The incomparable Elizabeth Bruenig methodically lays out the differences between Sanders and Warren. Revolution or regulation? Democratic socialism or democratic capitalism?
Warren’s many plans for that are activist liberalism at its best. Using an activist government to creatively solve problems by changing policy through legislation.
Warren believes today’s socioeconomic ills are the result of high concentrations of power and wealth that can be resolved with certain regulatory tools and interventions.
Bernie is vaguer on policy specifics but very clear that only a revolution that changes the power structure of the country can create real change.
But for Sanders, those solutions come up short. For a number of reasons — alienation and disengagement among the electorate, and the extraordinary power of big business and finance over government — he doesn’t believe that even the cleverest, most uniformly applied regulations will solve what he views as a political and economic crisis.
So who is right?
@ Who is right?
Elizabeth Warren.
Mr. Sanders, like nearly all “revolutionaries” throughout history, is vague to the point of vacuous about the specifics of the “revolution” he claims is needed. He has made himself a celebrity by ranting about all the terrible things wrong with the way things are — and says virtually nothing about what will replace all that in the revolution he dreams about.
It is trivially easy for anybody with a grasp of language and a microphone to rant about all the things wrong with any given policy or program. The GOP spent all eight years of the Barack Obama administration doing that about the ACA. It is FAR more difficult to actually propose something better. The GOP learned this the hard way in the first two years of the Donald Trump administration.
When Mr. Sanders offers some specifics of what he proposes to do differently, then we can pay more attention to his proposals.
Ms. Warren, on the other hand, has been doing the heavy lifting of actually engaging problems and their solutions for decades.
Ms. Warren is right. Mr. Sanders is merely complaining.
Warren is making a strong case for bold action. Action that will die in a Republican Senate. Unlike Joe Biden she recognizes bipartisanship is dead, She recently was quoted as saying “I am tired of Democrats playing by one set of rules while Republicans play by theirs”. So her plan is to beat the Republicans by taking their Senate seats. It’s the long game-unlike Obama or Biden-but it’s also going to by nasty and brutish and it might not work.
Sanders is playing a different long game. Hoping a grassroots revolution of working people overcomes cultural differences and works together to bring back unionized work places, increase worker ownership over capital, and bring down corporate power. It might take longer and the odds are longer for it to work, but the change it could produce might be more radical and long lasting.
At the start of my middle age I am a lot more likely to buy into the realpolitik of Warren’s approach than the idealism of Sanders, but I can see why both plans are viable in the eyes of voters. Perhaps the most successful candidate will be the one who can bridge these dueling approaches.
This is the stuff of late-night conversations in freshmen college dorms. What sort of “grassroots revolution of working people” does Mr. Sanders mean? How are these “cultural differences” going to be “overcome”?
It goes downhill from there. How on earth will these revolutionary working people “bring back unionized work places” when they reject virtually ALL the premises on which unions are based? It’s even self-contradictory — how does a labor union function when that union is also the owner of the capital of the unionized workplace? That’s an explicit conflict of interest. A member of management correctly cannot by law also be a member of a union in his or her workplace.
Bringing down corporate power? I don’t think so.
ANY unspecified and undefined change “might be more radical and long lasting” — this is circular and meaningless.
The only thing that “revolutions” like this have EVER accomplished is to cause rivers of innocent blood to flow.
I don’t mean to pick on you or your commentary and I certainly mean no insult. I instead mean that we are in a critical time and I suggest we need to redouble our efforts to think critically, plan with discipline, and behave with clear and explicit focus on well-defined and specific goals.
This is not a time for attempting to conflate mutually incompatible worldviews. This is instead a time for aggressively pruning pointless diversions and distractions so that our limited political resources can be concentrated where they are most needed.
I view Bernie Sanders as a dangerous distraction from the deadly serious business of rescuing American democracy from the deplorable hordes who seek to destroy those of us who actually believe in and value civilized society.
I disagree with most of this but wanted to address one issue here that seems to be a common and increasing disparity between Democratic voters and the Democratic party using its power.
I find it amazing that Democrats will say things like this and then you look at the Senate and almost all of Trump’s woefully unqualified and radical judges are getting approved for lifetime appointments with vote totals of around 80-20. Same goes for high level appointments. A nominee for Asst Secretary of State for East Asia passed cloture 93-4 (Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, and Warren voted No, Booker did not vote) this week. He’s a China hawk and replacing someone the administration felt was too soft on China.
I think Sanders is trying to build a broader democratic movement that will counter entrenched power, especially the GOP by giving unengaged voters something to vote for. Democrats (as a party) literally aren’t even doing the minimum.
I think this is a false dichotomy.
