Who is the biggest heir to Hillary/Third Way this cycle?

[YE]

I don't think Harris can build a long-term winning coalition and she's too much of an ultra social liberal for my taste. I'm also a little uneasy with the fact she's taking corporate PAC money when none of the other 4 2020 contenders from the Senate do. She's a fine senator and was a decent AG but she's not the president we need right now.

As for Medicare for All, it's also a net saving since there's no more health insurance, and Medicare has lower overhead coast than private insurance, and there is no price gouging middle man to profit off of. But with how far to the right the overton spectrum of the United States, it's a left-wing idea.

I do agree that Kamala will struggle to maintain a long-term winning coalition as long as uneducated white people make up over 40% of the electorate (which will be that way until 2028 at the earliest). I do not want her to be the presidential nominee; I am just defending the accusations of her being an economic "centrist" (this thought process is extremely concerning and reflects being detached from american reality).

It's not a net saving for people who are already on Medicare (seniors). Seniors will be enraged that they have a higher tax burden to pay for other people to have Medicare. And guess who disproportionately influences elections by... actually voting (youth have always had a terrible turnout rate because they generally don't care about the issues of politics until they get older). And if you don't think old white people can get more Republican... oh boy. They're not even that Republican right now (~+15-20 republican); imagine what happens when you start advocating for a Medicare for All policy that will hurt them by raising their taxes while not giving them any benefits.

Y'all are in your bubble of youth. It's no wonder people like you think Medicare for All is a killer idea because it disproportionately benefits you at the expense of older people. Not that it's a bad idea, but there are pretty obvious problems to selling it to the American electorate as a whole (old, uneducated white people).



Medicare for all is a pretty leftwing idea. I am open to it, but calling Kamala Harris a centrist when she supports it is such a wildly hot take that my crops in Farmville got burned to the ground twice over.

Seniors in general don't work and thus don't pay payroll taxes, which is most likely how it'd be funded.

[Blue3]

Booker... maybe Gillibrand

[junior chįmp]

They probably planned on it being Booker as they had him give a keynote address at the 2016 convention but now they seem to be really gunning for Harris who literally popped out of nowhere.

Centrism is finished after 2020 and neither Booker nor Harris will ever be president

Kamala Harris is not a centrist. You are in a huge bubble that 95% of america doesn't agree with if you actually believe this. No one is going to see Kamala Harris speaking about Medicare for all and other issues and think "wow she is in the center!".

AndrewCA mentions privatization of schools but when the hell has Kamala mentioned that she likes this? And that policy is more up to the states anyways.

Seriously I can't believe that the 3rd most leftwing democrat is looked at as a "centrist" by the Atlas socialists. Centrist to what? Venezuela?

I remember when Obama ran in 2008(first election I voted in), it was constantly made a point of how "Obama was the most liberal Senator in Congress." He got elected and basically governed his first term as Bill Clinton's 3rd term. He didn't prosecute any bankers, passed a watered down Republican health care plan, and tried to pass Ronald Reagan's cap and trade plan. I have since realized that Obama's actions while in office should have been predictable once you looked at his actual record both in Congress and the IL legislature. But we were all swept up on Obamamania and lied to ourselves (basically what Trumptards are doing now)

Now we have people like Harris, Booker, Cuomo, Biden, etc trying to steal that Sanders thunder by pretending to support the things that their lifetime voting record doesn't mirror. So after being scammed by Obama, I refuse to fall for the same tricks. I've seen it all before. You can tell who's being genuine and who isn't by how they use their language and the sense of urgency they have for the political issues they claim to  champion. Again people shouldn't delude themselves...look at what the politicians actually do (or have done)...not what they say.

But really the biggest factor in me opposing candidates like Booker, Biden, Harris is that we don't need any more weak Democrats who strive for bipartisanship at the expense of liberal principles. This current GOP is mentally insane and if we don't elect someone who's goal is to crush them then we will forever be stuck in this loop where we elect unimaginative technocratic Democrats who are basically poached and bullied by Republicans.

