2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI hope we agree that Webb is running to the center, Sanders to the left, and Clinton between those 2
I hope we also agree that even the most centrist in the field is considerably more progressive than even the most centrist Republican candidate (I don't see any Lieberman candidates in our field or any Huntsman candidates running in the Republican field with the goal of reviving the flat-lined moderate wing of that dying party).
I am trying to get a grasp on the general perception of where other Democrats would rank the following candidates from most progressive to most moderate:
1. Sanders
2. O'Malley
3. Chafee
4. Clinton
5. Biden
6. Webb
Thank you for your help.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Thanks, TX.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Criminal justice policy?
Foreign policy?
Reproductive rights?
Racism in America?
Economic policy?
Et cetera. Gee, I think you'd have to define which issues to include, define the "center" and "left" positions on each one, assign points accordingly, and add up the totals. That would be interesting.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)ranking the candidates as they line up on that issue which is most important to him or her.
I'm curious how Democrats generally perceive O'Malley in relation to Chafee or Biden in relation to Clinton or O'Malley in relation to Sanders or Biden in relation to Webb, etc.
I am more interested in a gut reaction than an essay (although an essay would also be informative).
elleng
(130,895 posts)as I said, looks correct. He IS progressive, thoroughly.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)rank their preferred candidate as more progressive than other Democrats rank those candidates (for example, do Chafee supporters think Chafee is more progressive than O'Malley or do they think he is more moderate than Clinton and is their perception part of why the support him or do they support him primarily for other reasons besides where they perceive him on the ideological scale).
I'm also curious whether people see Biden as significantly different in ideology than Clinton or do they seem them as ranked close to one another.
Also, I assume there is a consensus that Webb is the most centrist candidate but I'm curious whether Webb supporters agree with that assessment (frankly, I don't hear much from Webb supporters on DU).
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Same goes for Webb. I will say this, Chafee at the very least has a group.
Speaking for myself, Webb is not centrist. He is a a moderate Republican who changed parties possibly in order to run against George Allen.
At the time (and things are shifting here in Virginia) it was as good as we could get in this commonwealth.
Regarding Biden and Clinton, I am not sure how to answer your question.
I do believe that policy matters as much as personality when it comes to electing people for office. This is human nature, IMO.
I believe O'Malley is very progressive, I also believe that he has put forward comprehensive ways to make his ideas happen. Read his white papers on criminal justice and wall street reform. They are more detailed than anyone else I have seen thus far.
I appreciate details.
I know that the next thing I am going to say is going to piss people off, but I truly don't believe that being the most angry person on the campaign trail makes them the most progressive. I disagree with Senator Sanders on a few of his topics. For example, while I deeply agree that the billionaire class is a really big problem, that isn't the be all and end all of todays problems.
There will always be rich people. There will always be poor people. There hopefully will still be a middle class that will take in/allow (for lack of better phrasing) people to no longer be in poverty.
Going after the billionaire class is fine, but I really want to see the middle class strengthened once again. I want to see a path for it to thrive and grow again, and that is why I support O'Malley. He is inclusive.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)and probably about as far left as an "in-the-fold" Democrat can be at this time. The problem is that all the establishment has moved too far right for me. We desperately need change that will not come from them.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)Yes there are many people that can exert influence on the president about war, especially military advisers. And yes congress can vote to go to war. But ultimately the decision whether or not to launch an attack on another country resides in the hands of the president. He can simply say no (I know, easier said then done in today's environment).
A president can't decide to attack another country without congress, but they can most definitely decide not to without them. And they can choose to ignore any authorizations for war by simply doing nothing.
Likewise, congress may have to ratify treaties, but the ability to negotiate and set the tone with other countries falls solely on the president and his appointed cabinet and diplomats. The president can choose peace over war without any interference from the other branches.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)it so much, the executive either goes along with it or is chased out of office (or carried out feet first).
And as we saw in the Bush presidency and to some degree now, if the rich want something, checks and balances cease to exist.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The president and their administration can use their voices to influence public opinion.
Let's take ISIS for example. They can lay down a time line showing how our military intervention in Iraq and our involvement with Syria has directly led to the creation of ISIS. They can show how were cutting off funds to ISIS by going after the people dealing with them. They can show how we're supporting our allies while letting those directly affected by the problem deal with it. And if there's ever a direct need for engaging ISIS it will be done through an international coalition, not by us alone.
Let's take Iran for example. There a lot of Rhetoric going around that if these talks fall through we'll be forced to attack. Why? They can easily explain that if the talks fail then all sanctions that have crippled Iran go back in force with more if necessary. They can point out that Iran has not attacked anyone in hundreds of years. And they can make clear that if Iran ever attacks Israel or another ally then we will come to the defense of our allies as expected. However we won't be another countries proxy. Not Israel's or anyone else's.
