• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?


  • Total voters
    66
And what is it?

If you insist; outside of your posting history, it could be clearly inferred in the statement itself:

The votes were there for Hillary, if not the enthusiasm. The fundamental problem is that corporate Democrats also need to appeal to independents, the largest and growing chunk of the electorate, and not just command the rational albeit grudging support of us Berniecrats for lack of a better alternative; something we demonstrably do in spades, but which your faction clearly struggles with incessantly (while ironically claiming we would never fly with said independents due to our 'extremist' positions).
 
I don't know what that means. You think some corporation is paying me to think what I do?
 
It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.
Seriously. I chose #1 because I'm not waking up at 3am wondering if Rachel Maddow is legally married to her girlfriend or I have a glacier or desert in my backyard. :roll:
 
I don't know what that means. You think some corporation is paying me to think what I do?

Obviously not; more so the branch of the Democratic party you insist on defending and championing. That said, I'm pretty sure you do; you may be disagreeable but you're not stupid; call it whatever euphemism you like: establishment Dems, the 'centrists', the 'moderates', third way, Clintonites, they're all the same thing.
 
What was that energy and activism directed toward last November? Not Hillary, fine. But where? Single-payer was annihilated in Colorado, Vermont's executive branch has flipped to red (as the state is about to kick off one of the most ambitious health reforms in the country), pharmaceutical price controls were pretty handily defeated in California, Bernie is still just the ranking member of the Budget Committee instead of its chairman, and so on.

If the premise is that this faction had the power to prevent what's happening now and what's about to happen and simply chose not to (to make a statement!), then I don't understand why those folks think they're owed some thank-you or respect from the rest of us.

Of Our Revolution's 100+ candidates, 55% of their campaigns were successful, including two national House races and a load of State congressional races. As far as ballot initiavies, over 70% of the State ballot initiatives they fought for passed. It's true, Colorado's single-payer would have been nice, as would have the campaigns for Teachout, Ross, and Feingold, but you don't win every battle. Still, it's not like they did nothing or accomplished nothing. They raised over 2 million for candidate and kept 500,000 people still engaged in Our Revolution.
 
I have been thinking about this and I have a super radical idea that would likely win the D's control for a very very long time....

They should champion two things...Truth and Justice, all kinds of justice, to include social justice and generational justice.

There is pretty much no chance that they will, even though a lot of them are talking about justice these days.

What they mean by justice however is victim servicing, which is not what I am talking about.

I am wanting the real thing.
 
As the DNC continues to play up its bogus narrative of 'unity' and 'reconciliation', it has once again actively leveled hostility against the progressive wing; of the members of the DNC transition advisory committee Tom Perez assigned, only two are aligned with Sanders:

Progressives Slam Tom Perez's New DNC Transition Team | The Huffington Post



Suppose if nothing else it's slightly better than the zero (0) party leadership positions we've been given.
 
Last edited:
So Donald "Hillary would make a good president" Trump is the new heroic right wing figure that single handily destroyed liberalism and "political correctness"? Oh man, maybe he IS the "ONE".
I do not for one minute believe that Donald Trump has or likely will "destroy liberalism" or "political correctness".

For decades political correctness has been successfully used by the far left to not only control its gullible liberal base but also to manipulate a significant number of voters.

ie; they have for too long been so deeply embedded in Western Culture, to be written off so easily.
 



Continued...



Continued...







Continued... (jeez this 5000 character limit is short, lol)


Yeah, it's highly annoying, I really wish they'd increase it to 10,000.

Continued...

Continued from above...