We need a bold Democrat with a cult following. Someone who'll inspire a new generation of young people to pursue politics to advance both principles and an agenda as opposed to technocratic stiffs who write 3000 page health care plans that don't even cover everyone. Imagine how different history would of been if Al Smith had won the nomination in 1932 instead of FDR like he was supposed to? It was the people FDR inspired to go into politics that passed the great society and civil rights legislation. Imagine 1980 had Reagan lost to someone like George H W Bush? All of the young people Reagan inspired, we are still dealing with them in Congress right now. Candidate quality matters for creating self sustaining victories in order to complete a vision.

We don't need people without an agenda who are slaves to bipartisanship and incrementalism and who don't inspire anyone. That's all the Democratic Party has been producing for almost 5 decades now. I'm done with it. I'm close to 30 now and I've been fooled too many times to fall for it again (not saying I'm some wise all knowing genius). I know Harris's type, she'll get in there, pile on the identity politics garbage, make some incremental changes that don't affect 99% of the population but allow her to virtue signal, pointlessly squander politicial capital working with Republicans, pass watered down crap legislation, etc

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

They probably planned on it being Booker as they had him give a keynote address at the 2016 convention but now they seem to be really gunning for Harris who literally popped out of nowhere.

Centrism is finished after 2020 and neither Booker nor Harris will ever be president

Kamala Harris is not a centrist. You are in a huge bubble that 95% of america doesn't agree with if you actually believe this. No one is going to see Kamala Harris speaking about Medicare for all and other issues and think "wow she is in the center!".

AndrewCA mentions privatization of schools but when the hell has Kamala mentioned that she likes this? And that policy is more up to the states anyways.

Seriously I can't believe that the 3rd most leftwing democrat is looked at as a "centrist" by the Atlas socialists. Centrist to what? Venezuela?

I remember when Obama ran in 2008(first election I voted in), it was constantly made a point of how "Obama was the most liberal Senator in Congress." He got elected and basically governed his first term as Bill Clinton's 3rd term. He didn't prosecute any bankers, passed a watered down Republican health care plan, and tried to pass Ronald Reagan's cap and trade plan. I have since realized that Obama's actions while in office should have been predictable once you looked at his actual record both in Congress and the IL legislature. But we were all swept up on Obamamania and lied to ourselves (basically what Trumptards are doing now)

Now we have people like Harris, Booker, Cuomo, Biden, etc trying to steal that Sanders thunder by pretending to support the things that their lifetime voting record doesn't mirror. So after being scammed by Obama, I refuse to fall for the same tricks. I've seen it all before. You can tell who's being genuine and who isn't by how they use their language and the sense of urgency they have for the political issues they claim to  champion. Again people shouldn't delude themselves...look at what the politicians actually do (or have done)...not what they say.

But really the biggest factor in me opposing candidates like Booker, Biden, Harris is that we don't need any more weak Democrats who strive for bipartisanship at the expense of liberal principles. This current GOP is mentally insane and if we don't elect someone who's goal is to crush them then we will forever be stuck in this loop where we elect unimaginative technocratic Democrats who are basically poached and bullied by Republicans.

We need a bold Democrat with a cult following. Someone who'll inspire a new generation of young people to pursue politics to advance both principles and an agenda as opposed to technocratic stiffs who write 3000 page health care plans that don't even cover everyone. Imagine how different history would of been if Al Smith had won the nomination in 1932 instead of FDR like he was supposed to? It was the people FDR inspired to go into politics that passed the great society and civil rights legislation. Imagine 1980 had Reagan lost to someone like George H W Bush? All of the young people Reagan inspired, we are still dealing with them in Congress right now. Candidate quality matters for creating self sustaining victories in order to complete a vision.

We don't need people without an agenda who are slaves to bipartisanship and incrementalism and who don't inspire anyone. That's all the Democratic Party has been producing for almost 5 decades now. I'm done with it. I'm close to 30 now and I've been fooled too many times to fall for it again (not saying I'm some wise all knowing genius). I know Harris's type, she'll get in there, pile on the identity politics garbage, make some incremental changes that don't affect 99% of the population but allow her to virtue signal, pointlessly squander politicial capital working with Republicans, pass watered down crap legislation, etc

Has Kamala Harris ever even talked about bipartisanship or incrementalism? I think you are seeing something completely different than reality dude.

I can understand being concerned about Gillibrand or Booker, but you seem to just be making sh!t up about Harris. I've never remotely seen her talk about "Bipartisanship" or "Incrementalism".  You are just fundamentally... not looking at reality somehow. Like I don't get it. Harris has literally never done any of this sh!t. You're equating Harris to other dems for god knows why (distorted reality).

