Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Oh, bother.
Here's the part of the op-ed where they list all of their issues with Warren after they list all the pros.
Carrying out a progressive agenda through new laws will also be very hard for any Democratic president. In that light, voters could consider what a Democratic president might accomplish without new legislation and, in particular, they could focus on the presidency’s wide-ranging powers to shape American society through the creation and enforcement of regulations.
As an adviser to President Barack Obama, Ms. Warren was the person most responsible for the creation of a new regulatory agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In her interview with the editorial board, she demonstrated her sophisticated understanding of the different levers of power in an administration, particularly in the use of regulation in areas such as trade, antitrust and environmental policy.
When she first arrived in Washington, amid the Great Recession, Senator Warren distinguished herself as a citizen-politician. She showed an admirable desire to shake off the entrapments of many Washington interests in favor of pragmatic problem-solving on behalf of regular people. In her primary campaign, however, she has shown some questionable political instincts. She sometimes sounds like a candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election, would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us.
This has been most obvious in her case for “Medicare for all,” where she has already had to soften her message, as voters have expressed their lack of support for her plan. There are good, sound reasons for a public health care option — countries all over the world have demonstrated that. But Ms. Warren’s version would require winning over a skeptical public, legislative trench warfare to pass bills in Congress, the dismantling of a private health care system. That system, through existing public-private programs like Medicare Advantage, has shown it is not nearly as flawed as she insists, and it is even lauded by health economists who now advocate a single-payer system.
American capitalism is responsible for its share of sins. But Ms. Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. The country needs a more unifying path. The senator talks more about bringing together Democrats, Republicans and independents behind her proposals, often leaning on anecdotes about her conservative brothers to do so. Ms. Warren has the power and conviction and credibility to make the case — especially given her past as a Republican — but she needs to draw on practicality and patience as much as her down-and-dirty critique of the system.
Ms. Warren’s path to the nomination is challenging, but not hard to envision. The four front-runners are bunched together both in national polls and surveys in states holding the first votes, so small shifts in voter sentiment can have an outsize influence this early in the campaign. There are plenty of progressives who are hungry for major change but may harbor lingering concerns about a messenger as divisive as Mr. Sanders. At the same time, some moderate Democratic primary voters see Ms. Warren as someone who speaks to their concerns about inequality and corruption. Her earlier leaps in the polls suggest she can attract more of both.
Edited by M84 on Jan 20th 2020 at 3:02:10 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
I agree that "public option" is a much better way to go than "Medicare for All," but Warren's been too waffly on it and been chasing voter points and purity tests.
I'd rather she drop MFA entirely if the public option works and stop trying to chase the diehard Sanderistas who consider "I've got a plan" to be weaker than "I've got big ideas."
What ^ said. MFA is a waste of political capital; institutional reform and climate change are the actual big problems on the block.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Healthcare reform is needed, particularly given how badly Obamacare's been sabotaged. It's not at institutional-reform levels of importance (in part because institutional reform is a means of getting all of the other problems solved), but it's important.
Warren more or less has ditched MFA in favor of a public option. Notice how she's been emphasizing choice and transition in the recent debates. Warren is at her best when she talks about tackling corruption and the struggles of ordinary people, which had always been the focal points of her campaign. She does better in the polls when those are the issues she can get into the spotlight and spread her appeal beyond progressives.
Interestingly, I think the Iowa poll had her with a slim lead among rural primary voters.
While I'm sure this is likely going to result in quarreling, who do you think should be the Democratic nominee?
Personally, I'm sort of leaning towards Pete Buttigieg.
Captain of the Dead City
Burnsy Sandals.
(I don't get Mayor Pete's appeal to people, beyond being white and male, and with less skeletons in his cupboard than Biden.)
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
The thread is mostly pro Warren or Sanders as preferati but will vote for a wet sandwich if it gets rid of the racist Cheeto.
"You can reply to this Message!"