Recent (June 11, 2019) polling shows that if the election were held today, SIX of the current Democratic candidates would defeat Mr. Trump in a one-on-one contest:
Joe Biden: 60-34
Bernie Sanders: 51-42
Kamala Harris: 49-41
Elizabeth Warren: 49-42
Pete Buttigieg: 47-42
Cory Booker: 47-42
It seems to me that our job is to not only defeat Mr. Trump but also to do so in a way that best reflects and strengthens our long-term agenda.
We are talking here about Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren. Each is “trying to build a broader democratic movement that will counter entrenched power, especially the GOP by giving unengaged voters something to vote for.” Our shared desire to build this broader movement does not help us to choose between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren — both speak to the same desire.
The difference is that Ms. Warren speaks in specifics, while Mr. Sanders speaks in broad generalities — broad generalities that are essentially unchanged from those he advanced without political success in his unsuccessful 2016 primary campaign.
Voters who are attracted to our movement by the radical, specific, and well-grounded proposals of Ms. Warren are far more likely to remain engaged in when it comes time to fight tooth and nail to put those proposals into law and policy.
I just wanted to point out the disparity in Democratic voters wanting and thinking there is an opposition party and the reality of the party.
You have the Senate leader who will say Trump is a threat to democracy in a press conference and then go back and vote for all his judges. It’s lunacy.
We have some opposition leaders but we absolutely do not have an opposition party.
It’s a different issue than just this primary but I do think that there is a difference about a commitment to winning an election and a commitment to changing the overall democratic landscape. If everything is reduced to just Trump and 2020, we’re doomed.
But you called him a “dangerous distraction,” which I think is ridiculous. Each is doing much more than the rest of the field by giving people something to vote for rather than against (Biden, for example, is basing 100% of his campaign on Not Trump). But I don’t know that they are or that they are doing so to nearly the same degree. You see differences – like Sanders’s support of voting rights for all, including the currently incarcerated. Warren wouldn’t extend rights to those in prison.
I do think that Bruenig (from James’s original post) gets it right and that there are some base philosophical differences between the two. But sure, either is much better than most of the field.
Unfortunately, neither Warren nor Sanders, nor anyone running in 2020 is appropriately calling out the GOP overall as a core problem and something that needs to be thoroughly destroyed.
Maybe. I don’t think policy motivates people like that. I think message does and a commitment to fighting for it. Warren brings both. And so does Sanders, but he obviously leans more on message. “Medicare for All” motivates, not “a single payer system that covers X,Y,Z and is paid for with a 13.25% payroll tax on incomes between $50-250K.” I think it’s been shown time and again that voters don’t really give a crap about policy.
When I characterize Mr. Sanders as a “dangerous distraction”, I mean that he steadfastly refuses to consider what his message actually means. The danger is that the new voters he reaches out to are likely to turn away in disgust when they discover that there is absolutely NO substance to the message they were so attracted to.
“Medicare for all” might motivate. It is not policy.
I think Ms. Warren does a better job than you admit of sharing her message. I think she has gotten markedly better at that over the past four years.
If Mr. Sanders does more to develop and share actual policy proposals to support his message, I will soften my criticism of him.
To bring it back my original post was to show that both of these paths are interesting and viable places to consider placing progressive political capital and boots on the ground. I admit that I am more inclined to the policy heavy agenda of Warren, but she would be the first to admit it is dead on arrival in Mitch McConnell’s Senate.
While I agree with doubleman that a broad angry agenda dismantling the status quo is a better political platform to attract voters, as 2016 taught us, I also agree with Tom that I have my doubts that this grassroots movement for socialism will suddenly materialize and overcome the filibuster and Citizens United.
I think this debate is the most interesting one on the left right now, precisely since neither side has a monopoly on who is right. I think the best candidate will take bits and pieces. Have a real governing agenda like Warren, and unlike Biden and Obama, go into the first term with her eyes wide open about how uncooperative the GOP is; but also have a plan to inspire grassroots movements to remake the country.
How is the improved and expanded Medicare for All bill in the House or the Medicare for All bill Sanders has introduced in the Senate not policy?
What about the College for All Act (a bill that has been introduced in the Senate), a financial transactions tax (a bill that has been introduced in the Senate), $15 minimum wage (a bill that has been introduced in the Senate). What about the other bills introduced addressing community health center and primary care workforce expansion, or expanding social security, or drug reimportation, or a bill to reinstate the estate tax. I could go on.
It’s certainly not any kind of steadfast refusal to propose policy.
So, I take it you’ll soften criticism on these issues….
I agree that his Medicare For All bill, filed last April, is a substantive proposal. I confess that I somehow missed it in the news cycle until now. The College for All Act is, for me, meaningless until it is accompanied by a proposal for how to pay for it.
I will therefore soften my criticism of Mr. Sanders. I still want to see less “message” and more substance in his campaign.
The College for All Act includes a tax on financial transactions (“speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of
0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%
fee on derivatives.”).
