Elizabeth Warren: 'I am not a' Democratic Socialist

[TexasTowelie]

Washington (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said Saturday that she is not a Democratic Socialist, drawing a line between herself and her Senate colleague and 2020 opponent Bernie Sanders whose views draw frequent comparisons between the two.

Warren made the comment at an event at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, where she was being interviewed by writer Anand Giridharadas, who asked her to explain the "crux of the difference" between her views and those of Sanders, an independent from Vermont who identifies as a Democratic Socialist. She also declined to go into details of a conversation she had with Sanders in which he reportedly discouraged her from running for president.

"Bernie has to speak to what Democratic Socialism is," replied Warren, who represents Massachusetts in the Senate.

"And you are not one?" Giridharadas asked.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/09/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-south-by-southwest/index.html

[Tiggeroshii]

1. At the end of the day people care about whether you represent them

and their interests. Not what you call yourself.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Exactly right!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Horizens]

26. WRONG

What you call yourself does matter and associating yourself as socialist is a LOSER>

[empedocles]

30. The NBC/WSJ recently cited by Brooklynite is a reality check.

Elizabeth has always been the really smart one.

[Which is less important in our world than maybe it should be].

[Honeycombe8]

54. I totally agree!

If "Democrat" meant "socialist," there would be no need for some to self-identify as "socialist" or "Democratic Socialist."

Millions of people will not vote for someone associated with the term "socialist", IMO.

[Cha]

2. Of course.. why would she be labeled

something she's not.

She has enough on her plate without having to explain what he calls himself.

ETA.. Did BS really try to ".. discourage EW from running.."?!

[Eric J in MN]

11. I doubt it. I read reports of that meeting at the time

...and none of them said he discouraged her from running.

[JI7]

3. conversation with "Sanders in which he reportedly discouraged her from running for president"

what ?

[OnDoutside]

6. That's certainly a "Say what now?" sentence.

[Eric J in MN]

12. I read reports of the meeting which didn't say that.

I don't know whose report the supposed "reportedly" comes from.

[backabby-blue]

21. She did not deny it.

It looked to me like she wanted to confirm.

[lapucelle]

52. CNN alluded to the conversation in their report, and Warren neither confirmed nor denied.

Warren made the comment at an event at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, where she was being interviewed by writer Anand Giridharadas, who asked her to explain the "crux of the difference" between her views and those of Sanders, an independent from Vermont who identifies as a Democratic Socialist.

She also declined to go into details of a conversation she had with Sanders in which he reportedly discouraged her from running for president.

snip=================================================

Asked earlier about the dinner, Warren said she was keeping details of the conversation to herself.
"Bernie and I had a private dinner. My view is that dinner stays private," Warren said.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/09/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-south-by-southwest/index.html

[Eric J in MN]

65. Taking the position that a private conversation is private

...doesn't allow confirming-or-denying when someone says, "Was this discussed? Was that discussed?"

[lapucelle]

67. It was a brilliant answer. N/T

[Hortensis]

4. Her progressive achievements would be head and shoulders

above his even if he had something significant to compare to. She's a doer and I really like her for that. Many will remember that it wasn't Sanders whom Wall Street threatened to go to war against to stop in 2016.

Don't like corporate thieves, look at who scares them. And who does not.

[True Blue American]

7. Agreed!

Elizabeth is a fighter for the little guy. Think what a team Warren/ Brown would make! The only 2 with proven records .

[emulatorloo]

27. She's tough, has accomplishments, and can produce concrete policy proposals

[Hortensis]

46. Another thread that was bemoaning our lost morality, as if we

were ants directed by one mind or something, made me think about our candidates. Elizabeth Warren is a person of good character also.

If we'd all put that high on our list of requirements, Russian and Chinese interference would be vanquished. No honorable candidate would allow America's enemies to wage war on our nation by deceiving his supporters. That would be a massive betrayal of their trust, just to begin with.

[emulatorloo]

47. Very well said

[forklift]

5. Translation

Anything with "socialist" in it is radioactive to the American electorate.

