It was a perfectly fair deal. He was never really running to win (I mean he tried his best once he got some traction, but I don’t think he believed he had a serious chance when he set out), but to raise his profile in search of a better job, since he would have a problem winning statewide election back home. Did anyone else in the field turn a longshot campaign into a job that wasn’t CNN commentator?
Yeah he set out to show the establishment he was an asset and loyal soldier who would be super effective attacking the left wing of the party.
That said I do think he thought he had a shot. It was a crazy time and running against trump was a once in a lifetime opportunity. Hes based his whole life on being president. I think he tried the Obama model and failed but found a way to still elevate himself a lot with the establishment
Pete
4 Likes
They have to misrepresent Bernie’s policy positions though. You don’t have to misrepresent Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, or Pete. They’re on record as being for centrist policies, so I’m not sure what your point is?
If you’re saying he’s just trying to advance his self interests, then yeah, I agree. Just like every other establishment politician. As for it being a fair deal… It sure didn’t feel fair if you’re a progressive
That’s being results-oriented. I’d have no problem with two progressives doing something similar to ensure a progressive victory.
I’m saying he did nothing unethical or that should be against party rules by dropping out.
I agree they did nothing illegal or against party rules. Whether it was ethical or not is subjective
I agree with this. And I also think the progressive anger on this is kind of misplaced or mislabeled. I think what people are (rightfully) angry about is that eDems court progressive votes by talking out both sides of their mouth in the primary, undercut progressive priorities by claiming they are too radical, and condescendingly assume all progressives will vote for them once they’re up against the Repub, and several other legit reasons.
But the “they conspired to screw us out of the primary” is weird grievance-fueled conspiracy stuff.
The fact is, if there were three progressive candidates splitting the vote during the primary to the extent that it became clear that Joe Biden or fucking Bloomberg was gonna skate to the nomination with small pluralities, then of course progressives would be calling for two of them to drop out. And they’d be right to.
They pretty obviously all put their heads together and decided that poor people couldn’t have good things this election cycle, which is just objectively bad given the state of inequality.
But go off
Obviously a person who needs nothing can hand wave this away as grievance fueled. Personally I don’t need shit from the government, im all set up. But I recognize that people less fortunate got fucked over this election cycle. This disturbs me. It obviously doesn’t even register for you. Just a bunch of horse race horseshit about how team “progressive” would be working the refs, not for the betterment of society, but for their own self satisfaction at seeing their team winning.
But that’s not how progressives think. It’s just projection.
1 Like
That’s a fair point, if Bernie and Liz cut a deal and one dropped out before Iowa and endorsed the other, none of us would have a problem with it.
They combined for 46.8% in Iowa, Pete took 25.1%. They combined for 34.8% in New Hampshire, Pete took 24.3%. They combined for 52% in Nevada, Biden took 18.9%. They combined for 26.9% in South Carolina, Biden took 48.7%. On Super Tuesday, their combined total was enough to beat Biden in half the 10 states he won, while Bernie took four anyway. So instead of 10-4 Biden, it would have been 9-5 Bernie or Liz, including a win in Texas which had the most delegates. I’m not going to do all of the delegate math, but it would have been a battle from there I think.
Instead, the establishment coalesced around Biden quicker than the progressive wing coalesced around Bernie, and the establishment wing was bigger anyway.
In hindsight, I’m not sure there was a path to the presidency for a progressive this time. I think Bernie could have beaten Trump, but I don’t think he could win the primary. I think Liz could win the primary, but I’m not sure she could have beaten Trump. I have a hard time believing she’d do as well as Biden in PA/MI/WI/GA, but maybe I’m wrong.
The frustrating things to me are still that Liz flip flopped on Medicare for All, and Pete started half-assed on it but supported eventually getting to it, then flip-flopped to “How will you pay for it?”
Like AOC seems to be the only hope to me. I don’t think there’s anyone else I trust with strong name recognition who has what it takes to run and win. It’d be nice if Ed Markey was 15 years younger and had raised his profile more on the national stage. He’s pretty good at selling progressive policies to a wider audience. It’d be nice if AOC was five years older and more experienced, but she’s the best shot I see for 2024 if it’s an open primary and 2028 if not.
I’m not sure if she will or should run in 2024, either. If the GOP manages to nominate a non-Trump populist in 2024 (someone like Hawley), we’re going to get absolutely shellacked if we run Biden or Harris. But I don’t like our chances no matter who we run against someone like that, and if AOC runs and loses that’s the end of the progressive movement in terms of presidential elections for a long time. She needs to pick the right spot.
She seems to understand that, but this stuff is extremely difficult to predict. 2020 was a really good spot for Bernie and Liz had they gotten on the same page.
