald Trump’s nomination in 2016 despite a lack of support from Republican endorsers was a poor data point for the theory (to put it kindly). In addition, some Democrats who received a number of endorsements earlier this year, such as Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, have not yet gained much traction in the polls. Nonetheless, the theory has a fairly good long-term track record. Incidentally, the theory is not necessarily that the endorsements directly influence voters — for instance, that a voter says to herself “Senator Such-and-Such is endorsing Governor So-and-So; guess I’m going to vote for So-and-So!”. (Although, an endorser with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez could be an exception.) Rather, it’s that endorsements are a proxy for support from “party elites,” and that party elites’ preferences tend to be a leading indicator of voter preferences.

    2. But endorsements matter more when they cross ideological lines — and these ones were more predictable for Sanders. Imagine that, rather than AOC and Omar, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had endorsed Sanders on Tuesday night. That would have been quite surprising, given that Manchin is fairly conservative while Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. It would have sent a signal, however, that Sanders’s populism could resonate beyond his left-leaning base. Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, by contrast, are more in line with Sanders’s current base, being both quite left-of-center and quick to rebuke the Democratic Party establishment. Those sorts of endorsements matter less, according to “The Party Decides.”

    3. The timing was smart for Sanders, and will help to fend off the media narrative that his chances are fading. This is a very pundit-y type of observation, so I’ll be brief. But dropping these endorsements after a fairly strong debate for Sanders1 — and after concerns about the long-term viability of his campaign following his heart attack — strikes me as smart. It could contribute toward a “Bernie comeback!” narrative, especially if Sanders gets a boost in post-debate polls.

    4. This is going to intensify intra-left fighting. Want a fairly safe prediction? The primary is going to get nastier. In my read of the various Warren vs. Sanders spats, they’re less about who is further to the left per se and more about how to achieve change, with Warren wanting to work within the Democratic Party and Sanders wanting to upend the Democratic Party and “the system” overall. (To bring about a “political revolution,” as Sanders might say.) One reason I’ve been skeptical about Sanders’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination is that while seeking to upend the system is perfectly valid as a theory of change, it’s a fairly hard way to win a party primary when the party sets the rules, those rules are designed to achieve consensus rather than to reward factional candidates, and voting is restricted in many states to party members. In any event, because Ocasio-Cortez and Omar have a somewhat anti-establishment message — although less so than Sanders himself does — their endorsements are likely to send additional tremors down emerging Sanders-Warren fault lines.

    5. “The Squad” is a potential general election liability. A July poll by YouGov found all four members of “The Squad” with negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters. (I’d love to cite a wider sample of polls, but I can’t find many others that asked about Omar, Tlaib or Pressley. A number of earlier polls on Ocasio-Cortez found her with negative ratings, however.) They are reasonably popular among Democrats, of course, and Sanders’s objective for now is to win the nomination, not the general election. His campaign has sometimes tried to emphasize his “electability”, however, and these endorsements won’t necessarily be helpful in that respect.


    Particularly, it was interesting to me that, for all the hoopla about them, "the squad" members have "negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters."

    Screenshot_2019-10-17 How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter.png

    Of particular interest is their negative ratings among my group - the Independents.
    IIRC the slate of candidates supported by AOC in 2018 did not fare that well.

    Anywho, the Hill's Krystal Ball has an interesting take:

    Source: Krystal Ball reacts to Ocasio-Cortez endorsing Sanders: 'Class power over girl power'


    We're just learning more details about AOC's endorsement of Bernie Sanders. According to Politico, AOC informed Senator Sanders of her decision while he was lying in a Nevada hospital bed, recovering from his heart attack. Here's campaign manager Faiz Shakir:

    "Think about the courage of this person who says, 'you know, I know what you just went through but I have so much trust and confidence in you that you are the one who will fight the fight that I believe in. I'm with you.’ To hear that was like, 'wow’.”

    Wow indeed. About 2 weeks ago on this show, I explained what AOC's endorsement would mean for her and for the candidate who received it. In part, I argued that endorsing Bernie at this moment, when the wind is at the back of his progressive rival, would represent a profoundly important and courageous move.

    Now, it might be tempting to write AOC's endorsement off as the obvious choice. After all, she's a justice Dem. Exactly the sort of upend the system, working class Democrat who takes inspiration from Sanders movement. She herself was a Sanders volunteer. But in fact, it wasn't at all obvious that she would make this choice, at least not right now. Just look at how the Working Families Party, a group with a mission statement that could be torn from the Sanders website, threw their support to Warren this time. For AOC to back Bernie while the wind is at Warren's back is very much against her personal short-term political interest. After all, Warren has adopted the language of the movement and embraced many of the policies that AOC champions from Medicare for All to the Green New Deal. In doing so, Warren has given AOC plenty enough cover to sit it out if she wanted to, to throw her energies just into defeating Biden rather than picking between the two progressive candidates. She could have easily accepted the argument that the nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel made in the Post recently, when she argued that progressives ought to honor and embrace a truce between Warren and Bernie. In essence, either of these candidates is great so let's just have a love fest for them and see what plays out.