Jesus Henry Christ you three wear me out sometimes with your Hillary vs. Bernie confrontations. I would like to join in, but not sure where so I just quoted every (at least I think) post I saw in it. It seems to me the best candidate to unite the Hillaryites and Berners would be Elizabeth Warren. She's between Hillary (to her left) and Bernie (slightly right) and exudes a rather sane "moderate-left" vibe with a hint of fired up populism. But, I think one thing that would be a good idea is making sure Trump doesn't get a second term. I, for one, think he will be so ineffably unpopular by 2020 that it won't matter much. But, just in case Bernie is too old, I think Elizabeth Warren would be the ideal challenger, and her ability to get crowds fired-up and appeal to blue collar whites would be the final nail in the coffin. Can't see any logical reason for the progressives and neoliberals to be divided over Elizabeth Warren (unless - god forbid - Hillary runs again).
 
Also, just for the record:

The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election

Please focus carefully on the very first point. Especially this sentence: 'Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016.'

I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:

1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history of lying stretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.


2.) The author's second "myth" is brazenly dishonest, and he is purposefully misleading his audience. To highlight the most important instance, he argues that the DNC-emails don't matter, because:

"Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe."​

However, just in the next paragraph, when arguing that the the superdelegate counting was a "myth":

"Sanders supporters also made a big deal out of the fact that many of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early in the campaign. They did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing would have happened with Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him"​

That is unbelievable. Let me unpack the math for you:

1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.

This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.
 
Last edited:
Also, just for the record:



I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:

1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history of lying stretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.


2.) The author's second "myth" is brazenly dishonest, and he is purposefully misleading his audience. To highlight the most important instance, he argues that the DNC-emails don't matter, because:

"Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe."​

However, just in the next paragraph, when arguing that the the superdelegate counting was a "myth":

"Sanders supporters also made a big deal out of the fact that many of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early in the campaign. They did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing would have happened with Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him"​

That is unbelievable. Let me unpack the math for you:

1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.

This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.

Yep, that was the main reason Hillary won. The news networks kept adding the unbound superdelegates to the pledged delegate count, artificially inflating the size of her lead. So, really and truly, even if voter roll fraud is nonexistent, this still qualifies as a fraudulent, or "rigged" process.
 
Jesus Henry Christ you three wear me out sometimes with your Hillary vs. Bernie confrontations. I would like to join in, but not sure where so I just quoted every (at least I think) post I saw in it. It seems to me the best candidate to unite the Hillaryites and Berners would be Elizabeth Warren. She's between Hillary (to her left) and Bernie (slightly right) and exudes a rather sane "moderate-left" vibe with a hint of fired up populism. But, I think one thing that would be a good idea is making sure Trump doesn't get a second term. I, for one, think he will be so ineffably unpopular by 2020 that it won't matter much. But, just in case Bernie is too old, I think Elizabeth Warren would be the ideal challenger, and her ability to get crowds fired-up and appeal to blue collar whites would be the final nail in the coffin. Can't see any logical reason for the progressives and neoliberals to be divided over Elizabeth Warren (unless - god forbid - Hillary runs again).

Dude, if you don't like what we say then don't read it. ;) Not a difficult concept.

I tentatively agree that Elizabeth Warren might make a good choice in 2020. However, (1) she has repeatedly said that she doesn't want to run, so she'd have to change her mind; (2) she's no spring chicken; and (3) she's a woman.
 
Also, just for the record:



I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:

1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history of lying stretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.


2.) The author's second "myth" is brazenly dishonest, and he is purposefully misleading his audience. To highlight the most important instance, he argues that the DNC-emails don't matter, because:

"Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe."​

However, just in the next paragraph, when arguing that the the superdelegate counting was a "myth":

"Sanders supporters also made a big deal out of the fact that many of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early in the campaign. They did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing would have happened with Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him"​

That is unbelievable. Let me unpack the math for you:

1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.

This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.

So you have done more investigative journalism than Kurt Eichenwald has? You know more than he has? By all means, then, how did you uncover all your findings, and what is the proof that they are right?
 
Dude, if you don't like what we say then don't read it. ;) Not a difficult concept.

I tentatively agree that Elizabeth Warren might make a good choice in 2020. However, (1) she has repeatedly said that she doesn't want to run, so she'd have to change her mind; (2) she's no spring chicken; and (3) she's a woman.