1 Like
There’s a lot going on here, but keep in mind that a majority of Democratic voters supported establishment candidates. I don’t like it, but it’s just the fact of the matter. We needed to consolidate our vote and not have the establishment wing consolidate theirs for as long as possible. The opposite happened.
The eDems definitely have decided that poor people can’t have good things (any things) this cycle. Not even enough stimulus to not end up homeless. That’s some fucked up bullshit.
But the issue isn’t that they consolidate their vote, it’s that:
A) We’re failing to win over a majority of the primary voters
B) They’re pushing conservative talking points to attack our policies
and
C) B is working on Democratic primary voters
B pisses me off a lot, it’s what I’ll always be mad at Buttigieg for. A and C frustrate the shit out of me. But getting mad at eDems for consolidating behind one candidate and calling that part the bullshit is just missing the mark.
The bullshit is that the wealthiest 1% own the eDems and 99% of the GOP, and basically get in a room and do their best to prevent anyone who might do anything for the vast majority of people from getting anywhere near the presidency, and that the bought and paid for eDems go out there and feed Dem primary voters GOP talking points and it works.
Until we change that they’re always going to consolidate behind one candidate because the people that buy them off are going to demand it. And if we had 51% of the primary support, we’d be foolish not to do the same (pressure all but one of our candidates to drop out).
1 Like
Pinning your hopes on AOC seems wrong to me. Few people knew who Barack Obama was before he ran for the Senate and gave the DNC keynote address in 2004 and it was only another four years before he was running for president. Especially if there isn’t room at the top of the ticket until 2028, that is plenty of time for someone to come out of current obscurity and run for president.
I agree if it’s 2028, but if the GOP nominates Hawley he’s a big favorite to win and get two terms regardless of who we run.
2024 is super tricky if Biden decides not to run, and damn near impossible if he decides to run. I don’t know that anyone can come out of nowhere that fast without a high profile opportunity. The Obama keynote in 2004 was huge for him. No progressive has had that kind of opportunity that I can recall.
Everyone who follows politics closely knew who Obama was in the summer of 2004. So whoever you’re thinking about on that timeline would already be known by like 99% of posters here, and most of our friends who aren’t junkies but follow politics a little.
Who’s a progressive who fits the bill?
I don’t think Hawley is a huge favorite to win in 2024. You don’t appreciate how divided we are as a country, how Trump didn’t cause those divisions but only revealed him, and how future presidential elections seem likely to be close enough that no one will be able to coast into the White House.
I’m saying most people didn’t know much about Obama before 2004. In 2012, the DNC keynote was delivered by an under-40 mayor named Julian Castro. Not really a progressive, though he tried to claim he belonged in that lane.
For a 2028 timeline, I’d be considering the possibility that the progressive who can take the mantle might be someone who has not yet run for statewide office or Congress, who might only be a state legislator or a mayor or might not even hold a current political office. How many people, progressive or not, do you know of who you would consider a rising star in the Democratic Party? I know some exist. I just don’t know who they are and I’m not going to spend my time trying to figure out who they are so I can brag about being an early fan.
And I think 2028 is the timeline you should be looking at. If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, it seems like Harris will be anointed as his successor.
I agree, which is bad news for the party.
If we’re talking 2028, then yeah I agree it’s a long way out and someone very few people know of now could rise up.
The consolidation and the corporate ownership are the exact same thing…
They drop out because they share the same donor oriented goals.
Dropping out is a signal that you are willing to play ball and fit into a nice corporate owned administration.
And the dropping out directly hurts the poor. So it’s bad.
Why do they consolidate? To help their careers at the cost of the poor. It’s deplorable.
I don’t give a fuck if it’s business as usual or expected strategy. It’s fucking awful and it killed poor and sick people this year. It should be denounced by supposed progressives on this board.
But by in large this board won’t even condemn Elizabeth Warren for accepting SuperPAC money after running on a promise not to do so. The money in politics went out the window for her supporters the second she flipped. There are minds that need to be changed here on the supposed progressive board. It’s not just the politicians.
3 Likes
Someone who is more progressive than Obama would not have gotten this opportunity to raise their profile.
They could if they were capable of hiding their progressivism.
I think the centrists on this board would find reasons to not vote for AOC if she were running for POTUS. And a lot of people just like the way she tweets and still don’t have anything like the same politics she does.
1 Like
I don’t know anything about the SoI person, but if AOC is happy with her - good enough. Hopefully she’s not big on drill-baby-drill. And I’m sure Clovis is right. An indigenous person in charge of the department that contains what is still called the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” is important.