I agree with this as well. While it would be great to have an effective progressive president, and while I hope the Democrats start trending back to the left, the president should ideally connect with all Americans, not just the party that elected them (fantasy land in our climate I know) and so a liberal centrist is probably better for the country than a true progressive at this time.
As a progressive, I had many qualms about some of Obama’s policies but he’s definitely been the best president of my lifetime.
Over time, I’d love to see the progressive movement continue to build and the state and local level and in Congress and so eventually shift the Overton window to a place where a true progressive can be an effective, non polarizing president.
Which isn’t to say that I won’t actively support the most progressive candidate during the primary process ;). Just that I’m not also going to be happy supporting whichever candidate emerges for the Dems.
See, here’s the thing though: You could be the most corporatist, blue-doggingest, centrist, triangulating Democrat in the party and the GOP would still go to the fucking mattresses to declare your administration illegitimate and your entire ideology toxic, even if it’s literally their ideology.
(I’m not trying to pick on Alstein here, just illustrating a dilemma some of us face as the election draws near.)
Of course, the “best” candidate depends on who you talk to, but hypothetically, who would be a better candidate in the general, Warren or Beto? I’d wager more would probably say Beto. The reasons for that are rather myriad (and some not entirely fair, but there is no fair in politics) but I would tend to agree with that even though Beto is not really a progressive.* It’s not about appeasing Republicans - you are absolutely correct in your assessment - rather it’s about appealing to that thin slice of the electorate self-labelled as independent, and reinforcing the weakening (breached) mid-west ‘firewall’ and PA (including MN, where a recent special election for state senate saw a Republican winning a long held Democratic district.) Now, there are a lot more votes to be had from those who didn’t vote and while my hunch is that a progressive would be a better choice for that outcome, I really don’t know what the magic formula is for motivating them.
(Ultimately, for me it’s almost irrelevant really who ends up as the nominee;it’s just conjecture over who I’d feel less stressed about not losing to trump.)
*From Wikepedia:
Political views[]
Political analysts classify O’Rourke as a progressive, liberal, or centrist.[126][127][128] During his time in Congress, O’Rourke was a member of the New Democrat Coalition, a pro-business member organization.[129][130][72]National Journal gave O’Rourke a composite ideology of 85 percent liberal and 15 percent conservative in 2013.[131] Describing himself, O’Rourke has said that he does not know where he falls on the political spectrum. He has sponsored bipartisan bills as well as broken with his party on issues like trade.[132]
I am not sure but I think Perlstein in his book on Reagan touched on Jimmy Carter. IIRC he wrote some very unflattering things about how tough Carter could be when he wanted to be.
Here’s our list so far. I have no idea who among these I’d vote for and their websites this early in the process are rather lacking. Most of them will probably be visiting my state though, and I’d like to go to any town halls they have (vs stump speeches.) If I got to ask a question, I’m torn between “How do you plan on slowing global biodiversity lost*”, “What is the most important characteristic for a President” or “Fuck trump, or seriously, fuck trump?”
(*I’m sure that would be a popular question!)
Edit: Hopefully this will be a reality by the time the primary rolls around:
Good question. As someone mentioned above, her website is still pretty bare-bones. Sure, the donation pop-ups work, but she doesn’t yet have a section that covers her stances on any issues.
What we have right now is this, which explains why she’s running but not really what she stands for:
I’m running because I believe we can be a nation governed not by chaos — but from opportunity. The kind of opportunity my grandpa — who worked 1500 feet underground in the mines in Northern Minnesota — gave my family when he saved money in a coffee can in the basement to send my dad to college. The kind of opportunity my mom, a school teacher and a proud union member, gave me when she taught me to live with purpose. The kind of opportunity my dad, a newspaperman, gave me to always look for life’s adventures and never shy away from adversity.
I’m running because we’re tired of divisive politics. We’re fed up with the shutdowns and the showdowns, the gridlock and the grandstanding. Today, we say enough is enough.
I’m running because we need to rise to the occasion and meet the challenges of our day. For too long leaders in Washington have sat on the sidelines while others try to figure out what to do about our changing economy and its impact on our lives, what to do about the disruptive nature of new technologies, income inequality, the political and geographic divides, the changing climate, the tumult in our world. Let’s stop seeing those obstacles as obstacles on our path. Let’s see those obstacles as our path.
Some more (PBS has more of these on the other candidates too). “Get things done” (in her announcement speech) is suitably vague for American politics. I think the biggest thing she has going for her is her popularity and appeal in the mid-west. I certainly won’t be voting for her in the primary.