Foreign Troper
I'm pro Sanders too, but I would be almost just as happy if Warren gets nominated.
Other than that, I don't really care for anybody, as long as Gabbard or Biden don't take the cake (and no, before anybody accuses me, I'm not putting Biden on the same level as Gabbard, obviously.)
Harris, luckily, already dropped out.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Yeah, to be perfectly honest, Bernie is my #1 choice. Pete is just one of my alternatives.
Captain of the Dead City
If I was a USAmerican I'd vote for the Dem nominee always, whoever they were. Even though all of them are to the right of me, and most of them are significantly so.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
I prefer Warren over Bernie but like I said....wet. sandwich.
"You can reply to this Message!"
Warren's the only one I actually like. But any of them would be better than Trump
Speaking of Mayor Pete, what are your thoughts on him as a candidate?
I am vaguely aware of his existence.
Oh, bother.
This thread's overall attitude was at first somewhat okay with him. It went downhill after his rather bad record when it comes to the way he treated minority communities in his city was revealed. There's a reason the black people from his city are not among his supporters.
He's not a KKK member or anything, but he comes across as just not really caring much about them.
Edited by M84 on Jan 20th 2020 at 7:55:59 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
I think of Mayor Pete as an empty suit. My mother (who voted Trump) is going to vote him, Bloomberg, or Biden versus the others.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Disasturbator
He's not one of the big three so his chances of getting elected are slim,but I think he knows that as many of the other not so serious candidates,it's good materal for a resume depending on how far he gets
New theme music also a box
My favourite (if I were a voter in the US) would probably be Klobuchar and Biden because electability. Not Sanders because of his tendency to blame "the media" for problems, not Warren because electability, not Buttigieg because he's too shallow policy-wise, not Steyer and Bloomberg because the same as Buttigieg and not Gabbard because just about everything of her views is bad.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Oh, bother.
The only candidate that consistently pisses me off among the three with an actual shot at winning the nomination is Sanders.
Disgusted, but not surprised
Lost in Space
Chalk me up for the "wet sandwich" vote, but if I had my preference, Warren is by far the best candidate from my point of view. Detail-oriented, policy-focused, not afraid to lock horns with legislators. She's tough, committed, as honest as anyone I've seen in Washington.
Biden is a follower, not a leader. He follows whatever trend will get him a political leg up. Right now, it's riding Obama's coattails like he has a fetish. note Sanders is a blowhard: all talk, no substance. He is completely inflexible, and that just can't work in a President. Buttigieg is an empty suit. He'll fold in a stiff breeze.
Going down the list, Yang is a techbro. Some great ideas, but I've had my fill of rich people running for President on the theory that their business savvy means they know how to run a country. The less said about Bloomberg and Steyer, the better.
I wouldn't have turned my nose up at Kamala Harris or Corey Booker, although their runs felt more like opportunism than realism. Who else? I feel like I'm forgetting a few. Oh yeah, Klobuchar. Well, I know her name; that has to count for something.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 20th 2020 at 7:27:27 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Oh, bother.
I do not share most of this thread's admiration for Warren, nonetheless I will probably be voting for her in the primaries barring something that spectacularly damages her rep.
You forgot Castro and Gillibrand. And Williamson and Gabbard too (but those two both had no chance of winning at all and are awful on every conceivable level).
Edited by M84 on Jan 20th 2020 at 8:30:21 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Buttigieg sure does exist.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Klobuchar is an abusive boss, and Biden is very obviously senile and has been stagnating in the polls. Trump may be visibly decaying, but he's still got enough abuser-savvy that he could rip that guy apart while Biden alienates his base with more and more bizarre sexist, racist outbursts. 2020 will be a turnout game, and I really doubt Biden has what it takes to inspire Dem supporters to go through the increasingly arduous and unfair process of voting.
As a certified Man™, I will say that I love how smart she is. Her intelligence and planning skills is one of the most appealing parts of her as a candidate, and it sets her above the other major candidates.