Saying that Congress will pay for it is all that is really needed for any legislation. The “pay for” thinking has been an absolute disaster for progressive goals, isn’t necessary economically, and has never held back a single tax cut or increase in defense spending or war.
Can you better cite your 80-20 statistic for judicial approvals? I knew the GOP Senate was steamrolling Trump nominees, but I wasn’t aware of them getting that much Democratic help.
The start of your middle age?:)
Oh if last weeks physical showed me anything it’s that the days of youthful invincibility are over. I also meant that I’m a lot more practical minded and less absolutist in my politics.
I want a candidate who’s done their homework and comes across as informed about policy which is why I find Beto, whom I might have been excited about 15 years ago, totally unimpressive this time. It’s ultimately why I’m more likely to take Warren’s reform over Bernie’s revolution this cycle. I want results not just rhetoric.
I liked what Bernie brought to the table in 2016, but now that Warren is throwing down hard on policy, I agree his stances look increasingly vacuous. He uses childcare and housing for applause lines, but he doesn’t have anything substantive on the table. And anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows “the revolution will fix it” never works. It’s what you say when you’ve got nothing to say.
I appreciate that he’s trying to create enthusiasm and build a movement, but Warren’s outpunching him on taxing the rich, corporate regulation and addressing college debt (and in a dozen other areas). A movement eventually has to translate into tangible action, actual laws and regulations that can positively affect people’s lives. Warren’s already there.
Both?
Sanders’s criticism is right and more grass roots and hearts and minds changing politics is needed to really change the forces causing inequality and climate catastrophe. There is a crisis of the system, not just a crisis brought by some abuses within the system.
Warren is right that we need good policy and especially a strong regulatory state to move in the right direction.
You see the difference in Sanders’s full-throated support for improved Medicare for All and Warren’s more tepid support and talk of universal coverage. For one, private insurance is a problem that can’t be fixed and needs to be replaced, and for the other, private insurance needs better regulation and more requirements to get us to universal coverage.
For me, the latter should be the 0-10 year project and the former is the 10-20 year project.
That’s why I like them both and why I’d love to see a Sanders-Warren ticket. Lead with a message of true change and govern with the strong regulatory state moving in that direction.
On the issue of “revolution,” some people like to crap on the idea as naive, but we’re seeing it play out right now. We see it in the types of people running for office at all levels (AOC as a high-profile and direct link to the work of the Sanders campaign). We see it in the reinvigorated left and big ideas are out front rather than just whispered in the background. Support for Medicare for All is endorsed at some level by almost all Dem candidates, the Green New Deal is almost a litmus test, as is tuition or debt-free public college. $15 minimum wage is being enacted in cities and states across the country. These ideas were almost nowhere in the national conversation 5 years ago. They are also actual proposals of what a future can look like and not “just complaining.”
Either candidate will continue this trajectory but I think Sanders can be (and certainly has been) a more effective leader at moving the politics in this direction.
My main hope for this primary is that we don’t throw everything away by going with Biden.
I think we posted at the same time, but I co sign to everything Doubleman says here. I wish we had ranked choice voting like Maine and Kansas for our primary. I would probably rank Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Harris in that order right now. The fact that the primary has been so cooperative so far is a good preview of what a ranked choice primary would actually look like. Ultimately it’s about beating Trump-but we should be able to debate ideas and approaches and choose multiple ones.
Yes, ranked choice would be good. For me it is Sanders then Warren, and then a big gap, and then Harris. I don’t like her prosecutor background and don’t totally trust her progressive commitments but she seems like a decent center-left liberal with skills and charisma, a lot like Obama. After that I don’t have much of a ranking, but I’d love to fill out the whole field and select Biden for the last spot. 🙂 His recent statements about the GOP returning to normalcy and being able to work with them once Trump is gone is more unrealistic than thinking that a Dem President could pass Medicare for All, free public college, and a massive Green New Deal in the first 100 days of their presidency.
As an aside, I don’t get the sudden aversion to prosecutors and sudden adoption of felon voting rights as a litmus test. Seems counter productive to winning elections. We can do real criminal justice reform and voting rights restoration for the hundreds of thousands of young black men in prison on trumped up drug charges without also giving Dylan Roof the right to vote for Trump in the next election. Sanders committed a real gaffe with that one, it’s the type of issue I don’t really care about-but a signal that his priorities sometimes are with the leftists in the streets instead of the swing voters in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I stopped going to DSA after my second meeting which was devoted to ‘abolishing the police’. I’d rather spend my time with people who are reality based, and the reality is we need a well regulated, demilitarized, police force purged of racist cops. The right (and democrats like Joe Biden) refuse to regulate, demilitarize or purge the racist cops, but if the left doesn’t buy into the need for cops-it is truly going off the deep end into electoral oblivion. We don’t want the Dems to go the way of Corbyn’s Labour Party.
