Moderate vs. Progressive

[Trumpocalypse]

There has been a lot of talk about what type of nominee the party should go with for 2020. Should we choose someone from the moderate wing or someone more progressive. There are pluses and minuses to both.

In the past the party has usually nominated the more moderate candidate running in the primaries, such as Bill Clinton. However, it can be argued that while more of a moderate that Barack Obama was more progressive than Hillary Clinton. So which is the best direction to go in 2020.

Going with a more progressive candidate (such as Warren or Sanders) would excite the base which is where the energy in the party is at the moment. The danger here is that white working class voters, who voted for Obama and then defected to Trump, in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania might be alienated by a candidate who is too progressive and either stay home or vote for Trump again.

A more moderate candidate (like Klobuchar or Biden) would bring back these voters. However, someone more moderate might not excite Progressive voters and like in 2000 & 2016, they might vote for a third party candidate (E.G. Jill Stein) or stay home.

It is a bit of a conundrum. I curious as to what others here think. And which of the current candidates would be considered a moderate or progressive.

[LexVegas]

1. Minorities are the base. Warren and Sanders won't excite them. nt

[NurseJackie]

19. They don't excite me either.

[dogman]

2. We are facing a future in which the Judicial Branch has been overrun by the Right.

I would like us to counter with an Executive and Legislative Branch that will protect our rights. I don't believe the courts will do the job we have relied on in the past.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

3. I don't accept the idea that BS is a "progressive."

Progressives, in my estimation, need to advance progress. It has to be real and tangible.

Those who set back progress are regressives.

[JonLP24]

6. He was the first chair of the Progressive Caucas

If he isn't one then who is?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2018/senate/ideology

I remember when this board wouldn't allow people to call Obama 'Barry' but I have to read BS daily.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

7. I think all the major Democratic candidates are more progressive than BS.

Biden, Booker, Harris, Warren, and Klobuchar included.

I'd support any of them.

[JonLP24]

10. Warren had the most liberal Senate record in 2016

Gillibrand is the most liberal or progressive for 2018. Al Franken was #1 in 2017. Sanders was #2 the last 3 years -- has the most liberal Senate record over a 10 year period.

I disagree with Biden as a Progressive.

DONATE

SEARCH…

Try a year’s worth of award-winning, reader-supported MoJo at a low introductory rate—if you subscribe right now!

The 2020 Race Could Revive a Bitter Feud Between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren
If he enters the race, the former vice president could find himself defending his middle-class credentials over an old bankruptcy reform effort.
TIM MURPHY
FEBRUARY 6, 2019 12:30 PM
Bide and Warren at her swearing-in
Chip Somodevilla/Getty

Looking for news you can trust?
Subscribe to our free newsletters.
EMAIL
Joe Biden was outraged. In February 2005, after eight years of starts and stops, the Senate was finally moving forward on a landmark overhaul of the nation’s bankruptcy laws—a bipartisan behemoth piece of legislation, backed by big banks and credit card companies, that the Delaware senator had taken a lead role in shepherding. But at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing on the bill, one of the witnesses had said something about his home state that Biden couldn’t let stand.

The witness’ specific concern was Delaware’s unique status as the venue of choice for large corporations filing for bankruptcy. Companies understood that the courts there (where many of the companies were nominally incorporated) were more likely to take their side against creditors, such as employee pension plans. And the venue-shopping opened up a broader issue of access; massive companies such as Enron could choose a forum thousands of miles away from where their employees lived, effectively shutting the workers out of the process. The Delaware option allowed companies to “escape the obligation to make the process open,” the witness said, while the millions of individuals filing for personal bankruptcy every year had no such luxury.

“I find the language that is used kind of fascinating—‘escape from the obligation to be open,’” Biden said in response. Was this witness suggesting “that the Delaware chancery court is not open, is somehow an unfair court? I find it outrageous, such a statement.”


Advertise with Mother Jones
“Maybe you can tell me,” he asked. “Is it not a competent court? Is it not an open court?”

Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School bankruptcy professor who had been testifying vigorously against the bill for more than an hour, replied, “Are you asking me, senator?”

“Well, yes,” Biden said. “You are the one that said ‘escape the obligation of making the process open.’”

“Actually, senator, bankruptcy cases are not heard in Delaware chancery court.”





inRead invented by Teads

Advertise with Mother Jones
Biden quickly corrected himself—bankruptcy cases are heard in bankruptcy court—but the exchange was emblematic of things to come. For the next 14 minutes, running well over Biden’s allotted time for questioning, he and Warren debated the role of government in a way that felt personal.

It was not the first time the pair had clashed, and it wouldn’t be the last. Long before their Capitol Hill clash, Warren called out Biden by name in op-eds and in her first book, accusing him of carrying water for the big corporations that called his state home and kept his campaign coffers full.

The bankruptcy fight was a pivotal moment for both Warren and Biden, who have each built a political brand based on a defense of the American middle class. Biden is fond of saying that he talks about working families so often his colleagues called him “Middle-Class Joe.” (Exactly who has ever called him that is a mystery.) Warren’s 2017 book was subtitled “The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class.” But there’s a key difference. In Warren’s telling, politicians like Joe Biden are exactly who the middle class needs protection from. And as the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign slowly heats up, the two may be on a collision course once more.

The primary point of conflict between Warren and Biden has been bankruptcy reform, which was accomplished with Biden’s 2005 bill. Though the law was enormously complex, its most important consequence was simple—the legislation made it harder for millions of Americans who had fallen into debt and who sought relief through bankruptcy to break free from their obligations. At the same time, the bill entitled creditors, such as car companies or mortgage lenders, to an even greater share of their assets.

Warren, whose research at Harvard focused on the causes of individual bankruptcy, had allies in her fight against Biden’s bill. Women’s groups, including the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, opposed the measure because of the disparate impact it would have on women, who made up a rapidly increasing percentage of all personal bankruptcy filings. The legislation also made it harder for single mothers to collect child support from bankrupt exes, by strengthening protections for other creditors.


Warren on Biden



Warren first began publicly taking on Biden in 2002, when she wrote a paper for the Harvard Women’s Law Journal suggesting that his position on bankruptcy had been effectively bought.

“His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat,” she wrote. With a touch of snark, she added, “This important part of Senator Biden’s legislative work also appears to be missing from his Web site and publicity releases.”

And in a New York Times op-ed that year she called the bankruptcy bill “unconscionable,” singling out Biden for his work on it. “Apparently many politicians believe they can remove the last safety net for families facing financial disaster (many of which are led by women) so long as they can find another highly visible issue that lets them proclaim their support for women,” she wrote.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/02/the-2020-race-could-revive-a-bitter-feud-between-joe-biden-and-elizabeth-warren/

I will try to find a more specific article I wish I bookmarked.

Kamala Harris has a very progressive Senate record but she wasn't a Progressive prosecutor but she is anti death penalty as a prosecutor which is a huge plus. Booker I'm not sure he's close but I hear he is also close to Wall Street as well.

[crazycatlady]

18. define progressive prosecutor

I am in the middle of reading her book right now. Against the will of her staff, she personally called Jamie Dimon (Chase CEO) and upped the settlement for the foreclosure crisis.

While prosecutor (state or local/county) isn't an inherently progressive position, there are a few that have a record of going after big business.

Booker-- many of his constituents work on Wall Street and for Big Pharma.

[JonLP24]

22. From what I understand she didn't prosecute Mnuchin but that isn't what bothers me most

The court found that Larsen had shown he was "actually innocent," that the police officers at Larsen’s trial were not credible, and that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call witnesses on his behalf.

But before he was released, California Attorney General Kamala Harris is challenging Larsen's release, saying he hadn't presented proof that he was innocent quickly enough, the Innocence Project said.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Daniel-Larsen-Murder-Conviction-Overturned-Innocence-Project-198996291.html

There are good things like resisting political pressure on the death penalty.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Anybody who wants to can find who accomplished what and in how long.