(Also FDR campaigned as a budget balancer and to cut waste fraud and abuse lmao)

[junior chįmp]

They probably planned on it being Booker as they had him give a keynote address at the 2016 convention but now they seem to be really gunning for Harris who literally popped out of nowhere.

Centrism is finished after 2020 and neither Booker nor Harris will ever be president

Kamala Harris is not a centrist. You are in a huge bubble that 95% of america doesn't agree with if you actually believe this. No one is going to see Kamala Harris speaking about Medicare for all and other issues and think "wow she is in the center!".

AndrewCA mentions privatization of schools but when the hell has Kamala mentioned that she likes this? And that policy is more up to the states anyways.

Seriously I can't believe that the 3rd most leftwing democrat is looked at as a "centrist" by the Atlas socialists. Centrist to what? Venezuela?

I remember when Obama ran in 2008(first election I voted in), it was constantly made a point of how "Obama was the most liberal Senator in Congress." He got elected and basically governed his first term as Bill Clinton's 3rd term. He didn't prosecute any bankers, passed a watered down Republican health care plan, and tried to pass Ronald Reagan's cap and trade plan. I have since realized that Obama's actions while in office should have been predictable once you looked at his actual record both in Congress and the IL legislature. But we were all swept up on Obamamania and lied to ourselves (basically what Trumptards are doing now)

Now we have people like Harris, Booker, Cuomo, Biden, etc trying to steal that Sanders thunder by pretending to support the things that their lifetime voting record doesn't mirror. So after being scammed by Obama, I refuse to fall for the same tricks. I've seen it all before. You can tell who's being genuine and who isn't by how they use their language and the sense of urgency they have for the political issues they claim to  champion. Again people shouldn't delude themselves...look at what the politicians actually do (or have done)...not what they say.

But really the biggest factor in me opposing candidates like Booker, Biden, Harris is that we don't need any more weak Democrats who strive for bipartisanship at the expense of liberal principles. This current GOP is mentally insane and if we don't elect someone who's goal is to crush them then we will forever be stuck in this loop where we elect unimaginative technocratic Democrats who are basically poached and bullied by Republicans.

We need a bold Democrat with a cult following. Someone who'll inspire a new generation of young people to pursue politics to advance both principles and an agenda as opposed to technocratic stiffs who write 3000 page health care plans that don't even cover everyone. Imagine how different history would of been if Al Smith had won the nomination in 1932 instead of FDR like he was supposed to? It was the people FDR inspired to go into politics that passed the great society and civil rights legislation. Imagine 1980 had Reagan lost to someone like George H W Bush? All of the young people Reagan inspired, we are still dealing with them in Congress right now. Candidate quality matters for creating self sustaining victories in order to complete a vision.

We don't need people without an agenda who are slaves to bipartisanship and incrementalism and who don't inspire anyone. That's all the Democratic Party has been producing for almost 5 decades now. I'm done with it. I'm close to 30 now and I've been fooled too many times to fall for it again (not saying I'm some wise all knowing genius). I know Harris's type, she'll get in there, pile on the identity politics garbage, make some incremental changes that don't affect 99% of the population but allow her to virtue signal, pointlessly squander politicial capital working with Republicans, pass watered down crap legislation, etc

Has Kamala Harris ever even talked about bipartisanship or incrementalism? I think you are seeing something completely different than reality dude.

I can understand being concerned about Gillibrand or Booker, but you seem to just be making sh!t up about Harris. I've never remotely seen her talk about "Bipartisanship" or "Incrementalism".  You are just fundamentally... not looking at reality somehow.

(Also FDR campaigned as a budget balancer and to cut waste fraud and abuse lmao)

Relevant article:

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris


When I read articles like that, it reminds me of the very same articles I refused to believe about Obama back in 2008. The ones that talked about his actual record and not the marketing makeover.

[henster]

The Medicare for All legislation she co-sponsored was basically vaporware with no mechanism of funding,  not including that is why it got so much support than the Conyers bill that has been introduced every year. She will probably have a much more watered down plan if she runs as will a lot of the others.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

When I read articles like that, it reminds me of the very same articles I refused to believe about Obama back in 2008. The ones that talked about his actual record and not the marketing makeover.