[True Blue American]

8. As it should be.

[JI7]

13. and the fact that she actually is not a socalist . supporting social security, even break up of

large companies etc does not make one a socialist.

[crazytown]

19. Breaking up monopolist companies is 'Progressive'

textbook progressive, the hallmark of the Progressive Era.

[JI7]

22. I said it wasn't socialist

[CousinIT]

15. According to MorningJoke, anyone who won't say they're a "capitalist" or who is against

"free market", completely unregulated, completely un-taxed capitalism is kryptonite to the American electorate.

So I'm being told by the media that I MUST be FOR capitalism and I MUST be AGAINST so-called "socialism" (ie: Bernie Sanders and AOC style stuff) or I'm being "scary".

Alrighty then. Let's talk about SCARY.

Capitalism, unless VERY TIGHTLY REGULATED by government DOES. NOT. WORK. And it especially doesn't work when the capitalists are RUNNING and OWN the government. Look at our environmental destruction, privatized education, prison and healthcare systems: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-22/priced-out-of-health-insurance-americans-rig-their-own-safety-nets



IT. DOESN'T. WORK. Does anybody know anything about The Great Depression? What happened there? How about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? How about The Great Recession in 2008? All this shit caused by capitalism. Climate change? CAUSED BY CORPRAT GREED AND CORPRAT GOVERNMENT CONTROL IE: CAPITALISM.

What's wrong with our goddamned so-called "news" media? CAPITALISM.

The healthcare system in America - why is IT so fucked up? CAPITALISM.

Capitalism, by its nature, is a predatory parasitic system. IT MUST BE REGULATED by an un-coerced government to FORCE it to work for the common good, rather than just for itself; to PREVENT it from destroying the public commons, natural environment, economy just to serve itself.

Right now in the US, capitalism OWNS & CONTROLS the government + the media. It destroys lives from before birth to after death; renders the US economy an unstable, nerve-wracking, unsustainable mess; and it is quickly making uninhabitable the only planet humans have to live on.

YET Americans defend this goddamned immoral system. It does not work. It has N E V E R worked, never been sustainable, always created those few winners at the top while everyone else struggles over crumbs, it has destroyed the government, the common good and the natural environment. IT LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE by the millions.

UNLESS Americans WISE. UP. and elect people who will SHUT CAPITALIST LOBBYISTS, CXOS and former corporate executives OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT and OUT of our regulatory agencies and who REFUSE to take any corporate money for campaigns, we're well and duly screwed by capitalism.

Am I willing to try DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM? YES.

[forklift]

17. so you're saying

socialist good , capitalist bad with pictures of impoverished children for effect?

btw there is no such thing as "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" It is a Bernie invention to take the edge off socialism ... sort of like putting something really smelly inside a ziplock bag to lower the stench.

There are Social Democrats in Scandinavia and Western Europe and in the US, FDR could be called a Social Democrat.

Democratic Socialism only exists in Bernie's and his sycophants' head. It is one or more of jealousy, anger or vengefulness directed at rich people.

That is not how the American economy works.

I am all for higher taxes on the rich and stringent regulation of business -- but not at confiscatory or suffocating levels.

[CousinIT]

18. OK. Call it "Social Democracy"

I don't care what you call the alternative but it's damn clear that CAPITALISM. DOESN'T. WORK.

Being against predatory capitalism (and there is no other kind) does not == "vengefulness directed at rich people".

If you've distilled it down to that, then you didn't read what I wrote, are totally unaware of history or are just being willfully ignorant.

[forklift]

24. What I see in the so called democratic socialists

is a visceral anger at rich people and corporations and that is Bernie's core "stick it to the rich guys" support.


That is the driving force behind Bernie and I am aware of history and am certainly not ignorant.

"Tax the rich and the corporations and give free stuff to me." is the basis of Bernie's college campus success - free tuition for example.

People whose policy making prowess is deeper and broader than naming post offices have to think about all the ramifications of a given program. Presidents Obama and Clinton were real, thoughtful, methodical and analytical policy wonks who never promised a rose garden to get votes. They set realistic objectives.

[Hortensis]

55. Yes! That behavior is intrinsic to POPULISM, though populists

can also identify as socialists maoist, democrat, theocrat or whatever. The hostile energy that is populism can be used to the benefit of almost any political or economic system or leader, but is most valuable as a way for people who can't win elections normally to take over or bring down governments that most people want to keep. Of course, they're ALL "reformers" who will smite corrupt elites for their righteously resentful followers, "the people."

So sure it's the driving force used by both Sanders and Trump. Sanders has been competing with Trump all along for the people you describe and is very up front about how he hopes to draw more trumpsters to him this election. Whether potential followers are coming from the right or the left, though, the more he and Trump bash Democrats the more happy those drawn to them will be with their choice of leader. Bump ride ahead.

Btw, I wouldn't say they expect everything to be given to them free, though. In fact, most are economically progressive and fine with paying taxes as part of the system. Populist groups come to be dominated by their many social conservatives, powerfully mean forces that they generate, though, and we all know social conservatives tend to despise a whole lot of "others." Storms in utopia.

[forklift]

63. You expressed it far better than I could ever have! nt

[CousinIT]

59. Newsflash: I'm not a Bernie Sanders supporter.

So attacking him or his ideology doesn't make one damn thing I wrote untrue.

Not. One. It doesn't change the poverty statistics, for instance. But you don't want to argue about that. It's a losing argument for you.

I have no problem with rich people or corporations. I DO have a problem with them owning and controlling MY government, the healthcare system, the education system, the prison system and their greed destroying the ONLY planet I have to live on. I do have a problem with them hoarding so much wealth via tax and other advantages that everyone else either does without or desperately fights for scraps of what's left for the common good. (I believe FDR believed in the common good). But you don't want to argue about that. It's a losing argument for you, too.

This has nothing to do with "Ah hatez rich peoples!"

Again, you've reduced it to that.

I'm sorry for your tunnel vision. But I stick by what I wrote and why I wrote it. The facts stand. Capitalism as it is, with capitalists owning and controlling our government, paying no taxes and being practically completely unregulated is predatory, unsustainable, parasitic and rapacious. It doesn't work. It has never worked.

If that makes people sick, scared, dizzy or exasperated then I say GOOD. It's time people stopped to think about this instead of wagging their fingers at those who are sick of being prey for capitalists and calling FDR Democrats (like, yes AOC) "socialists!".

Am I aware that the wildly ignorant society we live in cannot deal with that word? Sure. Then don't use it. Call it something else: progressivism, social democracy, whatever. I get that. I get why Warren denounces it and why she has to.

But arguing the facts and claims I put forth is a losing argument. Arguing that our current economic and social system (capitalism) works is a losing argument. It doesn't. And I will stand by that -- whatever the hell you or Warren or AOC or Harris or anybody else wants to call it or me or however you want to distract, detract, reduce, or change the argument to, instead. Doesn't change the fact that capitalism doesn't work. It's not working now and never has that I'm aware of.

[forklift]

64. Maybe it is time for a new political party for such a passion

as is described in the post I am replying to.

May I be presumptuous and suggest a name? "Pitchfork and Torch Party."

I'd have said "Guillotine" but that is so 1700's.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. In the U.S. FDR would be called a l i b e r a l.

[Honeycombe8]

56. The Democratic Party supports capitalism, with some social programs.

Are you saying you are not a Democrat?

[Aussie105]

9. Counter challenge that:

"What do you actually mean by 'Democratic Socialist'?"

Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different definitions. As a label, it is pointless.
For an interviewer, it is setting a trap - there are a whole list of negative connotations, all of which the interviewer would love to stick on her.

She may more accurately describe herself as a Democrat with a Social Conscience.

[Kurt V.]

14. i watched part of that interview.

she has the ability to explain her views in a way ppl can relate to

[Mike Nelson]

16. Nor am I...

… most people think the term is Communist-style. However, it's the direction most Western-style democracies have been going over the past century. Since FDR, we've been going in that direction... Europe has gone farther... even China has moved. We hoped Russia would do the same, after USSR collapsed, and I suppose they have, in some ways. The greater the population and its needs, the more political systems need to change and adapt. I think the Democrats - the Clintons, Obama, Gore, etc understand and moved the US, but were slowed by the Republicans... Warren and others want the US to pick up some speed.