The aversion isn’t sudden for me as far as prosecutors go. For Harris in particular, her record is long and bad (especially on sex workers and her absolutely awful work on school truancy). I don’t trust her to lead on criminal justice reform. This was also one of the reasons I’ve never liked Martha Coakley – and good lord is it depressing to see her showing her true colors now working for Juul.
I don’t think the felon voter issue is a litmus test and I think it has passed from most voter memory, and isn’t a “gaffe” of any note.
I think more of a signal of actual values and commitment to democracy not pandering to voters. His consistency and holding sometimes unpopular views is pretty much his greatest strength.
Re: felon voting – I think it is one of those constant exceptions to what should be universal principles that is why this country is so awful. And when we allow the easy exceptions, we get the bad blanket rules. We certainly see this on abortion as well. Or maybe let’s do welfare programs, but only for people who work…
Universal principles and programs are good and we should have more of them!
I’m thankful that there are some (and an increasing number) of active people helping us think about a much better possible future – on policing or health care or climate. Even if at the very least it gives more space to argue for and enact better programs.
Her work on truancy is a plus for me, and I thought she defended herself well on that at one of her nationally televised town halls.
I think the actual policy as implemented was not the worst idea, I do think the rhetoric she employed to defend it played to some of the worst tropes about inner city parents not wanting to educate their kids. They do-but their day to day reality is alien to anyone who isn’t directly aware of what they face.
There is nothing sudden about my aversion to prosecutors.
I remember loudly objecting here years ago to Ms. Coakley specifically about her over-the-top enthusiasm for weaponizing police and turning Massachusetts into a armed state.
The out-of-control response to the Boston Marathon bombings exemplifies, for me, what happens when we give too many weapons to police that are too authoritarian and too eager to shoot rather than listen.
Do you have documentation that Biden doesn’t want to regulate policing?
How about that he’s been on the wrong side of most criminal justice issues the past few decades and likes police unions? Mass incarceration is a huge black mark on his record-one he even apologized for before he ran. I like Biden, but it’s a big reason I won’t be voting for him out of the gate.
lol. correction. “Wrong side of most everything”
I love paying $800 a month on student loans and knowing that he’s the reason student loans aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Even though we don’t have individual ranked choice voting, collectively we sort of do given that delegates can be apportioned to anyone with at least 15% both statewide and by CD.
It would be nice to vote for multiple candidates. Realistically, by the time it gets to MA, only a few “viable” candidates will remain. There is still an element of tactical voting which shouldn’t be a thing in a democracy. I’d rather have my cake and eat it too by voting for my first choice first and then voting for additional candidates after.
I have a very hard time imagining a ticket of two New England lefties, and Biden would hardly be throwing things away.
I don’t have a kind word to say about Biden. He’s been on the wrong side of almost every issue for a generation (financial regulation, criminal justice, Iraq war, health care [he tried to kill the birth control part of the ACA], bankruptcy, choice) and is the worst judge of character imaginable (Mike Pence is a decent guy, Clarence Thomas is not a radical, the GOP will return to normal when Trump is gone).
“Better than Trump” is the best thing you can say about Biden. That’s not enough for me, especially not in this field or this moment.
All he wants to do is get us back to a pre-Trump status quo, he has no ideas or commitment for pushing beyond that.
And given his track record in national campaigns, fundraising, and gaffes, he seems like a strong liability in a general, despite great polling now.
Choosing him for the reasons people are choosing him seems like replaying 2004 and 2016 over again but with someone with a much worse record than any of those nominees.
He’s a lot more than better than Trump. He is the most experienced and qualified of the field this year and that is of utmost importance. He is a mainstream Democrat firmly on the correct side more often than not. If you are going to treat him the way you treated Hillary Clinton last cycle I am not looking forward to it.
In my view, Mr. Biden is not nearly as qualified as Ms. Clinton was.
I grant you that he is experienced. It is that experience that makes him my least favorite of the announced Democratic candidates.
I don’t think he’s quite as qualified as Clinton either, but for a job for which you really can’t prepare, for me it’s experience uber alles.: Long-term Senator, including chairing the key committees of Foreign Relations and Judiciary; very involved VP.
That could also apply to several Republicans I wouldn’t vote for who are similarly credentialed. Grassley chaired the same committees and Cheney was very involved as VP. I would never vote for them.
Also the voters consistently value authenticity over experience. It’s why Bill Clinton beat the far more experienced and best credentialed HW Bush. It’s how W. Bush beat the far more experienced Gore (electorally anyway). How Obama beat the far more experienced McCain. People want someone who is outside the system and able to change it. They have not voted for an insider in quite sometime, certainly not someone with the kind of experience as Biden.
While I don’t agree with it as I recall Bill Clinton had a slick Willie reputation, hardly “authentic”.
Yes, of course there are well-credentialed Republicans. I guess I figured the Democrat part went without saying. I start with the premise that there is not enough issue daylight among Democrats to count and that their sign/veto and judicial appointment records are likely to be similar.
