Booker v. Harris v. Warren Primary

[Sir Mohamed]

See my signature. She has the most charisma, is a little younger. Booker is a little overrated I guess. Would make a good VP choice for a white candidate.

[RINO Tom]

I think Harris is insanely over-rated & I don't think she should run before 2024 at the very least. I don't support 1st time Senators running after 1-2 years. They always spectacularly fail.

Booker is one of my least favorite Dem Senators, so Harris is #2 by default!

Barack Obama and Warren Harding say hello.

That said, I do agree with this for the most part.

Harding died in 2 years, how can we even judge him?

Obama has been a massive disappointment vis-a-vis his promise. I wouldn't call him a failure but he has spectacularly average. He has been a huge failure with the DNC, DWS & etc - He has to take responsibility for the Dems being on the worst positions in almost a century.

I think Obama being too young did significantly contribute to his mediocre performances.

We don't need a great President. We need someone who can beat Trump.

Then dems should nominate Steve Beshear and win the biggest landslide in decades.

Too old.

Beshear's age would be the least of his problems in a Democratic primary.

While I agree, that is really stupid on the voters' parts.  He would pass every issue test, he just wouldn't talk like they want.  I guess if he's pro-life that would be a problem, but to my knowledge he largely supports Democratic principles ... just happens to be from the South.

[White Trash]

Reluctantly for Warren, if not a protest vote for some Dixiecrat

[RINO Tom]

Reluctantly for Warren, if not a protest vote for some Dixiecrat

SG is a perfect example of what old Southern Democrats were ACTUALLY like (without the poor civil rights stances, OBVIOUSLY): not a DINO, not some "conservative," and often times even more liberal than his Northern counterparts on class issues.  I'm not talking about people like Zel Miller who kept their heads above water in a rapidly conservative-ifying South, but rather the Southern Democrats who backed FDR and fought for "pork" spending for their states, largely to help the poor, who are now the victims of comically bad historical revisionism that marks them as right-wingers because "muh civil rights."

[White Trash]

Reluctantly for Warren, if not a protest vote for some Dixiecrat

SG is a perfect example of what old Southern Democrats were ACTUALLY like (without the poor civil rights stances, OBVIOUSLY): not a DINO, not some "conservative," and often times even more liberal than his Northern counterparts on class issues.  I'm not talking about people like Zel Miller who kept their heads above water in a rapidly conservative-ifying South, but rather the Southern Democrats who backed FDR and fought for "pork" spending for their states, largely to help the poor, who are now the victims of comically bad historical revisionism that marks them as right-wingers because "muh civil rights."

It appears that Northern liberal revisionists will have you believe that if you aren't on the frontlines of the civil rights debate, then you are a violent racist. I cannot even begin to tell you how many programs, schools and roads would not be in place in the South without "Dixiecrat" politicians, all of whom get painted with the broad brush of "segregationist". A lot of the Southern Democrats political history is very sad and shameful, but it is ridiculous to throw the baby out with the bath water and not recognize the left-wing accomplishments made by some of them.

[JA]

Reluctantly for Warren, if not a protest vote for some Dixiecrat

SG is a perfect example of what old Southern Democrats were ACTUALLY like (without the poor civil rights stances, OBVIOUSLY): not a DINO, not some "conservative," and often times even more liberal than his Northern counterparts on class issues.  I'm not talking about people like Zel Miller who kept their heads above water in a rapidly conservative-ifying South, but rather the Southern Democrats who backed FDR and fought for "pork" spending for their states, largely to help the poor, who are now the victims of comically bad historical revisionism that marks them as right-wingers because "muh civil rights."

Agreed. SG is a perfect example of a true Southern Democrat and I appreciate that about him. The party has far too often written off people like SG and others, such as John Bel Edwards, for being insufficiently liberal. But they simply represent their culture and their constituents, as any *representative* should. SG is undeniably far less liberal on social issues than I am, but I'd much rather have a lively discussion with him than most other liberals with whom, on paper, I'd agree 99% of the time. The way so many liberals engage in classism is appalling, which they then excuse by saying "well they're just white trash." Heaven forbid you added black or brown in front of the word trash, though. And yes, I would vehemently object to that as abhorrent racism.

The Democratic Party should operate on the basis of class interests or, specifically, the interests of the working class. This means appealing to the lower, working, and middle classes of all racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds; from the hollers in Appalachia to the working class neighborhoods of Boston and Tacoma.