I love Kamala even more after reading this article. Jacobin had some excellent things to say about her. She is a bold leader that will help lead America to the right direction!

[YE]

The Medicare for All legislation she co-sponsored was basically vaporware with no mechanism of funding,  not including that is why it got so much support than the Conyers bill that has been introduced every year. She will probably have a much more watered down plan if she runs as will a lot of the others.

I assumed that was to get a score from the CBO, and then deal with the funding menchanism so it's revenue neutral and could be passed via reconciliation. Given that Sanders actually wrote a more thorough plan for it than blindly introducing Conyer's bill like he did in 2016 as well as the fact that Sanders/Warren have introduced other legislation last week to improve the ACA, is encouraging that he's serious about actual policy. If I had to guess, all the senators will be on board with the same health care bill largely so they won't be attacked for not supporting single payer.

[MechaBambi]

We know Warren, Brown, Bullock, etc. will naturally get the same kind of true progressive, Sanders-esque support in 2020, but who is the strongest "Neoliberal No Labels Hero" this cycle? Booker with his love for Big Pharma and Wall Street? Harris with her San Francisco-centred politics?...or Gillibrand with her #MeToo/Planned Parenthood Upper East Side politics?

Bullock is more likely to get Third Way support then any of the three listed in your poll. He does a good job posturing as a populist, and not all of the decisions he's made as governor have been bad, but at the end of the day he's still a red state Dem who's skeptical of the party's leftward shift on both economics and social issues.

That said, if the question is "who's the heir to Hillary," the answer is obviously Harris. She'd be a much better president for the left than Hillary would've been, though.

Bullock's argument against dems isn't necessarily their leftward shift (he is quite leftwing himself), it's that they don't talk to enough people who disagree w/ them to convince them that progressive policy can be good.

It's a very practical argument & he is very effective at persuading people.

I don't hate Bullock - he's preferable to someone like McAuliffe or Cuomo on a stylistic level at least - but calling him "quite leftwing" is just absurd. Left-wing for Montana, sure, but in a 2020 primary he'd be squarely in the center-right of the pack. For just two examples, he's argued against pursuing Medicare for All and supported the Keystone XL pipeline. If you want to talk about a genuinely progressive Dem holding it down in a red state, look at Tammy Baldwin.

[King Cobra]

They probably planned on it being Booker as they had him give a keynote address at the 2016 convention but now they seem to be really gunning for Harris who literally popped out of nowhere.

Centrism is finished after 2020 and neither Booker nor Harris will ever be president

Kamala Harris is not a centrist. You are in a huge bubble that 95% of america doesn't agree with if you actually believe this. No one is going to see Kamala Harris speaking about Medicare for all and other issues and think "wow she is in the center!".

AndrewCA mentions privatization of schools but when the hell has Kamala mentioned that she likes this? And that policy is more up to the states anyways.

Like seriously, just because they don't advocate for seizing the means of production doesn't mean they are a "centrist".

Many people conflate "centrist" with bought and paid for by special interests and corporate America. Kamala is certainly the latter, but not really the former.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Medicare for All legislation she co-sponsored was basically vaporware with no mechanism of funding,  not including that is why it got so much support than the Conyers bill that has been introduced every year. She will probably have a much more watered down plan if she runs as will a lot of the others.

Harris and the other presidential hopefuls know very well that Sanders's Medicare for All plan is unworkable. They just signed on to avoid being branded neoliberal shills and be constantly attacked by his army of trolls, like Nina Turner and the Zogby guy.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This entire thread is s circle jerk of people who (a) Believe the DemocratucParty is Socialist; (b) Think anyone to their right is some sort of class traitor or plutocrat; and (c) Forget that Clinton won a majority of Democratic voters in 2016.

[Sadader]

None of these three IMO. Biden or Bullock would be better. But I don’t really think that HRC is synonymous with the Third Way wing. Booker would be a good-ish heir to HRC, but not to Third Way Democrats.

They probably planned on it being Booker as they had him give a keynote address at the 2016 convention but now they seem to be really gunning for Harris who literally popped out of nowhere.