I tried to point it out here recently but certain folks wont listen.


I would not consider someone with more than 30 years in high office with one, two at the most bills to point to as productive and meaningful. Progressive would require accomplishment.

[Hortensis]

32. Judging by accomplishments, Sanders is among the least

progressive. Over 25 years of being an I-Sanders +1 vote for Democratic caucus legislation did not make him a leader or an achiever.

And if one added in his effect on the results of the 2016 elections, he would have to be considered anti-progressive, despite his claims.

I do. Because when actions belie rhetoric, I believe the actions. And their results. My best guess for why he did what he did is that he was willing to risk all in his pursuit of power, that he is a classic True Believer -- in himself.

Verdict.Justicia.com: How Bad Will Things Become? Part Seven: Goodbye, New Deal and Great Society?
https://verdict.justia.com/2018/11/15/how-bad-will-things-become-part-seven-goodbye-new-deal-and-great-society

This prognosis was written even after the midterms improved our chances for survival from where 2016's sabotaged elections left us.

[Power 2 the People]

9. +1

[Trumpocalypse]

20. According to that list

the most progressive Senator is Gillibrand. She is really more of a moderate.

[JonLP24]

21. She has a more conservative record as a Congresswoman

But as a Senator she has moved to the left. She came out against the Amazon deal.

[brooklynite]

4. How many Progressive voters need to be "excited" in order to vote?

After seeing what four years of Trump was like?

[Awsi Dooger]

8. Exactly...turnout means nothing compared to preference

There is no extra pie, no bonus pie. You have to take steps to win the biggest slice of the pie.

The losing argument here in Florida was that Andrew Gillum would motivate the base and help Nelson along that way, while turning out voters who wouldn't show up for Gwen Graham. Meanwhile the reality was exactly the opposite and now I'm stuck with Ron DeSantis. Democratic turnout in crucial Miami-Dade was awful and Gillum was rejected by 46% of Floridians as too liberal for the state. And anyone who lives here and gets to know people in the community would understand the possibility of that type of thing, given the complicated nature of the Hispanic vote.

[radius777]

23. Gillum could've won if FL Dems had their act together.

If Nelson didn't win I don't see how Graham could have.

Energy and turnout does matter, Hillary lost crucial states mainly because Dem turnout was down.

I do agree that moving too far left doesn't work, as most voters worry about high taxes, crime, national security, etc - why Reagan won those landslides, and why Bill Clinton was able to save the Dem party from itself by presenting a center-left worldview that was also inspiring.

[JonLP24]

5. I think you overestimate a moderate's appeal to working class white or working class

I think an authentic progressive can swing more votes and it was embracing the right bad ideas that cost us when we could have solidified a long term Democratic Presidency. Obama voters flipped to Trump not because Obama wasn't moderate enough.

[Trumpocalypse]

11. John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale

Might disagree with you. But then none of them were running against Trump.

[JonLP24]

14. After 8 years of Bill Clinton occasionally backing right wing policy

Is what cost the party the 2000 election not to mention the obstruction of justice. Then a terrible Republican takes over then of course the Democrats win after a terrible Presidency but instead of enacting progressive change (other than the Republican's health care idea) going with TPP to finish out a Presidency all Trump had to do was pretend to be on the left on trade and steal the rust belt.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. I agree

Nader ran against Clinton’s record and cost us the election.

[radius777]

24. False, problem w/2000 was Bill wasn't on the ticket.

In a hypothetical world w/o term limits, Bill would've won in a landslide as the economy was still good (despite the tech bubble) and voters were happy with his performance. The Lewinsky/Starr witchhunt backfired on the GOP and Bill's approval numbers were sky high.

Gore (ideologically the same as Bill) was boring and lacked Bill's charisma, but still won the popular vote, and would've won easily if he didn't try to distance himself from Bill (picking the moralistic Lieberman was part of this strategy).