[RaphaelDLG]

I'd MUCH rather take a Democrat who disagrees with me on a lot of other liberal issues (e.g., a Southern Democrat like SG) over one who mostly agrees with me but is compromised on class issues (whether because of campaign donations, like Kamala Harris, or sincere ideology, like Booker).

[JA]

I'd MUCH rather take a Democrat who disagrees with me on a lot of other liberal issues (e.g., a Southern Democrat like SG) over one who mostly agrees with me but is compromised on class issues (whether because of campaign donations, like Kamala Harris, or sincere ideology, like Booker).

Could you imagine actually having to be around those yuppie liberals? I'd shoot myself.

[DPKdebator]

Anyone is better than Liz Warren.

[White Trash]

I think that too often Democratic politicians (well, really politicians from both sides of the aisle but especially the Democrats this year at least) campaign only for folks who are already voting for them. What did Clinton have to offer folks in Appalachia or in rural western communities? And honestly, going even further left on abortion is going to satisfy what demographic exactly? The pro-choice folks aren't defecting anytime soon and neither are most the social liberals, so why not tone the rhetoric down a bit or make it a little more palatable to moderates and conservatives. The base will still turnout for you and you will likely gain more than a few "Moral Majority" voters who disgusted by Trumps persona.

[Lachi]

Harris in a heartbeat.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'd MUCH rather take a Democrat who disagrees with me on a lot of other liberal issues (e.g., a Southern Democrat like SG) over one who mostly agrees with me but is compromised on class issues (whether because of campaign donations, like Kamala Harris, or sincere ideology, like Booker).

Taking campaign donations doesn't mean you sign your life over to doners. What is with you and "class issues".

[NeederNodder]

I'd choose Warren. Harris and Booker are needed in the Senate.

[RaphaelDLG]

I'd MUCH rather take a Democrat who disagrees with me on a lot of other liberal issues (e.g., a Southern Democrat like SG) over one who mostly agrees with me but is compromised on class issues (whether because of campaign donations, like Kamala Harris, or sincere ideology, like Booker).

Taking campaign donations doesn't mean you sign your life over to doners. What is with you and "class issues".

1) True, you don't have to, but if you do decide to sign your life over to donors, you usually get more campaign donations than the person running against you that doesn't.  And the person with the most money wins 90% of the time.  Read Republic, Lost, Martin Gilens' research, or that book by Zephyr Teachout that I haven't read yet.

2) I understand you were like, 9 years old during the economic crisis of 07-08, so you're forgiven, but for those of us who were around then, the actions of the Democratic party totally betrayed its lack of loyalty to working and middle class folks.

Obama was a way better choice than McCain and Romney, of course, but his treasury department's total mismanagement of the foreclosure crisis (that you can't just chalk up to Republican obstruction or blue dog Democrats, by the way) made him the President who presided over the greatest erasure of black and brown wealth in American history, and obviously a ton of white folks' livelihoods, as well.

David Dayen and a million billion others have written great stuff on this.

The Democratic party has played up the whole culture wars, Republicans are ignorant troglodytes argument in a way that's allowed them to partially (lazily/opportunistically) abdicate their role as the defender of middle class America, even if that argument is often true.

I believe that we shouldn't let the Democratic party become soft in its mission to improve opportunity for working class people and prevent lobbyists from writing the laws and controlling who gets punished, like they have for a long time, to disastrous consequence during 08-09 and its aftermath, and regularly do on key issues.

[Mr. Smith]

I think that too often Democratic politicians (well, really politicians from both sides of the aisle but especially the Democrats this year at least) campaign only for folks who are already voting for them. What did Clinton have to offer folks in Appalachia or in rural western communities? And honestly, going even further left on abortion is going to satisfy what demographic exactly? The pro-choice folks aren't defecting anytime soon and neither are most the social liberals, so why not tone the rhetoric down a bit or make it a little more palatable to moderates and conservatives. The base will still turnout for you and you will likely gain more than a few "Moral Majority" voters who disgusted by Trumps persona.

Clearly they (the base) didn't.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

1) True, you don't have to, but if you do decide to sign your life over to donors, you usually get more campaign donations than the person running against you that doesn't.  And the person with the most money wins 90% of the time.  Read Republic, Lost, Martin Gilens' research, or that book by Zephyr Teachout that I haven't read yet.