    AOC is explicitly rejecting all of that. She is picking sides. And picking sides means of course that there are differences between Warren and Sanders. Differences that matter enough to risk the wrath of a woman with a good likelihood of being the Democratic nominee. Differences that matter enough to risk the upset of a chunk of AOC's own followers who may have backed her because they loved seeing a young woman of color push out the old white guy, but are really more invested in her identity than in the working class populist movement she represents. For those AOC supporters, it was apparently very confusing for their girl-power champion to throw in with the old white guy over a progressive woman.

    For example, Jane Eisner, Director of Academic Affairs at Columbia Journalism School in a now deleted tweet wrote: “I find it fascinating that women of color overlook female and minority candidates to endorse a white guy. Is 'identity politics' over? Is ideology more important than race and gender? Genuinely curious."

    Well Jane, allow me to help you understand why AOC or Ilhan Omar, or any other progressive would pick Bernie Sanders over Elizabeth Warren. I'm not sure anyone has argued what's at stake here better than Matt Karp.

    In his new piece for Jacobin, Karp lays out how the Democratic party has rejected the politics of class solidarity in favor of embracing the professional elite. The results of this should be abundantly obvious. NAFTA, TPP, allowing union power to decline, banking bailouts, an embrace of woke virtue signaling to keep working class minorities in the tent while providing nothing of substance in terms of their economic well-being. That's why Warren's upper crust fan base is in and of itself cause for concern. As Matt points out, already the Democratic party, the alleged party of the people, has won control of every one of the 20 wealthiest counties in the country. Warren's coalition points to more of that. More sidelining of the working class. More embracing the tastes and priorities of wealthy liberals. More of the white working class identifying with the racist populism of the right. Sanders’ coalition alone, points the way towards a fundamental realignment of the Democratic party around the working class. Here's Matt:

    "An OpenSecrets review of campaign donations found that while Warren was naturally the top recipient among scientists and professors, Sanders led by far among teachers, nurses, servers, bartenders, social workers, retail workers, construction workers, truckers, and drivers. Of all the money going to 2020 democrats from servers -- one of the lowest-paying jobs in the country -- more than half went to Sanders alone. This is just what is required to challenge the power of the ultrarich: a politics that does not treat lower-income voters as a kind of passive supplement for professional liberals, but one that can put the new working class itself at the center of the action." So well said.

    And this is the choice that AOC has just made. It's a choice to center the working class.

    True leadership isn't picking the winning side just before the election, the way that Warren did when endorsing HRC. It doesn't look like picking the person who happens to have the identity most similar to yours. True leadership looks like wandering in the desert of democratic socialism the way that Bernie did for decades when the DLC and corporatists turned us into the party of Davos, and Bernie was essentially alone on the national political scene. And true leadership looks like backing Bernie Sanders when he's third in the polls, not because it's the opportunistic or smart choice, but because it's the right choice. True leadership means moving the hearts and minds of people to where they ought to be, not telling funders, pundits and the media what they want to hear.

    I asked myself if AOC was a true leader of character, or just someone who saw an opportunity to beat Joe Crowley because of his arrogant, establishment-bound complacency. Now we know the answer, and the multi-racial working class has another champion to stand next to Bernie and fight the good fight.



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  4. #3
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,097
    Amen (Given)
    1762
    Amen (Received)
    1505
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter


    I thought this was interesting.


    FiveThirtyEight has been tracking endorsements throughout the Democratic primary. There have been more than 150 of these so far, out of the fairly broad universe of potential endorsers that weÂ’re monitoring. But most endorsements donÂ’t make national news.

    Tuesday night was an exception — probably the first time all cycle that an endorsement has led the news cycle. Just as the fourth debate was concluding, reports surfaced that at least two of the four members of the “The Squad,” a group of first-term congresswomen who are outspokenly on the left of their party and often critique their party’s leadership, would be endorsing Bernie Sanders. Specifically, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has already officially announced her endorsement of Sanders, and Rep. Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez of New York will reportedly endorse Sanders at a rally in Queens this weekend. (Contrary to earlier reports, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan has not yet officially endorsed Sanders. A fourth member of “The Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, has no imminent plans to endorse Sanders or anyone else.)

