I_Like_Dirt wrote:Pointgod wrote:I understand setting bold goals and aspirations but at a certain point you need to actually have a plan. That’s why I like what Warren is doing. She’s putting out bold ideas but also policies behind them whether or not you agree with them.
I agree. I have certain reservations about Warren but that's true to varying degrees and for different reasons for every candidate out there. Warren, at the very least, is basically better at everything than Bernie other than the popularity side of things, which matters, but is also a bit revealing. If a person doesn't like that line of thinking or such policies, that's absolutely understandable, but if a person does, the difference in depth between Warren and Bernie is substantial. Honestly, I feel Bernie lags behind Yang in that respect, though something feels odd about Yang in the sense that he's basically a meme on one hand and not taken seriously on the other which is a situation I'm not sure I've really quite seen before but I get a dose of racism in there from every angle (just my gut - I could be wrong).
Beto, I do think he pushes things a little too far and would like to see a bit more specifics from him. I'm guessing it's a strategic decision not to do so, though. It works, like it or not. Will it work enough for him? I don't honestly know at this point. If he were to come out attacking cost drivers in health care, prison systems, etc., I'd like him a bit more. I do like the stance he's taken on environmental issues so far, though. If there were a way to pair him up with Warren or someone like that (AOC won't run but would make an interesting counterpoint) - it wouldn't matter who was pres or vp - and let him ease up a bit on the bolder propositions, I think I'd actually like that. Who knows, though.
I think if candidates make big policy commitments and fall short, they'll still improve society by a large amount and most people will be reasonable enough to see that. Like if Bernie or Warren or whoever falls short of M4A, but they implement something that dramatically improves healthcare for millions of people, that will be a huge victory and it will be in part because they had made commitments on the campaign trail that forced them to fight for an ambitious legislative agenda.
What's funny is that the best model for this is...Trump. He really has met a large number of campaign promises, partly because they're asinine symbolic bull**** or involve dismantling liberal totems, but he's genuinely motivated to meet campaign promises because if he loses a small chunk of his base, he's cooked. I imagine Trump supporters appreciate this and consider it a feature, not a bug.
Going back to the Obama/Hillary style technocrats - I think it's clear that Obama made a number of mistakes in office that largely center around negotiating with the GOP in good faith instead of playing power politics the way Mitch McConnell did and continues to do. The scorched earth norm-destroying era brought about by Mitch is certainly a very bad thing, but it's a reality we live in and Obama pretended it didn't exist. If he had made unambiguous commitments to his voters, he might have acted differently and society would be better off today.
Beto has basically made zero concrete proclamations about policy or anything he supports. He's running on personality and charisma not unlike Obama's Hope and Change campaign in '08.