I never said that. And Elizabeth Warren would unquestionably be a great candidate for President. Better than Hillary and Bernie combined. I know a lot of people didn't like her sitting out the primaries, but it's leagues more honorable than those that actively worked to undermine Bernie because they put their party loyalty above common ****ing sense (giving us President Trump). Elizabeth Warren balances between the rampant ideology of Hillary and Bernie supporters and the populist appeal of Trump to blue-collar white people in Appalachia, the Rust Belt and elsehwere. She would crush Trump.
 
I never said that. And Elizabeth Warren would unquestionably be a great candidate for President.

I definitely have reservations about Warren. I think the primary demonstrated that she's more than willing to put her party before her apparent principles, but she certainly wouldn't be the worst choice.

If Bernie can't/won't primary, my preference would lie with Tulsi Gabbard, despite my disagreement with her over Syria.

That said I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'rampant' when you describe Bernie's or even Hillary's ideology: one is corporatism that's become the unfortunate norm in America, and the other is fairly mainstream social democracy by first world standards that's unfortunately only recently come back into vogue here.


Also, just for the record:

I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:

1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history of lying stretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.

1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.

This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.

As mentioned, it's the exact same bunk that I had to refute, repeatedly, the entirety of the primary, or otherwise an excellent summation of it by a notorious Hillary partisan. The dossier in particular is a nonsense boogieman, apparently consisting of nothing that hasn't already been floated around by the Hillary campaign or its proxies per his specific mentions, and his observations on the May delegate count, like much of his other disingenuous editorializing, indeed hilarious (of course Phys will defend him to the death regardless).
 
Last edited:
I think the primary demonstrated that she's more than willing to put her party before her apparent principles

I addressed that:

I know a lot of people didn't like her sitting out the primaries, but it's leagues more honorable than those that actively worked to undermine Bernie because they put their party loyalty above common ****ing sense (giving us President Trump).

Wouldn't you rather go with a guaranteed victory by an unaligned progressive populist (Elizabeth Warren) over the Corporate Wing that demonstrably and loudly bellowed through both word and action its intent to destroy Bernie Sanders and the progressives as opposed to an improbable gamble on Tulsi Gabbard, who is almost certain to lose to those very same saboteurs?
 
I addressed that:



Wouldn't you rather go with a guaranteed victory by an unaligned progressive populist (Elizabeth Warren) over the Corporate Wing that demonstrably and loudly bellowed through both word and action its intent to destroy Bernie Sanders and the progressives as opposed to an improbable gamble on Tulsi Gabbard, who is almost certain to lose to those very same saboteurs?

Put it this way: I'd vote for Tulsi in the primaries, but I wouldn't be upset over Elizabeth.
 
So you have done more investigative journalism than Kurt Eichenwald has? You know more than he has? By all means, then, how did you uncover all your findings, and what is the proof that they are right?

This is a transparently lazy response. Even if we assume that Kurt Eichenwald is a brilliant journalist, it doesn't make his assertions above reproach; especially when one can verify (as I linked you to multiple sources, if you want the evidence presented, then follow the text that's highlighted in blue) that his claims are factually incorrect or using internally self-contradicting reasoning. In fact, in the latter example, you only need very basic reasoning skills to see that the internal logic of his arguments are at best deceptive, at worst complete propaganda.
 
Put it this way: I'd vote for Tulsi in the primaries, but I wouldn't be upset over Elizabeth.

If you have reservations about Warren, remember that Wall St. told HRC that they would pull support from HRC if she chose Warren as VP. We all wish she would've endorsed Bernie to give him the edge in MA but, it didn't happen. So, in election season 2020, don't forget that news story from '16, Wall St. reminded HRC who called the shots and warned her not to pick Warren as VP. By virtue of that, we want Warren in a position of power because she will shift the power away from Wall St. and onto the Middle and Working Class. I still hope Bernie runs 2020 but I would support and campaign for Warren if she was the nominee.
 