At the end of the day with a likely GOP Senate this will probably be true, this is why I don’t get the premature “never Biden” crowd before he’s even the nominee. I also have a hard time buying why anyone would select him over more consistently progressive candidates who are equally viable.
It’s going to be a weird primary for me. A lot of people I know love Biden-including some Republican leaning voters, but most of the people I know to the left of me are vowing to never vote for him. Both instincts seem irrational to me. He’s about as close to generic Democrat as you can get and his campaign seems to be running in that direction. I think younger voters, voters of color, women voters, and activist voters will find that hard to get fired up about.
Too early for me to say “never” about anyone (which is not how I roll anyway). But it’s hard for me to see myself rolling up my sleeves for Joe. (Vote for him, sure.)
On your point about two NE lefties – do you think they would lose states Clinton won? Do you think they’d do poorly in WI, MI, and PA? I hope it’s a ticket but I don’t think it will be. I think they’d win all the Clinton states, plus those three midwest states, the rural district in Maine, and possibly IA.
I have a hard time imagining them winning the Midwest or the South. I’m afraid that’s a recipe for limiting us to the Dukakis states, though maybe Trump will be toxic enough that it will work.
I think it depends on the issues. Sanders beat Clinton in Michigan and won the same counties that would flip for Trump in the general. His consistent opposition to NAFTA and support of unions will (or Warren’s for that matter) could play better there than Biden’s more corporate friendly voting record. The constituency for a fiscally conservative socially moderate candidate is vanishingly small, and Biden is being forced left on a number of issues that could erode his perceived moderation in the general.
I was a Sanders supporter in 2016, still have the T-Shirt. I was quite upset when Warren did not endorse him.
I am voting for Warren for a few reasons. As my friend from Sommerville has stated,
Amen to that. Her efforts in that arena were central to my eventual shift to the left and joining the Democratic Party as I (and she) was a Republican a while ago.
Another reason is the poison that entered the party during the Clinton/Sanders campaign. There are still Sanders supporters who are firm in their support and threatening to boycott the election if their guy does not win. There are also Clinton supporters who hate the Sanders supporters and blame them for her loss. I don’t want any of that to enter the 2020 campaign.
Finally, it’s Warren’s appeal to the working class. Sure, I know the die hard Trump supporters are here to stay, but when I talk to former Trump supporters who are now willing to listen (yes, they do exist), they really like what Warren is saying.
The only doubt I have is with my fellow Democrats who are unwilling to support Warren because they hear tales that she is not liked by many, is whining, and the Pocahontas thing…..all a smoke screen from the right (and corporate media) to get Trump or another neoliberal Democrat into the White House.
Amen to all this. Regarding those fellow Democrats who are unwilling to support Ms. Warren, I direct your attention to today’s column by Joan Vennochi in the Boston Globe.
Thanks for the suggestion to read Vennochi. One thing left out in the piece, by my view of things, is that Massachusetts Democrats (at least those in control of the party) are not as liberal as one would assume. While they were excited to rid the state of Brown, they seem quite happy with Baker. In fact, many Democratic office holders endorsed him. I don’t think that Warren is a good fit with the state party insiders who like the status quo of liberal social policy and an economic two -class society of the privileged wealthy served by “those people” who lack proper education and job skills.
I heartily agree with you.
Ms. Warren actually IS radical. Her policies actually WILL take away some wealth from the very wealthy and share that wealth among the rest of us — something along the lines of what is implied by “commonwealth”.
That’s FAR too much for the state party insiders who actually control our government.
I am still undecided but the idea that any Sanders supporter is too pure to vote for Warren is the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. That is definitely a white privilege. Same as voting for a lefty third party over a hack like Biden. At the end of the day civil rights for women, minorities, and immigrants are on the line.
I think Biden is dangerously naive, I also know he won’t be detaining the parents of my students or selling out his political opponents to Vladimir Putin. The bar for the general is incredibly low for me-which is why it is so high in the primary.
While it remains true. Some, not all, hopefully not most.
But running on those as ones central issues will not win a general election. It’s the economy, right?
Most of us still live paycheck to paycheck with the knowledge that an illness or injury could wipe us out, even with insurance.
Looking at the speech given by FDR in 1932, he said:
What do the people of America want more than anything else? To my mind, they want two things: work, with all the moral and spiritual values that go with it; and with work, a reasonable measure of security–security for themselves and for their wives and children. Work and security–these are more than words. They are more than facts. They are the spiritual values, the true goal toward which our efforts of reconstruction should lead. These are the values that this program is intended to gain; these are the values we have failed to achieve by the leadership we now have.
Democrats of the recent past have kept to the message of :”jobs and the economy” but lost the message of security. Republicans have tied the notion of security to the nanny state and socialism when the security is for working families.