[CrossingTheRubicon]

12. Working class white men are not generally in the forefront of the "progressive movement."

I understand that's the group in which BS hopes to score, a point you honestly acknowledge here, but in so doing I think you've helped make my point.

[Hortensis]

36. Your choice of language leaves out the strong liberal

majority who control the Democratic Party, both from inside as leaders and outside as voters.

Calling people "moderate" as in practically conservative and "authentic progressive" doesn't make them so, JonL. Reality is that to be liberal since our nation was established is to also be progressive, although they are not the same thing.

Another reality is that the people Democrats have been electing to the house in this century are typically very solidly liberal, the only exceptions being from conservative blue-dog districts. Our senators average solidly liberal but somewhat less so because they are elected by entire states and must appeal to majorities in those states.

Here's another reality: Most of our party leaders average a lot more progressive and liberal than our voters as a whole. That shouldn't be a surprise. They're almost all lifelong liberals by nature, they understand the problems and solutions a lot better, and they're unaffected by the anti-liberal Kool-Aid our nation is flooded with.

Sounds like you probably missed this huge indicator of just who Nancy Pelosi is, but then the MSM didn't exactly highlight her position that the centimillionaire/billionaire classes must be destroyed to save our democracy. I noticed because I firmly believe that also.

Nancy Pelosi addressing the nation last month: As Justice Brandeis said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” We must end that injustice and restore the public’s faith in a better future for themselves and their children.

[JonLP24]

37. I know who is moderate, progressive-liberal, or blue dog

Like my Senator. My congressman is also voting recently like a blue dog but a Democrat could win this district no matter what. Trump also lost in my district.

Income inequality is out of control in the US compared to most countries. I donated to Sanders because he is in the lead most fundraising, most popular politician, but also donated to Tulsi Gabbard who isn't as liberal or progressive as someone like Barbara Lee but I agree with her foreign policy. I also donated to Warren because I can trust her to look out for the working class.

[Hortensis]

39. You say you do, then write this stuff? Re-read what

I wrote, please. Income inequality is out of control because a majority of the electorate has been enabling Republican transfers of wealth and power to their donor classes.

If you want to reverse that, I'd suggest trying to empower our democratic leadership by telling others to stop being inexcusably stupid. When the power that's been denied our party for the past 40 years is restored, we can and will do

Don't hang your hopes on Sanders, btw. Over going on 30 years, Sanders has never accomplished more than his role as a +1 vote to Democratic caucuses. He can't. This isn't a one-man job, and his colleagues who dismissed him as the insulting gadly he was before 2016 now despise him. Remember his 0 endorsements when he announced?)

Btw, in spite of relentless opposition from the Republican congress voters elected, Obama was able to INCREASE personal income taxes on the very wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. That's PRE- end of the New Deal era, JonL. Why not remember that and take it for another huge clue to who you need to support?

[JonLP24]

40. Leahy endorsed him as soon as he announced

I already know enough on who to support. He pressured Amazon to increase their minimum wage saved the VA by working with McCain and preventing the Republicans from fully privatizing it. Im proud of the work he has done and his historically correct positions on this issue. He may not be perfect but I can't find a candidate that is. What I don't want is Biden to win and his bankruptcy reform did not help our family out so I'll pour my money into the best progressive that has a chance at beating Biden and that may be Sanders.

[Hortensis]

42. I didn't say don't admire Sanders, just don't expect

achievement from him. Give him a powerful Democratic Party to vote with. We haven't been able to halt, only retard, the flow of wealth and power to the very wealthy because we haven't had more power than the Republicans for long enough to make it happen.

And, btw, there are huge power blocs outside government. Of course, most have supported the Republicans and grown greatly as a result of it. It takes real power to overcome them AND those outside forces, and we haven't had it for a very long time.

Not my fault, I can assure you. I've never wavered in opposition to economic inequality.