    I have quite a few thoughts about this, which partly go to how I think SandersÂ’s campaign, and Elizabeth WarrenÂ’s, are going overall. If you want a takeaway headline, though, itÂ’s basically that this is the kind of thing IÂ’d want to see more of from Sanders. In other words, itÂ’s good news for him, but it will be better news for him to the extent it presages a more coalition-oriented approach to running a campaign, which includes building alliances with diverse groups of voters and winning endorsements in an effort to expand his coalition. If, on the other hand, it signals a desire by Sanders to provoke an establishment vs. anti-establishment confrontation with Warren, IÂ’m not sure thatÂ’s as helpful to him. OK, here we go: Nine quick-ish thoughts about the AOC and Omar endorsements of Sanders:

    1. There’s reason to think endorsements matter. Historically, endorsements have been a good predictor of presidential primary outcomes, often rivaling early polls for how well they anticipate how the vote will eventually turn out. The theory behind the importance of endorsements, as perhaps best articulated in the book “The Party Decides”, has come under attack in recent years, mostly because Donald Trump’s nomination in 2016 despite a lack of support from Republican endorsers was a poor data point for the theory (to put it kindly). In addition, some Democrats who received a number of endorsements earlier this year, such as Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, have not yet gained much traction in the polls. Nonetheless, the theory has a fairly good long-term track record. Incidentally, the theory is not necessarily that the endorsements directly influence voters — for instance, that a voter says to herself “Senator Such-and-Such is endorsing Governor So-and-So; guess I’m going to vote for So-and-So!”. (Although, an endorser with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez could be an exception.) Rather, it’s that endorsements are a proxy for support from “party elites,” and that party elites’ preferences tend to be a leading indicator of voter preferences.

    2. But endorsements matter more when they cross ideological lines — and these ones were more predictable for Sanders. Imagine that, rather than AOC and Omar, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin had endorsed Sanders on Tuesday night. That would have been quite surprising, given that Manchin is fairly conservative while Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. It would have sent a signal, however, that Sanders’s populism could resonate beyond his left-leaning base. Ocasio-Cortez and Omar, by contrast, are more in line with Sanders’s current base, being both quite left-of-center and quick to rebuke the Democratic Party establishment. Those sorts of endorsements matter less, according to “The Party Decides.”

    3. The timing was smart for Sanders, and will help to fend off the media narrative that his chances are fading. This is a very pundit-y type of observation, so I’ll be brief. But dropping these endorsements after a fairly strong debate for Sanders1 — and after concerns about the long-term viability of his campaign following his heart attack — strikes me as smart. It could contribute toward a “Bernie comeback!” narrative, especially if Sanders gets a boost in post-debate polls.

    4. This is going to intensify intra-left fighting. Want a fairly safe prediction? The primary is going to get nastier. In my read of the various Warren vs. Sanders spats, they’re less about who is further to the left per se and more about how to achieve change, with Warren wanting to work within the Democratic Party and Sanders wanting to upend the Democratic Party and “the system” overall. (To bring about a “political revolution,” as Sanders might say.) One reason I’ve been skeptical about Sanders’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination is that while seeking to upend the system is perfectly valid as a theory of change, it’s a fairly hard way to win a party primary when the party sets the rules, those rules are designed to achieve consensus rather than to reward factional candidates, and voting is restricted in many states to party members. In any event, because Ocasio-Cortez and Omar have a somewhat anti-establishment message — although less so than Sanders himself does — their endorsements are likely to send additional tremors down emerging Sanders-Warren fault lines.

    5. “The Squad” is a potential general election liability. A July poll by YouGov found all four members of “The Squad” with negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters. (I’d love to cite a wider sample of polls, but I can’t find many others that asked about Omar, Tlaib or Pressley. A number of earlier polls on Ocasio-Cortez found her with negative ratings, however.) They are reasonably popular among Democrats, of course, and Sanders’s objective for now is to win the nomination, not the general election. His campaign has sometimes tried to emphasize his “electability”, however, and these endorsements won’t necessarily be helpful in that respect.


    Particularly, it was interesting to me that, for all the hoopla about them, "the squad" members have "negative net favorability ratings among adults nationwide: -17 percentage points for Omar, -16 for Tlaib, -14 for Ocasio-Cortez and -11 for Pressley, although they remain relatively unknown to many voters."

    Screenshot_2019-10-17 How The AOC And Omar Endorsements Could Matter.png

    Of particular interest is their negative ratings among my group - the Independents.
    Most people couldn't even tell you who the so called squad is, so I wouldn't put much stock in that poll. But there isn't much difference between Sanders and Warren anyway, they are both phenomenal campaigners and progressives love them both, so I don't think it matters too much to progressives which one of them ends up on top, just so long as one of them does.

  5. #4
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,545
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26288
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Most people couldn't even tell you who the so called squad is, so I wouldn't put much stock in that poll. But there isn't much difference between Sanders and Warren anyway, they are both phenomenal campaigners and progressives love them both, so I don't think it matters too much to progressives which one of them ends up on top, just so long as one of them does.
    It will be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren go to battle with each other.