Warren is an FDR Democrat.
Not even close. Warren is a true-believing, dyed-in-the-wool, Eisenhower Republican: higher taxes are the prices capitalists should pay for the advanced infrastructure, scientific investment and sane policy that helps them make money. It really is that simple.
FDR (and congressional Democrats) re-created the economy from the ground up, going so far as to put people to work simply for the sake of putting them to work. Eisenhower took an economy that was already working and made it boom, putting the economy on a footing that would, quite literally, send it to the moon. This is what Elizabeth Warren wants to do also.
If anything, this tells us how far from the roots, have come the feckless Republicans of today. Elizabeth Warren didn’t so much make the trek from Right to Left: the Republicans went so far Right she looks Left… when all the time she’s just been standing still
Sanders is “right.” Warren may still be the best choice.
Sanders is an honest to gosh democratic socialist. His critiques and sweeping remedies are essentially correct.
Warren is a reformer who wants to reform capitalism, in the process saving capitalism from itself. Honestly, if capitalists were rational she would be their candidate.
Just to be clear, her reforms are meaningful substantive ones that would better people’s lives. But if you want to draw a line between them, i think this is it
They are both located in the same mixed-economy framework.
I expect that by the time the Massachusetts primary rolls around, there may be an obvious choice.
I’ll decide how to vote then. But, Sanders is “right,” though Warren is not “wrong.”
I for one much prefer Warren who is my second choice this cycle. Sanders is much further down my list..
Have no idea why anyone who vote for Biden as their first choice in the primary. The only scenario I could envision doing that is if it comes down to him and a candidate I dislike more (like Beto) or if the race is getting nasty and MA will help Biden go over the top to the nomination. The most progressive candidate who could also win a general is not Biden. Literally every major Democratic candidate is comfortably beating Trump right now. I guess the state by state polls show a tighter race in the three key midwestern states, but Bernie does as well as Biden in those, and nobody is really pushing his inevitability/electability quite the same way.
Sorry to disappoint, but Biden absolutely IS my first choice in the primary. I go for most experienced, not most progressive, or as Dukakis once put it – “competence, not ideology”.
What’s he really competent on, though? Other than being around a long time?
He knows HOW to be President in terms of what the job entails and involvement with the issues most likely to cross his desk. Keep in mind this is a different question than whether or not you like his record.
George W. Bush was a two term governor and former CEO with the most experienced VP, SOS, and SOD in cabinet history and they all made the biggest mistakes in those offices. Mistakes largely supported in the Senate by Joe Biden. The Iraq War, the Bankruptcy Reform Act, No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act and overseeing the worst financial crisis since the depression caused in no small part by repealing Glass Stegall which is another bad Biden vote. Elizabeth Warren May have just been a professor at the time, but she was on the right side of all of those issues. So was Bernie Sanders as an obscure member of the House.
Don’t think they’ll let caucus goers and primary voters forget it. Don’t think the increasingly desperate Booker and Harris campaigns won’t bring up his lousy record on school integration, housing, and criminal justice. Don’t think Gillibrand won’t bring up his own me too issues and Anita Hill.
So judgment matters more than experience in my book, and on a whole lot of issues important to today’s voters Joe Biden exercised poor judgment.
Well, again you are talking about a Republican administration so I’m not suggesting experience would trump party and the ideology it entails. Of course Biden has issues that can be brought up for critique. Everyone does, but for someone who has been in public office for as long as he has I would rather allow for him to have learned and see where he is now on some of these issues.
It sounds as though you are arguing that party loyalty trumps judgement. Is that what you intend?
Mr. Biden’s flagrant and belated flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment happened a few weeks ago — it’s not some long-ago mistake, I see that flip-flop, and especially its timing, as a clear indication of his poor judgement and, frankly, of his own acknowledgement of that poor judgement.
Well, I certainly cannot imagine voting for a Republican for President these days – way too much difference on issues. Biden changed his mind on Hyde. I was actually fine with his former position, but since issues within the party don’t differ enough to count neither the position nor the fact that he changed it trumps experience IMO. You may recall, as another example, that in 2016 I said that if Clinton and Sanders had swapped issue positions I would still be with Clinton because she would still have more actual relevant experience.
Didn’t you support Dean in 2004? Using your current barometer Lieberman was the man for the moment. He had the most experience.
I supported Kerry in 2004, and while there may have been a bit of home state bias at work I judged him to be the one with the greatest amount of relevant experience of the field running that year.
Ah-that makes a lot of sense. In four primaries now this resume fetish has led you to support candidates with nice resumes but lousy judgment on the biggest foreign policy question of our time, Iraq and two of the biggest domestic ones; NAFTA, and repealing Glass-Steagal. There’d be no President Trump without those three gut punches to heartland voters.