Btw, Senator Leahy did refuse to endorse his fellow Vermonter in 2016 and strongly endorsed Hillary for president. This time? Leahy has a middlin' liberal record, and Sanders is reportedly moving from the far left toward Leahy in the Democratic middle for this campaign. But to get what you want, you don't elect non-achievers or help Republicans into office. That's basic.

[JonLP24]

44. I think a popular candidate on the ticket whoever it is can bring in a blue wave on lower bottom tic

I voted my blue dogs into office though I feel like my concerns are on the bottom of their concerns. Also I voted Democrat for President and every single time all the electoral votes went to the Republican.

I disagree on Sanders being a non-achiever. I'm a non achiever, I could only dream of accomplishing what Sanders has accomplished in his lifetime. One thing about the major candidates is they are all highly qualified.

I don't see how I help Republicans when I'm giving money mainly because I want to see Trump defeated. How am I helping Republicans giving money to those running as Democrats?

[Hortensis]

45. We can all support whomever really appeals in the primary,

of course. But never forgetting we MUST defeat the grave threat the authoritarians on the right now pose to democracy.

If we lose our power to determine our own destiny, we won't just lose Social Security, national healthcare, our protections against authoritarian government temporarily. We wouldn't be able to use voting power we no longer had to get our democracy back and would be in the worst trouble Americans have ever been in.

The authoritarian voters who currently support government that uses extreme cruelty against brown children as government policy will support government that uses it against those of us who oppose them. A lot of them actually really want that to happen.

Eyes open, awareness fully engaged is all.

[MineralMan]

13. Wrong question, I think.

All of the Democratic candidates are progressives. To different degrees, and with different views on specific things. But they're all progressive.

We need to stop dividing the party into two groups. It's an artificial division. Look at the party platform. All of the current and potential candidates support it, at a minimum.

Some people look at one or two particular issues and judge candidates only on those. That's a huge mistake. The reality is that laws in this country come only after a long process in Congress. What a President thinks or wants has little to do with them. Instead, it is who is elected to Congress that matters. Elect a major majority of Democrats to Congress, and you'll see progressive measures become law, regardless of which Democrat is in the White House. Don't do that, and it won't matter.

Watch and see who gets the nomination. Vote for that person for President. Then, work your ass off in your own state and district to elect Democrats to Congress. That will work.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. Good points nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. This is very rough. I don't like doing these exercises because they are more similar than dissimilar

From left to right

Sanders
Warren
Harris
Booker
Beto
Klobuchar
Biden

[jcgoldie]

31. I see Sanders often referred to as the most progressive candidate...

And yet with these senators, most analysis of their actual votes puts Warren and Harris clearly to his left. He is progressive economically but much less so on issues involving race and gender. He's also the only major candidate we have which the NRA doesn't rate an F. That fact alone in my personal ideology continuum (which I'm aware matters to no-one but me) makes him far from the least progressive candidate in the field.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

25. Given who I support at the moment, this will sound contradictory

With the exceptions of HW Bush and Bill Clinton, both parties have succeeded (at different times) moving away from the center - not staying in it.

Younger/pinker (i.e. more women)/lefter for the most part, worked in the midterms. I think we have to consider that in 2020, but just going more progressive does nothing if a) we can't sell voters on the idea that we deliver what we promise and b) that we excite voters and not terrify them.

[fascisthunter]

27. divisive garbage

[marylandblue]

28. It's critical to understand that there is more than one type of progressive

There are social progressives - the ones who fight for equal rights for all disadvantaged groups, and economic progressives - the ones who fight for jobs and economic programs. Obviously someone can be both, but many people are much more interested in one than the other. The Democratic party is a coalition types of progressives, plus moderates in the Clinton mode and Republican refugees. Those Obama voters who defected to Trump are economic progressives and moderates who felt threatened or left behind by social progressives.

So the best candidate would be the one who can build the biggest coalition uniting (or in some cases, creating new) progressives and moderates.

Sanders is an almost pure economic progressive. He's all about economic redistribution and taking power from corporations. Can he attract enough social progressives and moderates to build an effective coalition? Maybe.