And on a personal level, just once I'd like one person in government to admit how hypocritical it is to demand others not have nukes while we have the largest stock pile in the world and no desire to shrink it.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Sanders is most progressive
O'Malley is second
Clinton, Biden, and Webb are all roughly equally corporate tools.
I don't know enough about Chafee to say.
Clinton, Biden, and Webb ALL running is a bit redundant.
I will vote the way I did in the primaries: the most progressive of what's left.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)for the Democratic nominee in the general election (although having Lieberman on the ticket in 2000 tested my loyalty to this practice).
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)when he picked Lieberman I was gobsmacked.
That was just a really bad move. I will never understand that choice. I disagreed but understood (still thought it was a bad decision and he seriously underestimated the Dem Party) with his running away from Clinton but choosing Lieberman
I am still shaking my head.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Social Security (Chafee) or who defends the Confederate flag (Webb) as "progressive" and no, I wouldn't vote for anyone who holds those positions.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)candidates in the dismal Republican field)
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)unacceptable to me.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)1 sanders
1.2 omalley
2 chafee
3 biden/clinton tie
4 webb
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)1 Sanders
2 a Clinton
2 b O'Malley
2 c Biden
3 Chafee
4 Webb
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Ditto for Biden and O'Malley...
Lincoln Chaffe's economics strike me as decidedly New England Republican.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)good observation, sir.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and mostly they are aligned. sanders edges clinton out on most progressive, but all said and done, barely.
it is just that i think people are putting more importance on sanders rhetoric like no war, though he has voted for military action and his fight with wallstreet, as more important in the scale of progressive than the areas clinton is more progressive.
omalley has a little more conservative in him, again, reading his proposals and plans and listening to him, no more so than the others. just a shade more over all conservative in his progressive and liberal self.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)I would place that line about 3/4 through the left side of O'Malley's name with Bernie's name firmly to the left. Everybody else is firmly to the right.
rurallib
(62,411 posts)than I would like.
I actually think much of America is left of Webb now.
The whole damned republican party (tea baggers? reactionaries, maybe?) are off the rails to the right.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)referring to everyone right of Clinton and left of all the Republicans as "centrist."
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)If Webb is the nominee, and that's a big if, I can see myself voting for him. If Webb is the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, he will pick a running mate like him. He may most likely pick former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) as his running mate.
still_one
(92,187 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am tring to find reasons to like webb in case he were the nom. but he 's not giving me much to work with
still_one
(92,187 posts)traction after the first debate, but I suspect Webb and Chaffee won't be in the top 3
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)are not likely to get much more interest. i would like to see more of om though.
still_one
(92,187 posts)opportunity to defend their views on the issues
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)still_one
(92,187 posts)sure if those are moderate positions.
TexasTowelie
(112,159 posts)or our team won't get any decent yardage.
Oops, wrong forum--I thought I was in the Sports Group.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)He is very much for the middle class and dislikes lobbyists and that running for public office beholdens a person to corporate masters. Both Clinton and Biden are Third Way Democrats who owe allegiance to corporate interests. RI think that you have a narrow definition of progressive and moderate. Bernie is certainly the most progressive; however, I am not sure that Webb is the most moderate--depends on your definition.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)1. Sanders
Everyone else running for the Democratic nod.
Republicans.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)they obviously differ in personality, but if you had them vote on real legislation or describe the "big issue" goals of Democrats, they would agree 90% of the time. If anything, Bernie's socialist roots do stand out, but he's a bit nuanced on some issues where he backs off the pure "socialist" position and moves to the center.
Certainly, the Democrats are much more homogeneous than the GOP candidates on major issues. The repubs have major splits on serious questions.
Even here on DU, enthusiastic supporters argue desperately over minor or irrelevant topics that will not likely be important or realistically get through Congress. More often, personal and character attacks are the norm.
The value differences are in the details, but not in the overall direction.
OTOH, there are certainly differences in experience that would be useful to being a President.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Chafee has favored privatizing Social Security and he's a huge Free Trade advocate. If DU is concerned with things like TPP, note that Chafee votes for all of them, while Clinton only votes for some trade deals. In the Senate as a Republican Chafee voted for CAFTA, while Hillary was among the Democratic no votes.
Chafee voted against the IWR, but he also voted for George HW Bush who started a war in Iraq then voted for George W Bush who started another one. Chafee had voted for Bushes, war machines and Republican foreign policy for decades. Without the Bushes and their policies that IWR would not even have been on the table. So his no vote, it's not that much.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)We need to see if she actually takes some firm positions during the debates. Then we can decide where she is on the political spectrum.