If you lost your son in a stupid globalist war, your house due to a reckless loan, or your job to outsourcing you have a good reason to choose a disruptive force over the same “experience” that lead to those policy failures.
Warren and Sanders feel this pain and were on the right side of these fights. That should matter more.
A little chip on your shoulder there? There’s no real way to prepare for the presidency so I go with the closest I can get. Iraq is on Bush and I support NAFTA, just for the record. Besides, I’m more interested in what they will do than what they have done, and I will say again I don’t see enough daylight between candidates to count and strongly suspect their sign/veto and judicial appointment records will be similar.
How does that not contradict the entirety of your experience argument?
Especially since the best predictor of what will happen in the immediate future is what has happened in the immediate past.
Meteorology 101, and also politics.
Immediate past is definitely more relevant, but his most immediate past is as VP and I have no objections to that tenure.
@immediate past:
I’m talking about his support for the Hyde Amendment, announced and then reversed earlier this month.
That support is not the stance of an elected official who values women as other than walking wombs.
Because I am looking at resume rather than record. I care more that Biden was a longtime Senator, Chair of Foreign Relations and Judiciary, active VP than I do about this vote or that vote.
Again using that logic Robert Byrd should have been nominated in 2004 since he had the longest Senate resume by far. I think values and record matter more than resume. So do most voters.
Who was the last President with a long resume that
a) did a good job
b) won the general election
Election after election voters want either Washington outsiders or Washington neophytes and this was a big part of Trump’s appeal against Hillary Clinton. Another Senator who voted like a corporate Democrat on foreign and economic policy.
Most swing voters are socially moderate/economically populist. I think a campaign that dials down the wokeness factor on the left while assaulting the right on class issues is a winning one. Now that Warren has shifted from identity politics back to class politics she is rising in the polls and even winning over MAGA hats in rural places where she campaigns. Bernie always did better than Hillary Clinton in the Obama-Trump precincts. I have strong doubts about the resume=electability arguments you and others keep advancing.
If swing voters wanted a steady hand at the tiller they would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
As a good friend of mine mentioned once regarding the importance of a good resume in politics, a stellar cover letter will get you a whole lot farther.
Well, I don’t recall that Byrd ran in 2004 (or any other time), but let’s not get hung up on just length of service. Sometimes, as with HRC it’s 8 years in the Senate plus First Lady and Secretary of State. Modern Presidents who I would say were well-qualified and did a descent job were Bush 41, Nixon (yes, he did do the job well and even was good on some issues, but had his share of tragic flaws), and FDR. Don’t forget voters DID choose HRC by a 2.8 million vote margin. None of the folks I have supported were inherently and obviously unelectable. After all, they all HAD been elected before.
I profoundly disagree. Stalin did the job well except for some “tragic flaws”, for crying out loud. Mussolini made the trains run on time (an accomplishment in Italy of the time). That “standard” is, to me, unacceptably low.
Richard Nixon’s misdeeds were far more than “tragic flaws”. He lied to Congress and the public about his conduct of the war in Vietnam. He shamelessly and flagrantly abused his power for his own purposes. We will never know what Mr. Nixon was offering the Chinese in his secret negotiations with them prior to the Watergate scandal.
George H. Bush was worse. He did terrible damage to the economy. He was deeply involved in the illegal Iran-Contra scandal as Vice President and instrumental in covering it up as President.
Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush are exhibits in the case against your premise. I’m surprised you offer them in its defense.
Stalin was a tyrant and my understanding is that Mussolini’s making the trains run on time is apocryphal (plus also a tyrant). Let’s please not be deliberately obtuse here. Regarding Nixon and Bush I was narrowly answering what I interpreted as a narrow question. There are plenty of reasons I would not have supported them.
@Christopher: Understood.
Of course Stalin and Mussolini were tyrants, that’s the point. Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush, while not as extreme as either, were nevertheless WAY over the line that separates decent and honorable people from criminals.
It is because your criteria is far too narrow that I reject it. Neither Mr. Nixon nor Mr. Bush “did a good job”.
William Jefferson Clinton
As I said in 2016, I think Bernie was a prophet, not the messiah. He spoke a lot of truth, but I think he’s more like the Occupy Movement. He’s important. He has a point to make.
I may be wrong in thinking that what a politician says is a good indication what s/he does or can do, but I like to think about whether the person can do the job. Trump sets a low bar, but I don’t believe Bernie has the administrative skills necessary to effectively run the federal government. I’m not sure he has the temperament. Warren may not have the administrative experience, but she seems more accomplished, organized and specific than Bernie.
And Biden? F— him. I’ll work for him if he’s the nominee, but he’s a dinosaur. He doesn’t need to go extinct, but there’s nothing wrong about retiring to the First State.
Apropos of this, Paul Krugman’s column today.