[Honeycombe8]

57. The U S has had a capitalist economy from the start. At some point,

it started having some social programs. It didn't change from capitalism to socialism, but started some social programs for specific purposes. This is what most First World democracies have done, altho the U S does it to a lesser degree.

The idea of the American Dream is based on capitalism. You can work your up to a better standard of living, you can open a deli on the corner and prosper from it, you can sell things on Ebay and make money to better your standard of living. That's capitalism. But the U S started some social programs to help vulnerable people, like elderly people living in poverty, children without nutritious food, and such.

The Democratic Party fully supports those social programs and wants to enlarge them. Republicans want to streamline them, or remove them altogether....pure "you're on your own" capitalism. They think that begging should take the place of social programs, so that churches can provide charity to people.

I am a Democrat. I believe in capitalism...being able to prosper from your own hard work. But I believe that the social programs are necessary, and that something needs to be done about healthcare for all. This is laid out in the latest Democratic Party Platform, although it will be revised for 2020.

[Mike Nelson]

68. Sounds good to me...

... our candidates could answer questions about "socialism" and democracies like this, without being scary.

[Blue_true]

73. All advanced western democracies except us embrace Social Democracy.

Social Democracy builds a strong social net over capitalism, but otherwise leave business in private hands, with strong well thought out regulation. Democratic Socialism advocates for complete state control of businesses. The two are vastly different and only the first has worked.

[Recursion]

20. Ironically, given how people misuse the term, she is probably the most neoliberal candidate running

I honestly have no idea why the Venn diagram of her support and Sanders's support overlap so much: they have essentially nothing in common.

[emulatorloo]

28. Neoliberal? So she's like Margaret Thatcher? Believes in trickle down economics? A thousand

points of light?

Unmitigated bullshit.

[Recursion]

31. I mean, yes: she voted for Ronald Reagan twice, and George H W Bush twice

And Bob Dole. Her views haven't changed. Have you read her books, particularly "The Two Income Trap"?

[Lazy Daisy]

25. "Bernie has to speak to what Democratic Socialism is"

As if it's an indictment. I'm disappointed in her.

I see too many running away from the boogyman and it's starting to bother me. We've run so far to the right in fear of being called names. When do we start to remember sticks and stones and all that.

This "free shit" pisses me off. NOTHING IS FREE. People know that. Universal healthcare is not free, it's paid for by individuals from their paycheck, employers and taxpayers. WHY DO WE NOT WANT A HEALTHY CITIZENRY. Taxpayer funded university is not free, it's paid for by taxpayers just like grade school and high school. WHY DO WE NOT WANT A EDUCATED CITIZENRY?

Unhealthy, uneducated people are much easier to keep down, to oppress.

[emulatorloo]

29. Then let Bernie educate voters on his positions. It's not Warren's job

or any other candidate’s job to serve as a Sanders surrogate.

It is Senator Sanders’ job to come up with his own concrete policy positions and convince voters he is the best choice for President.

[Lazy Daisy]

32. Never said it was

It's just very disappointing the words SHE chose. There are better ways she can separate herself from Bernie, she shouldn't try to indict those who believe some social programs will benefit our country. That's not going to get anyone who teeters between the two to convert.

[emulatorloo]

33. Democrats have long been the champions of social programs.

Financial assistance, social security, Medicare, etc are all Democratic programs. There would be no safety if not for Democrats.

I have no clue as to why you think Warren is “indicting those who believe some social programs will benefit our country.”

Because it is simply not true. All of our candidates are champions of social programs to help and lift up people

[Lazy Daisy]

39. OK

Financial assistance - 1935 - Franklin Roosevelt
Social security - 1935 - Franklin Roosevelt
Medicare - 1965 - Lyndon Johnson
Medicaid - 1965 - Lyndon Johnson

But since then Democrats have been trying to appease Republicans with cuts to social programs. Hell, even President Obama was looking at cuts to Social Security and Medicare in order to show he was willing to work with them. They sure as hell weren't willing to work with him. He was able to give us the ACA (which was originally "Romneycare" so hows that for appeasing) probably thinking if he works with a republican healthcare proposal he'd get some support from them. The asshats still opposed him.