    As Bernie Sanders scores AOC and Michael Moore endorsements, is a clash with Warren inevitable?
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  6. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,097
    Amen (Given)
    1762
    Amen (Received)
    1505
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    It will be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren go to battle with each other.

    As Bernie Sanders scores AOC and Michael Moore endorsements, is a clash with Warren inevitable?
    Yeah, the problem is that they don't have to much to clash over. The difference between the two is that Sanders has been around raising these issues for a lot longer than Warren has which gives him an edge. Otherwise it's very difficult to distinguish between the two so far which of course causes a problem for them both with respect to getting the nomination unless one of the two drops out of the race.
    Last edited by JimL; 10-21-2019 at 08:45 AM.

  7. #6
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,545
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26288
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Yeah, the problem is that they don't have to much to clash over. The difference between the two is that Sanders has been around raising these issues for a lot longer than Warren has which gives him an edge. Otherwise it's very difficult to distinguish between the two so far which of course causes a problem for them both with respect to getting the nomination unless one of the two drops out of the race.
    To those who see them both as possibilities, I would think they'd see Sanders as an angry old man who just had a heart attack, and Warren as an energetic and enthusiastic version of Bernie.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  8. #7
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,897
    Amen (Given)
    2747
    Amen (Received)
    1705
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Yeah, the problem is that they don't have to much to clash over. The difference between the two is that Sanders has been around raising these issues for a lot longer than Warren has which gives him an edge. Otherwise it's very difficult to distinguish between the two so far which of course causes a problem for them both with respect to getting the nomination unless one of the two drops out of the race.
    I see 4 main differences...
    1. Sanders has more experience in politics. Warren is a fast-learner but still a little green around the ears within the political scene. So I would quite like to see Warren as Sanders' VP for a while before she took the Presidency.

    2. Sanders is appropriately cautious and skeptical about recent US foreign policy (e.g. opposed the Iraq War etc), and wants a bit more of a sane and non-interventionist-leaning foreign policy going forward, and is appropriately critical of Israel and of excessive US military spending. Whereas Warren seems to have drunk the standard US foreign-policy kool-aid of war is always good, the US needs an infinitely sized military regardless of cost, and that it is impossible for Israel to do anything wrong.

    3. Warren seems to be all over the place on healthcare and can't quite seem to be certain from one week to the next whether she supports medicare for all. She seems to want to do something left-ish on healthcare but seems to be being open to being swayed by lobbyists and congressional peer-pressure as to what exactly that might be. Whereas Bernie is quite sure of his medicare-for-all stance which seems pretty ideal.

    4. Sanders is a skeptic of capitalism to an extent Warren is not. This manifests as a difference in how strongly they support unions (ie Sanders more so), and how focused they are on making sure everyone in the US has an equal opportunity to be successful (ie Sanders more so). While there's no hint Sanders is planning any captial-S Socialist policies, he seems more enthusiastic than Warren about adopting policies that have worked well elsewhere in the Western world to make capitalist societies more free and fair by introducing some small-s elements of socialism.

    For all 4 of those reasons I prefer Sanders to Warren, though I would consider Warren adequate. I think Warren would easily be the best US president of my lifetime. Whereas Sanders would likely be the best US president of the century.

  9. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,097
    Amen (Given)
    1762
    Amen (Received)
    1505
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    To those who see them both as possibilities, I would think they'd see Sanders as an angry old man who just had a heart attack,
    You say that like it's a bad thing. The people are angry about the corrupt government as well. But you're right to a certain degree, many people vote for stupid reasons.


    and Warren as an energetic and enthusiastic version of Bernie.
    Pretty much, they both understand how the government has been corrupted by corporate interests and is not working in the best interests of the people and both are out to change that.

  10. #9
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,545
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26288
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    You say that like it's a bad thing. The people are angry about the corrupt government as well. But you're right to a certain degree, many people vote for stupid reasons.
    I think a WHOLE BUNCH of people vote for stupid reasons -- I remember one study years ago that indicated that people always voted for the taller of the two candidates.

    Pretty much, they both understand how the government has been corrupted by corporate interests and is not working in the best interests of the people and both are out to change that.
    Unfortunately, instead of addressing the corruption, they're simply going to go on a "vote for me and get FREE STUFF".
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. #10
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,293
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    19564
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think a WHOLE BUNCH of people vote for stupid reasons -- I remember one study years ago that indicated that people always voted for the taller of the two candidates.
    Another showed that many people pick the one with the best hair which caused John Kerry to remark at least once about how he and Edwards had better hair than Bush and Cheney.

    I often wonder what percentage of the voters base their selection on the candidate's skin color, sex, where they're from and other similar criteria rather than on what their political philosophy is. I figure I'd be quite depressed at the answer.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •