Who is progressive enough?

[ShamDam]

I'm worried that none of the clear contenders are "pure" enough. Personally, I will vote for literally any Democrat over Trump. But in the primaries I would like to support someone who will be at least acceptable, or at best exciting, to the Bernie wing of the party. But I don't think Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, or even Warren would be able to do it. Who can?

[progressive85]

I hope they choose someone who can reach out to moderate or somewhat conservative Democrats.  I think the conventional wisdom is that the Democratic rank and file is left - but I don't think that's the case.  I think Bernie though really touched upon something - and was actually a nice fit for blue-collar America.

[Progressive]

I'm worried that none of the clear contenders are "pure" enough. Personally, I will vote for literally any Democrat over Trump. But in the primaries I would like to support someone who will be at least acceptable, or at best exciting, to the Bernie wing of the party. But I don't think Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, or even Warren would be able to do it. Who can?

Hell yeah, I agree with you 100%. And there's a frightening paradox that I don't understand, especially from my #BernieOrBust friends this year.

1. "Hillary was not race conscious enough in the primaries, after all did you see what she did on 'the crime bill?!'"

yet

"Hillary focused too much on race and not enough on economic issues."

2. "Elizabeth Warren voted to confirm Ben Carson as HUD Secretary, and I can no longer support her."

yet

"Well when Bernie voted no on the Brady Bill that was fine, he had his reasons."

3. "Election and campaign finance reform or we refuse to budge! And no more super delegates"

yet

"But leave caucuses alone and if anything the super delegates should have backed Bernie because he was the better candidate." Also--side note, and I love Obama, but Hillary had a really raw deal in the 2008 primaries (remember Michigan and Florida?) and I don't remember outrage.

4. "Where is Hillary why isn't she marching?!"

yet

"I'm glad her name is not on the march, we don't need to revive Hillaryism anymore, she better not try to get involved."

5. "Gillibrand is just a Hillary-lite! So corporate and moderate!"

yet

She voted against Kelly for DHS for instance, and Sanders did not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in short, I worry that the demand for purity is going to doom the party and reminds me of the Tea Party antics that created the Sharron Angle and Carl Paladino primary victories of 2010. I do think, however, that someone like Sanders was and is uniquely positioned to talk about both campaign finance reform and also granular middle class economic issues. So, where that leaves us, I have no idea.

[Figueira]

"The Sanders wing" can be divided into several groups:

-True leftists (e.g. Jfern) who view Sanders as more ideologically pure than other candidates. That seems to be the group this thread is describing, but I don't think they're a very large group. They probably won't be content with anyone other than Sanders himself and maybe some of his endorsers, and maybe Sherrod Brown.

-Younger people who don't have strong political views but supported Sanders because he's "exciting." I couod see Booker or Castro winning this group, but it's very hard to predict

-Moderates in West Virginia etc. who voted for Sanders because he wasn't Clinton and was somewhat moderate on guns. These people would rather see someone like Jbe! or Justice or Bullock on the ticket.

-Democrats like me or xingkerui or Keith Ellison who backed Sanders because we preferred his policy positions to Clinton's, but don't really hate Clinton. These people would support basically any Democrat against Trump, but for precisely that reason we're kind of useless electorally as far as the GE is concerned.

[Beet]

They need someone who can reach out to the blue collar white male vote with a strong transactional appeal, but also talks like a normal person and isn't some phony, corrupt establishment hack like Manchin.

[Hoosier_Nick]

"The Sanders wing" can be divided into several groups:

-True leftists (e.g. Jfern) who view Sanders as more ideologically pure than other candidates. That seems to be the group this thread is describing, but I don't think they're a very large group. They probably won't be content with anyone other than Sanders himself and maybe some of his endorsers, and maybe Sherrod Brown.

-Younger people who don't have strong political views but supported Sanders because he's "exciting." I couod see Booker or Castro winning this group, but it's very hard to predict

-Moderates in West Virginia etc. who voted for Sanders because he wasn't Clinton and was somewhat moderate on guns. These people would rather see someone like Jbe! or Justice or Bullock on the ticket.

-Democrats like me or xingkerui or Keith Ellison who backed Sanders because we preferred his policy positions to Clinton's, but don't really hate Clinton. These people would support basically any Democrat against Trump, but for precisely that reason we're kind of useless electorally as far as the GE is concerned.