If you have reservations about Warren, remember that Wall St. told HRC that they would pull support from HRC if she chose Warren as VP. We all wish she would've endorsed Bernie to give him the edge in MA but, it didn't happen. So, in election season 2020, don't forget that news story from '16, Wall St. reminded HRC who called the shots and warned her not to pick Warren as VP. By virtue of that, we want Warren in a position of power because she will shift the power away from Wall St. and onto the Middle and Working Class. I still hope Bernie runs 2020 but I would support and campaign for Warren if she was the nominee.

I'm excited about 2020. I don't think I've ever been exited for an election before (Except briefly during the Dem primaries), but...holy********...
 
I'm excited about 2020. I don't think I've ever been exited for an election before (Except briefly during the Dem primaries), but...holy********...

Last election season was a roller coaster. I've never been more disappointed in my entire life, than after the NY Democratic Primary.
 
I'm excited about 2020. I don't think I've ever been exited for an election before (Except briefly during the Dem primaries), but...holy********...

GOPs take one election cycle at a time as you know. Sanders and Warren are among 25 DEM Senators up for reelection in 2018 and both states have a GOP governor. It doesn't get any easier in 10 trump states, such as Brown in Ohio.

The US House looks much more favorable, though GOPs have their gerrymander advantage. dailykos has outstanding articles with awesome nuts and bolts data, though their remarks are quite wicked.

dailykos is doing excellent work on state legislatures, the absolute key in 2018 and 2020 elections to control both sets of remaps in 2021, along with 36 of 50 governors in 2018, 27 GOP.

I'm sorry that I unloaded on you about the 2016 election. I've been beyond frustrated with the DNC since the 2010 disaster gave GOPs their current power when Kaine was the DNC chief. REDMAP and Chris Jankowski explain how the GOP did it.

It was like yesterday for me when I was 19 in 1973 and McGovern had just been destroyed by the GOP. It's like I'm reliving this nightmare all over again except on a far higher order of magnitude .
 
dailykos is doing excellent work on state legislatures, the absolute key in 2018 and 2020 elections to control both sets of remaps in 2021, along with 36 of 50 governors in 2018, 27 GOP.

I'm sorry that I unloaded on you about the 2016 election. I've been beyond frustrated with the DNC since the 2010 disaster gave GOPs their current power when Kaine was the DNC chief. REDMAP and Chris Jankowski explain how the GOP did it.

It was like yesterday for me when I was 19 in 1973 and McGovern had just been destroyed by the GOP. It's like I'm reliving this nightmare all over again except on a far higher order of magnitude .

I suspect you're equally frustrated then by the DNC's ongoing self-destructive insistence on continuing with its failing trajectory?

If you have reservations about Warren, remember that Wall St. told HRC that they would pull support from HRC if she chose Warren as VP. We all wish she would've endorsed Bernie to give him the edge in MA but, it didn't happen. So, in election season 2020, don't forget that news story from '16, Wall St. reminded HRC who called the shots and warned her not to pick Warren as VP. By virtue of that, we want Warren in a position of power because she will shift the power away from Wall St. and onto the Middle and Working Class. I still hope Bernie runs 2020 but I would support and campaign for Warren if she was the nominee.

Yes, Wall Street wrung its hands over her, but actions speak louder than words, and she is certainly far from the ideal in light of her actions in the primaries; I lost a lot of respect for Warren when her refusal to step in on his behalf out of either cowardice, personal ambition or party loyalty cost Bernie Massachusetts. The best case scenario is that she failed to endorse him because she was angling for a seat at the table to influence Clinton towards more progressive ends; if that's the case, her actions are more forgivable, but I unfortunately can't read the senator's mind or peer into her soul. As things stand, Tulsi is the better candidate in my view, but again, I would not be upset at Warren as nominee unlike the way I was upset at Clinton taking it, resulting in predictable disaster.
 
Back
Top Bottom