159
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
159 points (89.6% liked)
politics
19098 readers
4012 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I can't speak for Elizabeth, or for many other supporters, but I can tell you why I supported her and not Bernie.
While I agree with so much of Bernies platform, I just wasn't convinced he was a pragmatic candidate. When asked how he would handle Mitch McConnell, his response was essentially "Our revolution will take care of that- voters will listen to my message and I won't have to deal with him". That wasn't really the question, and I just didn't see that as a good answer. It solidified my thoughts that he was an idealist who was pushing for great things and was very much needed, but when it came to the cold realities of getting things done, he wasn't someone who I thought could negotiate with republicans.
I also was very wary of populists. Bernie was very much a left wing Trump only in that he built a very deep cult of personality. Everyone who I talked to, every poll I saw, every post I read cemented the idea that it was Bernie or bust. Especially now as I am terrified of a Civil War 2 breaking out, the stance of non-negotiation is not only ineffective, but dangerous.
Idealists play a very important role in any movement. They create the energy needed to push things forward. However in the position of Commander in Chief, the virtue needed is restraint. I wanted to find a balance between progressive policy and pragmatic restraint, and so I saw Warren as the better of the two options. 4 years later I'm not as excited about her as I was then, and much of the details are fuzzy, but I know this is broadly what I thought.
I know in this thread there will be a lot of mud slinging and calling those who disagree with Bernie of 2020 or their supporters as stupid and/or evil, but that stance is exactly what I saw as divisive and dangerous in a time we need to avoid division and violence. Not all of it was Bernie's fault, but I also know Idealists can push other idealists further to extremes. We are in a prisoners dilemma, where if we choose the path of getting everything, we will get nothing.
Edit Just to clarify, most of my friends supported Bernie, and they are not stupid. There are a million reasons why he was the best candidate, and many times he worked with republicans. At the time, I saw Warren as more of a 70/30 progressive and Bernie more 80/20.
I've read that explanation many times from many people, at this point. I'm honestly not yet compassionate enough to forgive y'all for what I believe to be willfull ignorance (no offense, srsly). That said, I totally respect your opinions and actions as a free fellow citizen.
My only question is, didn't you care that she was obviously going to lose? Did really not that matter to you? (These are rhetorical, I guess, since if you could've you would've.)
It seems the real issue is a failure to understand how politics works in general, how it works in the US, and how it works in a two-party system. The answers to those questions should help you understand why so many people recognized that if Bernie didn't win, we'd be in this exact position. No one can tell the future, but plenty of people have predicted exactly what has happened (from trump being president to the DNC propping up a corpse despite the will and wishes of voters and donors).
Finally, imo, if Warren was sincere (and wasn't purposefully trying to hurt the chances of policies she supposedly supports being enacted) then she's unbelievably incompetent, which I absolutely do not believe she is. That leaves only one alternative: she refused to run against Clinton because she knew she would have a good chance at beating her and didn't want to run against here; instead, she preferred the certainty of a cabinet position (or less likely, support in her own presidential run 2-3 terms later - an insane bet, imo, given no party keeps the presidency a 3rd term in this country) and then she ran in 2020 to help Biden based on the same motives (support the DNC and they'll support you). She sold out plain and simple.
I'm truly blown away that people don't recognize that many progressives clearly said it would be a Bernie vs establishment DNC (i.e. Biden) rematch and it was. How do people not feel absolutely duped after all the BS 20+ candidates that were obvious distractions that then all joined to support Biden like fuckin clockwork. Fuck conspiracy theories, we literally watched this stuff happen and people still seem beyond confused. It's so wild to me
Sorry for the rant in return. I wish I had friends I could talk to about this stuff, but my friends are mostly dumb as shit. They're a fun crowd tho ;P
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Bernie actually got the presidency, his base would have abandoned him within 2 years.
Bernie would not have been able to implement his idealist utopia. Every step of the way, both Dems and Reps would have forced compromise. Whatever reached his desk to sign would have been so watered down that his fanatic progressive following would have thrown him under the bus like every other progressive hero to date.
I liked Bernie well enough, and would have preferred him to Hillary, because I thought he was a bit more electable. But he wasn't the homerun that people made him out to be, and I suspect he would have been largely ineffective if elected. Because in the end, it takes a lot more than strong principles and good intentions to make things happen in DC.