This is basically how I see it. I feel like about 85% of his supporters fall in the second and fourth groups, though.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

You're assuming primary voters care about policy.

[Bojack Horseman]

I'm hoping and praying that we can get the base to vote for a German Shepherd over Donald Trump and that ideological purity isn't the biggest factor.

[RaphaelDLG]

The answer (politically speaking - not for me, personally, necessarily) is:  Whomever Bernie Sanders comes out and endorses/campaigns for in 2019.

For instance, Keith Ellison isn't perfectly progressive on every issue, but he's the clear "progressive enough" choice in the DNC race, and Bernie Sanders came out and gave him the imprimatur.

[The Other Castro]

Progressivism is a largely overrated quality in candidates.

[OneJ]

Progressivism is a largely overrated quality in candidates.

This.

[ShamDam]

The answer (politically speaking - not for me, personally, necessarily) is:  Whomever Bernie Sanders comes out and endorses/campaigns for in 2019.

For instance, Keith Ellison isn't perfectly progressive on every issue, but he's the clear "progressive enough" choice in the DNC race, and Bernie Sanders came out and gave him the imprimatur.

This is what I was thinking. I feel like there's a chunk of Democratic primary voters who only trust Bernie, and would either need him to run or to full-throatedly endorse someone (and not in the "we have to stop Trump" way that he endorsed Clinton) to get mobilized. Which gives whomever that is a big "electability" advantage in my view, especially if such a person also appeals to muh white working class.

[Mr. Morden]

The answer (politically speaking - not for me, personally, necessarily) is:  Whomever Bernie Sanders comes out and endorses/campaigns for in 2019.

For instance, Keith Ellison isn't perfectly progressive on every issue, but he's the clear "progressive enough" choice in the DNC race, and Bernie Sanders came out and gave him the imprimatur.

This is what I was thinking. I feel like there's a chunk of Democratic primary voters who only trust Bernie, and would either need him to run or to full-throatedly endorse someone (and not in the "we have to stop Trump" way that he endorsed Clinton) to get mobilized. Which gives whomever that is a big "electability" advantage in my view, especially if such a person also appeals to muh white working class.

But aren’t we only looking at it that way because the 2016 race is the one we just had?  Sanders didn’t have this special place in the hearts of most of these voters before last year (or maybe late 2015).  Many of them didn’t even know who he was before 2015.  So how did he win this sainted status among these voters?  It wasn’t because he was endorsed by anyone else.  It was because he ran a campaign that appealed to these voters.

So why can’t some other candidate come along in 2019/2020 and do the same thing, regardless of whether Sanders endorses them or not?

[ShamDam]

The answer (politically speaking - not for me, personally, necessarily) is:  Whomever Bernie Sanders comes out and endorses/campaigns for in 2019.

For instance, Keith Ellison isn't perfectly progressive on every issue, but he's the clear "progressive enough" choice in the DNC race, and Bernie Sanders came out and gave him the imprimatur.

This is what I was thinking. I feel like there's a chunk of Democratic primary voters who only trust Bernie, and would either need him to run or to full-throatedly endorse someone (and not in the "we have to stop Trump" way that he endorsed Clinton) to get mobilized. Which gives whomever that is a big "electability" advantage in my view, especially if such a person also appeals to muh white working class.

But aren’t we only looking at it that way because the 2016 race is the one we just had?  Sanders didn’t have this special place in the hearts of most of these voters before last year (or maybe late 2015).  Many of them didn’t even know who he was before 2015.  So how did he win this sainted status among these voters?  It wasn’t because he was endorsed by anyone else.  It was because he ran a campaign that appealed to these voters.

So why can’t some other candidate come along in 2019/2020 and do the same thing, regardless of whether Sanders endorses them or not?

Because Sanders wasn't operating in the shadow of some inspiring progressive candidate from 4 or even 8 years ago. He was able to fill that hole so easily because no one else was really taking it up. Now that there is such a thing as a "Bernie wing" of the party, don't you think he will hold enormous sway, even 3 years from now?

[Ronnie]

I think either of the two MN senators would be perfect.  All but the most rabidly left wing Bernie fans would rally around them, and they wouldn't alienate any of the party faithful. 