Centrism is finished after 2020 and neither Booker nor Harris will ever be president

Kamala Harris is not a centrist. You are in a huge bubble that 95% of america doesn't agree with if you actually believe this. No one is going to see Kamala Harris speaking about Medicare for all and other issues and think "wow she is in the center!".

AndrewCA mentions privatization of schools but when the hell has Kamala mentioned that she likes this? And that policy is more up to the states anyways.

Seriously I can't believe that the 3rd most leftwing democrat is looked at as a "centrist" by the Atlas socialists. Centrist to what? Venezuela?

I remember when Obama ran in 2008(first election I voted in), it was constantly made a point of how "Obama was the most liberal Senator in Congress." He got elected and basically governed his first term as Bill Clinton's 3rd term. He didn't prosecute any bankers, passed a watered down Republican health care plan, and tried to pass Ronald Reagan's cap and trade plan. I have since realized that Obama's actions while in office should have been predictable once you looked at his actual record both in Congress and the IL legislature. But we were all swept up on Obamamania and lied to ourselves (basically what Trumptards are doing now)

This is garbage tribalism. Just because Reagan supported cap and trade (which is a great climate policy) doesn’t mean than it was bad. Obamacare had aspects that some conservative economists pushed for, but that in no way makes it mutually exclusive to being a liberal plan. And it wasn’t solely Obama voting on these bills, it was Dem Congresspeople. The ACA barely passed and Cap and Trade didn’t.

It’s ignorant to suggest that “Republican” is one homogenous modifier; there are massive divergences between the intellectuals and the politicians, and it is not necessarily distinct from (American) liberalism. It’s also meaningless to describe these things as “Republican”, and it’s mindless to be against Obama and the policies because you percieve them that way.

[Truvinny]

They probably planned on it being Booker as they had him give a keynote address at the 2016 convention but now they seem to be really gunning for Harris who literally popped out of nowhere.

Centrism is finished after 2020 and neither Booker nor Harris will ever be president

Kamala Harris is not a centrist. You are in a huge bubble that 95% of america doesn't agree with if you actually believe this. No one is going to see Kamala Harris speaking about Medicare for all and other issues and think "wow she is in the center!".

AndrewCA mentions privatization of schools but when the hell has Kamala mentioned that she likes this? And that policy is more up to the states anyways.

Seriously I can't believe that the 3rd most leftwing democrat is looked at as a "centrist" by the Atlas socialists. Centrist to what? Venezuela?

centrist to bernie

Not even that cuz she is advocating for many of the same policies as Bernie. (Although I suspect Bernie is more leftwing than the policies he actually advocates for now)

maybe kamala is an opportunist? her policies match the mood of the electorate. she doesn't really have any controversial positions on any issue iirc

She was against the death penalty since forever (yes, the death penalty was popular even in California in the 2000's believe it or not). She's not an opportunistic. TYT praised her for being a great progressive voice back in 2016, but now they suddenly don't like her for some bizarre reason.

Medicare for All is a HUGE commitment (and will require big tax increases) so any democrat that backs it is not a "centrist" in any way.

I don't think Harris can build a long-term winning coalition and she's too much of an ultra social liberal for my taste. I'm also a little uneasy with the fact she's taking corporate PAC money when none of the other 4 2020 contenders from the Senate do. She's a fine senator and was a decent AG but she's not the president we need right now.

As for Medicare for All, it's also a net saving since there's no more health insurance, and Medicare has lower overhead coast than private insurance, and there is no price gouging middle man to profit off of. But with how far to the right the overton spectrum of the United States, it's a left-wing idea.

This. 90% of the cost of healthcare in the United States is artificially inflated.

[darklordoftech]

The OP is also an example of how "neoliberal" is now being used in a way that's as confused as "neoconservative".  What does neoliberalism the economic philosophy have to do with #MeToo?  It seems that "neoliberal" is now just being used to mean "anyone to the right of me who I don't like".  People latched on to the "Neo" in "neoconservative" as an intensifier of the negative connotations they had with "conservative", and are now just transplanting that to "liberal" for no reason.  Is an Atlas poster I don't like a "neoposter"? 

I think part of it is that "neo" suggests someone who wants to revive discredited ideas. Someone who wants to bring back Hitler's ideas is a Neo-Nazi, someone who wants to bring back alcohol prohibition is a neo-prohibitionist, etc.