I don't even have the money to buy books. If you can't even find a half-decent source online, you don't have a good argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HOW!?! You can't just say these things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what ways? How? Where are your actual sources?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't even have an argument. You're just making assertions and saying that there are things written that back you up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what concrete ways? I hate to be a broken record but blind assertions are bad arguing.

[Horus]

Warren, but could be persuaded to vote Harris. I just don't know enough about her yet, especially in regards to foreign policy.

[RaphaelDLG]

1) True, you don't have to, but if you do decide to sign your life over to donors, you usually get more campaign donations than the person running against you that doesn't.  And the person with the most money wins 90% of the time.  Read Republic, Lost, Martin Gilens' research, or that book by Zephyr Teachout that I haven't read yet.

I don't even have the money to buy books. If you can't even find a half-decent source online, you don't have a good argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HOW!?! You can't just say these things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what ways? How? Where are your actual sources?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't even have an argument. You're just making assertions and saying that there are things written that back you up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what concrete ways? I hate to be a broken record but blind assertions are bad arguing.

Hahaha this is an internet forum, not an academic journal or a courtroom.  Since you insist on internet sources, here are a few to get you started...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR_rHf4rrRAhUIWSYKHShrBOsQFggyMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Flessig.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F78108721979%2Frepublic-lost-is-now-ccfree&usg=AFQjCNFVdowSGsAMWWbeUtdEdze8-ETv7w&sig2=ZbU-EvKEfl1hRSCavujYuw

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/obamas-failure-to-mitigate-americas-foreclosure-crisis/510485/

[uti2]

I'd MUCH rather take a Democrat who disagrees with me on a lot of other liberal issues (e.g., a Southern Democrat like SG) over one who mostly agrees with me but is compromised on class issues (whether because of campaign donations, like Kamala Harris, or sincere ideology, like Booker).

Taking campaign donations doesn't mean you sign your life over to doners. What is with you and "class issues".

2) I understand you were like, 9 years old during the economic crisis of 07-08, so you're forgiven, but for those of us who were around then, the actions of the Democratic party totally betrayed its lack of loyalty to working and middle class folks.

This is an important point. Mccain was leading Obama before Lehman Brothers, the only reason why Obama's victory was so big in 2008 was due to the economic collapse. He won the 08 primary by courting progressives on trade/war/wall street, then he won the general big due to Lehman Brothers.

The whole reason why minorities mostly vote dem in the first place is due to economics, so if you don't have a good economic program for them, you don't have a good reason for getting them to turnout, since that's really what the linchpin of the Obama coalition has always been, and the same policies just so happen to appeal to working class whites too.

The 'coalition of the ascendant' was based on poor minorities and the working class in general turning out for the dems, not wealthy latte liberals in NoVA.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

1) True, you don't have to, but if you do decide to sign your life over to donors, you usually get more campaign donations than the person running against you that doesn't.  And the person with the most money wins 90% of the time.  Read Republic, Lost, Martin Gilens' research, or that book by Zephyr Teachout that I haven't read yet.

I don't even have the money to buy books. If you can't even find a half-decent source online, you don't have a good argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HOW!?! You can't just say these things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what ways? How? Where are your actual sources?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't even have an argument. You're just making assertions and saying that there are things written that back you up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what concrete ways? I hate to be a broken record but blind assertions are bad arguing.

Hahaha this is an internet forum, not an academic journal or a courtroom.  Since you insist on internet sources, here are a few to get you started...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

About two-thirds of the population favors increasing the minimum wage. In the last election, only about 49% of the vote went to a candidate that supports raising the minimum wage. People voting for a party that openly and publicly advocates for things they disagree with isn't elites controlling the system. Things getting passed more often when interest groups (which seem to include groups of citizens advocating for specific policies. Shocking that people who are engaged and involved in politics have more influence then people who aren't) or the rich are in support of something is more of a reflection of the fact that ordinary people don't put thought into their vote then deliberate rigging of the system. Affluent people do have disproportionate influence, but they aren't that powerful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The policy being advocated for seems to be one that actively forces banks to give up part of the loans they gave out, which is a bad idea because A. it would probably make loans more expensive for everyone, and B. the banking system was in a very bad spot at the time, and if all the banks collapse, the economy is completely destroyed and everyone is screwed. These "handouts" to the banks were actually protecting everyone from the great depression level devastation that would come with a collapse of multiple large firms. The banks didn't need regulations that made it even harder for them to survive.

This was all directly ripped/obtained from information and subtext in the article, by the way.