[Shadows]

Klobuchar isn't a strong progressive & Franken shows his might only during hearings.

None is the answer but the closest is Warren, who should take on Bernie's platform about Climate Change, healthcare & then with her background, etc would naturally get most of the voters. This was  the Warren wing but was a much smaller bloc. Bernie brought more millennials, libertarians, conservatives, blue collar people, green party, atheist hippies, etc.

The main key thing is to make the centrists irrelevant & build a strong progressive base, for that you have to rattle the cage a bit on the short term to people fall in line. Centrists can't dictate the Dem future. They are a minority in the Dem "Primary", they are not the Dem base. The GOP doesn't give a shi* about them & elects radical extremists to screw them. They are corrupting the Dem party & this pandering has brought the Dem party to ruin.

9% of the Dem base voted for Trump of all people! If not Bernie, got for a strong progressive like Warren (you have to make do, sometimes you can't have it all !)

[Mr. Morden]

The answer (politically speaking - not for me, personally, necessarily) is:  Whomever Bernie Sanders comes out and endorses/campaigns for in 2019.

For instance, Keith Ellison isn't perfectly progressive on every issue, but he's the clear "progressive enough" choice in the DNC race, and Bernie Sanders came out and gave him the imprimatur.

This is what I was thinking. I feel like there's a chunk of Democratic primary voters who only trust Bernie, and would either need him to run or to full-throatedly endorse someone (and not in the "we have to stop Trump" way that he endorsed Clinton) to get mobilized. Which gives whomever that is a big "electability" advantage in my view, especially if such a person also appeals to muh white working class.

But aren’t we only looking at it that way because the 2016 race is the one we just had?  Sanders didn’t have this special place in the hearts of most of these voters before last year (or maybe late 2015).  Many of them didn’t even know who he was before 2015.  So how did he win this sainted status among these voters?  It wasn’t because he was endorsed by anyone else.  It was because he ran a campaign that appealed to these voters.

So why can’t some other candidate come along in 2019/2020 and do the same thing, regardless of whether Sanders endorses them or not?

Because Sanders wasn't operating in the shadow of some inspiring progressive candidate from 4 or even 8 weeks ago. He was able to fill that hole so easily because no one else was really taking it up. Now that there is such a thing as a "Bernie wing" of the party, don't you think he will hold enormous sway, even 3 years from now?

IMHO, the effect you’re describing may hold for a few people, but for most I really think people will support whoever appeals to them the most, and rationalize it however they can.  Like I said, Sanders has mythic status for a certain faction of the party because he was the progressive insurgent in the campaign we just had.  But once we’re in the thick of the 2020 primary campaign, *that’s* the race that’ll be on people’s minds, not the 2016 race.  The candidates will rise and fall on their own merits, and endorsements (even from someone as popular as Sanders) will only go so far.

Also, the “Sanders” wing of the party is incredibly young.  Many of the people supporting Warren or Brown or whoever in 2020 will be college age at that time, meaning that they’re only in high school now.  Just like 2016 was the first election that many young people followed, there will actually be a new crop of voters in 2020 who were too young to have even been following what Sanders was doing or saying in the 2016 race.

[Suburbia]

Klobuchar isn't a strong progressive & Franken shows his might only during hearings.

None is the answer but the closest is Warren, who should take on Bernie's platform about Climate Change, healthcare & then with her background, etc would naturally get most of the voters. This was  the Warren wing but was a much smaller bloc. Bernie brought more millennials, libertarians, conservatives, blue collar people, green party, atheist hippies, etc.

The main key thing is to make the centrists irrelevant & build a strong progressive base, for that you have to rattle the cage a bit on the short term to people fall in line. Centrists can't dictate the Dem future. They are a minority in the Dem "Primary", they are not the Dem base. The GOP doesn't give a shi* about them & elects radical extremists to screw them. They are corrupting the Dem party & this pandering has brought the Dem party to ruin.

9% of the Dem base voted for Trump of all people! If not Bernie, got for a strong progressive like Warren (you have to make do, sometimes you can't have it all !)

You can nominate a left-wing extremist to win the Dem nomination, doesn't mean they'll win. Most Americans are centrists, not left-wing extremists.

http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2017-01-17/yarbrough-american-people-are-centrists-not-extremists

[politics_king]

Al Franken

[Cynthia]

Whoever can win.