For better or worse, Paul Krugman and I often think alike (unless econometrics are involved). Here’s a money paragraph:
There is a case to be made that Krugman made similar arguments against Bernie and for Hillary in 2016. I think a key difference is Warren’s record of consistency on these issues over time and her personal narrative as a single mom working her way through college, teaching, and law school prior to meeting her second husband. Minus some details, that’s a similar story to my mom and many other women. We’ll see if it’s enough to beat the competition.
Warren has Bernie beat on policy details. But on big picture stuff, Bernie is driving change in public opinion, which is where political power ultimately resides… Medicare for All and Peace in Yemen, as two examples.
The media and party establishment definitely prefer Warren, which is her main advantage. In the halls of power, Bernie’s former front-runner status had been the cause of much consternation. (which is exactly why so many people love him).
When was Mr. Sanders ever a front-runner? Before any other candidates announced?
Before Biden announced, Sanders was leading the pack. Of course polls are not all-important at this stage, so there are other considerations…. from the NY Times: ‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum
So in one scenario, it is Sanders who opens the Overton window wide enough for Warren to step through it.
I will give Warren credit for this. We are a lousy sample of the party, but she’s someone a diehard Berniecrat like John and Hillaryphile like Tom can meet in the middle on. She’s also the second place choice for the Biden supporters on this thread too.
In IA where a lot of the also rans are not viable and where Bernie or Biden might not be viable in some precincts I could see her getting a lot of the second choice votes.
Establishment-types are scared of Bernie and have done everything they can to prevent Tulsi Gabbard from picking up his baton. Warren is seen differently, as a progressive in Obama’s mold and someone that they can do business with. Can Warren keep Bernie’s window open? It depends on whether she can match him in her ability to produce a grassroots movement, by speaking directly to voters. But at the moment, much of her political capital is from people trying to thwart Bernie, which isn’t exactly a stable foundation for progressive change.
There is certainly some irrational bernie hate among the PUMA crowd. But I think Warren is earning respect the old fashioned way, by running a really good campaign and speaking to people’s actual issues.
I would argue Bernie running is a bigger impediment to Tulsi picking up his baton. Also her virulently anti-gay rhetoric as recently as 2008 and her tone deaf pro-Assad and pro-Putin record as recently as this week. She’s a candidate without a constituency, although she’d have an interesting lane as a Republican primary challenger to Trump or libertarian nominee. She’s the Jim Webb of this cycle.
Whatever Gabbard said 10 years ago, she is different today and has had an excellent voting record. Serving in conflict zones can really change a person and it is reflected in how she has served in office. She has publicly opposed the CIA-backed war in Syria, which is not something we have seen from another candidate. War-making powers are the most important thing we entrust our President with — I want someone who will do the right thing, not the politically expedient thing.
I invite you to offer evidence of this. It sounds to me like it harmonizes with the sour-grapes whining I’ve heard from too many Bernie-Bro types since his failed 2016 campaign.
My sense is that Elizabeth Warren has been building her political capital for years by actually creating real plans that address real issues.
I think that, in stark contrast to Mr. Sanders, the growing support for Ms. Warren is real, sincere, and grounded in her long and growing track record of being right far more often than wrong.
These whining Bernie-bro “types”: do you know them?
I have heard a lot about these awful people but have never met any; have never even encountered them online. I wonder if they are not fake accounts.
Sorry to be picky; I just think that in the current environment we owe it to ourselves to be really clear when we start to characterize other people, esp in negative ways.
If these are troll accounts then they probably are not, in reality, big Sanders fans.
Yes, I’ve heard it face-to-face, and I see it all too often in various online forums. Even if some of them are fake accounts, the effect is still the same.
I’m not accusing couves of being one. I am instead saying that the quote I cited mirrors the destructive and false claims of these sources (whether or not those sources are real or invented).
I’m criticizing the commentary, not its sources.
There is moving the window so that it opens upon different terrain (same sized window as before, difference vista…) and there is leaving the window in place, just enlarging the opening (larger window, same central vista). Bernie is of the latter sort.. maybe he widens the opening to include terrain that Warren is on, allowing her to walk through, but he’s also widening it in the other direction, inviting the angry and the bitter to leap through, as well…
I do have some concern that there is a segment of Bernie supporters that would not support anyone else in the field. I also find it odd he is still running against the DNC after they largely conceded to his demands. Tom Perez continues to get unfairly vilified by the left despite the fact that he was handed a sh!t sandwich and turned it into something palatable to most of the party.
I would like to point out that a couple of weeks ago, Elizabeth Warren turned the Hyde Amendment (one of the most repugnant things our government has done in the past half century) into political rat poison. Joe Biden, who’s spent most of his life defending the thing, instantly fled from it. She’s pumping ideas into our political bloodstream (which is supposedly Bernie’s wheelhouse) faster than any candidate I can remember.
Warren’s savvy in calling first for impeachment has moved her up to second place ahead of Bernie tonight in national polling.