Booker and Harris are, simply as a matter of race, assumed to be social progressives. As Obama was. Can they attract enough economic progressives to make it? Booker may have trouble because of his ties to big pharma. On the other hand, Harris' background as a tough prosecutor may turn some off social progressives.

Biden is more of a moderate than a progressive. He's been on the wrong side of too many issues over the years to be something else. Can progressives look past that and go for the center? I doubt it, that worked in the 90s, but it doesn't work anymore.

That's part of why I like Brown. I think he can appeal to both types of progressives plus moderates.

Maybe I am wrong about which candidate appeals to which group. But I am more confident that the winner will be the one who can build the emerging Democratic coalition. And I also think the coalition he or she builds will last 20 years or more, so it's important.to think about what this coalition will look like.

[Demsrule86]

34. I will just say that anyone who calls themselves a progressive and doesn't vote for the

Democratic nominee...should turn in their progressive card because they are not anything of the sort.

[marylandblue]

38. People on the margins of coalitions are chronically indecisive.

About 80-90% of voters know what they think and always vote the same way. The remaining 10-20% don't know if they will vote at all or who they will vote for.

Hard for us committed folks to understand, but that's how it is. Campaigns are aimed at getting those marginal people to turn out. Not you and me because our votes are in the bag.

Those marginal voters needs to feel the candidate addresses their issues. The main issues will not be the same for each voter.

[Demsrule86]

41. There will be no pleasing such voters and we should go for the most electable

candidate . I like Sherrod a great deal. He is my Senator...I hate giving up the Senate seat though...and name recognition is a concern.

[marylandblue]

43. If every voter were a committed progressive there would no need for campaigns.

[Florida Bull]

29. I recommend

Progressive and being assertive, especially on easy consensus things like Healthcare and the Environment. Democrats can probably agree on at least At-Rate Payer and nationally expanded Medicaid (for those who make too little money for ACA subsidies), if not Medicare-for-All. And, even some Conservatives do not like fracking and offshore oil drilling, at least in Florida. Democrats were able to get George W. Bush to sign a Liberal but bipartisan bill improving energy efficiency, after the 2006 midterms.

Conservatives might oppose it now. But, we should even be able to get people in Red states to support action on Climate Change, by talking to them. For example, telling people about even hotter temperatures in Arizona, rising sea levels in Lousiana, and crop failures in Kansas and Iowa.

We should appeal to the Working Class in the Midwest and promote turnout in new Blue states like Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.

[Florida Bull]

30. I guess

I meant All-Payer healthcare reform (instead of At-Rate Payer), like what is in place in Maryland. Extreme Prescription costs also need to be addressed, especially so nobody has to die.

[Demsrule86]

33. The fact is if we want to win, we must have a big tent approach. We won

the house with moderate candidates...so either progressives will finally realize, vote Democratic always or we will lose and one more lost with destroy any chance of a progressive agenda. Independents whom we need will not vote for super progressive candidates. Personally I will vote for Biden and think a VP like Kamala Harris would help us win. Some are always telling us breathlessly that the country has moved left...judging by the Senate and the house elections of 18, that simply isn't true. And unless we want a shellacking, we will run a candidate that can appeal to most.

[Peacetrain]

35. I am a Liberal!

I never became a Progressive.. never sure what that was anyway.. other than running away from the word Liberal the right worked 24/7 to demonize, maybe I am one, but I self identify as Liberal.. and not sure what a moderate is.. other that willing to listen to both sides.. okay I am willing to do that.. but I am sticking by my Liberal principles.. (of which that happens to be one)

[forklift]

46. You're playing the Republican playbook

There isn't much of a difference between our moderates and progressives but there is a HUGE difference between even our conservatives and their moderates.

Don't fall for that . Let's all vow to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who he or she happens to be. PERIOD.


I wish more people had followed this the last time around.

A nominee who is closer to 90% of our positions is still 1000 times better than a Republican. Haven't we learnt that lesson yet?