Hope it's Warren. She's the only one that could extend an olive branch to the left. What I'm seeing in my social media circles in the last few days is a complete meltdown and revolt in that community. They feel like this is the 2nd cycle in a row where their core policies are being sidelined despite representing a major section of the party. And it's not like M4A or legalizing marijuana don't have 50%+ support in the party. Hell, they have 50%+ support in the country. Sure, Warren might turn off some moderates, but most of those moderates are voting against Trump, not for anything in particular. The leftists are voting on policy
Either your circle hasn't looked at Biden's actual policies now that he's got the nomination, or their politics are performative.
Rose twitter is not real life. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/upshot/democrats-united-poll-election.html It's not the left that needs to come home, it's the center and -- believe it or not -- BIPOC (especially the Latinx community). Warren's Q rating is through the roof with people who are already voting for Biden no matter what. Bear in mind I say this as a huge Warren supporter, and I desperately hope she's our next Treasury Secretary.
Most people when surveyed say that the mainstream Democrats are too far to the left for them. It's a bit odd because when you survey them on the individual issues, they don't necessarily indicate that. But that is how they feel -- and the graphic that you show supports that reality. The progressives might think that Biden doesn't represent them, but in they are less alienated than the Klobuchar wing of the party.
Makes you wonder who the "other" is that some are supporting now. Sanders supporters, OK they are for Jill Stein or whatever nutjob is the green party nominee. But 11% of Bloomberg supporters and 9% of Klobuchar supporters now favor who? the libertarian? They will write in Mickey Mouse? Strange.
Strange, but it is 9% of 66, so 6 out of 1569 in that total. I'm sure it isn't comprehensive, but that is 0.4% at best voting for ??????? I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. Maybe Bill Weld? Kasich?
More likely people who aren't paying attention, won't vote, or say they'll vote third party and vote Biden in the end.
Define "the left." So, it's a day ending in 'y' then. Maybe they should've paid attention to politics before the last couple of cycles. "Most" is doing a lot of work here. Not sure risking the swing voters in moderate districts is worth padding the winning the margin in solidly blue districts. To the degree this is true, that's not really a ringing endorsement of their seriousness or awareness. I can't imagine how entitled and myopic one would need to be to think that THIS, of all elections, is about "policy."
To whom? Who ever is doing the vetting will have known about this, probably weeks ago. This is not a popularity contest, this is about who will gel with Biden. Had this been 2008 or 2004 or before, sure I'd say it was likely an internal Dem choice who leaked it, but not now. The Dems are hyperfocused on getting Individual One out of the White House, and that means that the vetting process will be even more stringent. Hell, if it was Bass, they probably would already have a response out. Possibly multiple. But that they don't tells me Bass is not an option, and probably never was. Attacking a Black woman at this moment is a very, very risky game to play, and could easily backfire. Because attacking her normalizes attacking all Black women, which the Republicans already love do to. You don't even have to include the bolded for her quote to be an act of public disunity. I'm sure there are plenty of gloves off moments behind the scenes, but publicly, it is almost all love, and that the Dems are all on board with that shows their importance in winning in November. As I said, in a normal election cycle I'd agree. But this is not a normal election cycle, this is an effort at disruption of the party, an attack on a Black woman.
I mean they did finish 2nd in the presidential primaries two cycles in a row. As for their coalition in the House, it's very new, but it seems to be growing by a handful of members each cycle.
Look, the big friction is universal healthcare. You may think that people should just shut up about that and just deal with it. Except there are literally millions of Americans drowning in medical debt, no coverage and living in fear of getting sick at any moment. Universal healthcare is a primary concern for a lot of voters, and no amount of putting head in the sand is going to get rid of that anxiety. Especially in the middle of a pandemic.
All politicians get attacked. Jesus. It ain't beanbag. This isn't some bogus crap. She legitimately said good things about Castro, which is a problem if she's a national candidate. She legitimately said good things about Scientology, which is a problem. They're bog standard attacks you see against candidates all the time, white, black, brown, male, female. You're so caught up in your wokeness you aren't seeing reality. (Plus, I still think it's Kamala Harris who did it.)
At this point mostly millennial gen Z types. Ocasio Cortez, Omar, Khanna etc ... M4A, Green New Deal etc. I know, I know ... the orange menace. Existential threat to the republic and all that. When I talk about appeasing the left, I'm talking about votes on the margin. Elections can be decided by tens of thousands, not necessarily tens of millions. We already know that the majority of the voters in the country will reduce the election to a Trump referendum. But it's a bizarre claim to suggest that policy shouldn't matter. I mean fast forward to January 2021 and Biden is inaugurated. Country is in a middle of a pandemic with record unemployment. One year closer to climate change catastrophe. Country torn apart by a brutal partisan election. Obviously policy matters. Getting rid of Trump is not a final point. This isn't just about our feelings so we don't have to read Trump's tweets every day. It's about real issues that affect people in a deep way.
Come on, dude. Just because a politician is black doesn't elevate them above criticism. If the criticism was that she was "uppity" and "too ambitious," by all means, raise the racism and sexism flags. But like, she praised Scientology and extolled the virtues of Castro. It's political negligence not to point that out. Her race is completely irrelevant to this particular debate. Pretending that everything about a politician is all sunshine and rainbows before introducing them as the vice presidential candidate is a great way to get blindsided. This is just standard, run-of-the-mill electoral politics. It isn't always pretty. But it's a lot better to have this coming out before the ticket is announced than 9 days before the election.
That is a fair criticism. IIRC, Biden's plan is to lower the Medicare eligibility age. That's pretty small ball. Tell your friends that it's infinity times more progress than Trump will give them, number one, and number two, they're really going to vote 3rd party over the M4A position of the vice president? Like I said, performative. Finally, if they live in states with hot senate races, ain't shit going to happen unless there are at least 51 Democratic senators, because to get anything done, they'll have to break the filibuster, and Joe Manchin is pretty unlikely to vote to get rid of it. So tell them to get to work on that.
Obviously. But that is a problem. There are hundreds of other issues out there, some of them Biden has quite lefty policies on. That is a comment spoken from the position of a White male. Look, I'm all about universal health care, but that is not the ONLY issue, and based on the actions of the President just since January, there are larger issues on the table. And there is just as much support for police reform/BLM. No it does not. But as I said, it is very, very risky. This is where our political wonkiness causes us to look at things with blinders on. We have a tendency to see things within how politics is normal, because we are out front in understanding the dynamics of how politics works as well as differentiating between an attack on a politician who is Black versus an attack on a Black politician. But we are not the general public, and I don't have faith that the general public will be able to see the difference as well as we can. That is really dismissive of the Biden campaign team. Do you really think they didn't know about this before it was reported? And if she is the candidate, do you really think they don't already have a message, or at least one ready to go? To me, if she was the candidate, there would already be a message out there. Or at least if she was that seriously considered. Look, I know you are saying this politics as normal, but when has normal been in existence in the past 4 years? Point to a time when the Democratic party has been as unified as they are now? To me, that is 2008 and the passing of the ACA. That was a decade ago, and look at how the Reps have ********ed over everything since then, and then eroded norms. It's funny that I get accused of thinking that Dems should be nice when we are in the war. But if the Dems create disunity, how the ******** are they going to win the war? I'd have responded to your post, but you can't resist in making this attack. You are cliched.