Republicans aren't going to ask for half - they will ask for nothing. Look at Obamacare/etc - Republicans are not going to give in at all. In Bernie's case, given his distaste for the Dem party and unwillingness to be a member of the party or contribute to its infrastructure/governance, moderate Dems aren't going to give in either.
That's a fair point but a very depressing one (that Democrats' main enemy in negotiation is themselves). It's OK to wonder how Bernie will accomplish things as President, but I don't think it's fair to say he won't try or doesn't have any tools at his disposal (being President is kind of a big deal and gives you power to change minds that you may not have had otherwise). Of course Warren being "more Presidential" and a better coalition builder is moot if she can't beat Trump.
Certainly true. I see a Bernie Presidency similar to Trump at best, even if the Dems win the Senate. He's good for court appts, and he'll do a lot through executive action, but he won't get much of anything through Congress, and he'd be extremely unpopular in 2022 and 2024, I suspect, when Trump isn't the opponent anymore. But who knows.
I'd be happy to vote for Bernie or Warren, but I'd put Warren ahead of Bernie in electability. 1) I assume you mean that Bernie is more electable 1 on 1 vs Trump that Warren. I think Bernie would hit hard and his populist message would inspire a lot of people, BUT the opposition research folder on him is literally measured in feet. It won't take full-out lies to tar him badly, just some tweaks here and there with his visits to Cuba and Russia. I'm not saying it's good or fair, but for those whom Red Scare tactics are effective, the attacks on Bernie from the right will hit very hard. Warren has almost an identical leftist populist message and policy goals but she knows how to frame it within the vocabulary of "let's make capitalism work for all Americans." Don't underestimate how powerful this can be in converting independents. Although it's a seemingly small difference in messaging, the impact can reach much further. Warren's knowledge of consumer protection, consumer debt, and exactly how the big banks and hedge funds happily f*ck us all over is very very thorough. She can get down to nuts and bolts and wheels-meet-the-road in-depth discussion of how middle class Americans are f*cked by the 1% that is far more than talking points. On the other hand Warren is of course a woman and the Pocohontas thing still has legs IMO. She'll get hit hard too. 2) I don't have the impression at all that Warren is less of a fighter than Bernie. Maybe less grumpy, but there's not a doubt in my mind that in the first weeks of her presidency she'll be appointing bull dogs in the SEC and the bankers will be pissing themselves. But even if she was more of a compromise politician, it remains to be seen whether being a my-way-or-the-highway fighter as the Executive has a better shot of actually pushing legislation through.
I think if a Democrat wins in 2020 we're going to see Obama 2: Electric Boogaloo. They will get one shot to pass landmark legislation before 2022 hits and the Republican toilet backsplash comes and wipes away the House or the Senate or perhaps both. The key thing is will that legislation be an actual liberal Democratic solution or will it be a watered-down Republican plan from the Heritage foundation?
It’s unfortunate wealthy donors will get to buy this process with Warren... she clearly said in an interview her plan to not take corporate pac & wealthy donor money is ONLY for the primary, and not the general. I like Warren a lot, but she can’t speak out of both ends.
Problem is Obama had a 60 seat majority in the Senate to work with. So he was filibuster-proof as long as he could get all the Dems on board. Very best case for 2020 is a 51/49 or 50/50 Senate split, which means you'd either need 10 Republicans (ha!) or kill the filibuster (tough if you need all 50 Dems to agree), or finagle it through reconciliation, which just massively limits what you can really do.
Democracy is different people with different ideas coming together to build a consensus, not being primaried just because you don't agree with the leaders ideas. If thats what you want start your own party and stop trying to hijack the democratic one.
No, that's not democracy. I suggest you google that word. I'm not sure why you think campaigning for what you support, counting up votes, and living with the results is "authoritarian". Your fear of answering to the will of the people is odd. Perhaps you are the authoritarian here.
Given that outline, and the shared assumption that Republicans will 100% oppose anything anyone with a D next to their name supports, I don't see much reason to get wrankled over whether Bernie or Warren is the nominee (based on their proposals) since clearly none of it will come to pass. In that sense, I throw my support behind Bernie because 1) electability vs. Trump and 2) if we can't pass any legislation might as well move the Overton Window while we're at it.
I have a fear of answering to will of the people? You are are the one railing against Obama who was elected twice and still is overwhelmingly positively thought of. The will of the people was Hillary yet you have issues with that. What will or what people are you talking about? This is why I used the word delusional.
H2H polls. Particularly as they relate to the Electoral College. Of course there's still time for that needle to move.
Check real clear politics. The differences are somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-8% +Sanders VS Trump over Warren. That's definitely worth consideration, especially when Warren is actually in the negatives VS Trump in some of those swing states. If "some say" then I encourage you to post the statistics that support it.
You guys have to read this to understand how, in practical terms, difficult it would be to implement and enforce Warren's 2% tax on the super rich, and how Yang's plan makes more sense. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/yang-warren-taxes-mankiw.html
LOL. That article is extraordinarily stupid. He argues that if we want to redistribute weath and want the rich to pay for this, then Warren's plan is impractical. He gives 3 examples. 1 could be viable - people divorcing to avoid it. It doesn't affect the super-rich, but makes a difference at the bottom of the wealth-tax scale so it's valid. The other two examples aren't even viable - gifting money would subject you to a much bigger gift tax, so that doesn't help anything. And giving away all your money to charity to avoid a tax is a great outcome - it directly redistributes the wealth. Then he goes on to say how great Yang's proposal is and gives an example of two wealthy people, one who spends and one who doesn't. So now he wants wealthy people to just sit on their money instead of spending it, which would create economic activity and redistributes the wealth. And he doesn't even mention that VATs are extremely regressive, meaning he suggests a tax that burdens the poor more than the wealthy is a good way to tax the wealthy. Wealth taxes are stupid regardless, but this "analysis" is beyond horrific.
Damn Warren. 70 year old Harvard law proffessor getting freaky with a Marine. Good on her. Wish this was true.