It's high time we stop appeasing Republicans and start moving BACK left. Elizabeth Warrens choice of words looks like an indictment. Very disappointing.

[emulatorloo]

45. Ah yes, we all remember the day Obama cut Social Security and Medicare

Actually I don’t remember that, because he never did that.

I think if you compare the ACA to Republicans plans, you’ll see that for one thing that the ACA massively expanded Medicaid. Republican plans call for reducing/killing Medicaid.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS NOT REMOTELY SIMILAR TO THE HERITAGE PLAN
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-affordable-care-act-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan

The public option was a great step forward towards single payer, but was killed in the Senate by Republicans and Joe Lieberman.

Have a good rest of the weekend.

[Lazy Daisy]

49. I said he wanted to, not that he did

[link:https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/reality-check-obama-cuts-social-security-and-medicare-by-much-more-than-the-gop/274919/| this is from 2013

He was trying to work with the unworkable. In giving cuts to SS & medicare he was hoping to get other things like early childcare. Point is, he was willing to give a lot. How'd that work out for him? They opposed EVERYfknTHING he did, even when he was willing to give them more than we got.

We don't need to be "working across the aisle" right now, we need to be pushing back hard.

[emulatorloo]

69. Or he was bluffing to paint Boehner in a corner and show Republicans were acting in bad faith

and only interesting in opposing everything he did, even when he was pretending to give them things they wanted.

That actually worked out pretty well, pretty much exposed the Republicans as the obstructionists they are.

At any rate I only care about things that happened, not things that didn’t happen. Obama neither cut Social Security nor Medicare. He expanded Medicaid, which is part of the safety net.

Neither FDR nor LBJ were socialists, they just wanted to do the right thing. All of our candidates want to do the right thing and build on that legacy.

[Blue_true]

77. She is not indicting the existing social safety net, ALL of her policy proposals have been about how

to make it stronger.

You panned the ACA. Bernie had been in Congress for something like 25+ years before the ACA was passed. Why didn't he use the power of persuasion that you seem to keep saying he has to get healthcare reform passed? One of the features of our political system is that we have to work with republicans. LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed with help from then moderate northern republicans. What we need to do is show the few sane republicans that the only way forward is for them to vote with us, I believe a good number of them did in 2018. If we tell the republicans that are doubting their party's direction or the independents that left the Republican Party because they thought that it was insane that they can go jump in a lake because they are or were republicans, we are not going to get far in changing the country for the better.

[Blue_true]

76. Exactly. nt

[Blue_true]

75. She said that she is not a democratic socialist. Bernie says that he is one.

It is Bernie's job to describe democratic socialism to voters and get them to buy in. Warren is a former republican who became a liberal democrat years ago, her public policies have that of a liberal democrat. What is your disappointment with her? Her policy proposals have been nothing like what Sanders talks about. Do you want her to blow soft kisses to a political philosophy (democratic socialism) that she does not believe in and none of her public policy has supported?

[Blue_true]

74. Exactly. nt

[TwilightZone]

58. It's not her job to explain his positions to voters.

That's a ridiculous expectation.

[Lazy Daisy]

60. Please see above

your point has already been addressed

[TwilightZone]

61. No, it really wasn't.

You took an innocuous statement and made it something it clearly isn't. You're seeing things that simply aren't there.

[Lazy Daisy]

62. huh?

you posted:

"It's not her job to explain his positions to voters.

That's a ridiculous expectation."

As I stated above, I do not expect Warren to explain his positions. Her choice of words are the problem, not her stance.
Ididn't mistake anything, she's trying to separate herself from Bernie in the same way other candidates are doing so, by making "socialism" the key word. By doing so she's playing that boogeyman game with the rest of them. She's better than that.

[OilemFirchen]

34. Who else remembers when Sen. Warren was Bernie before Bernie was Bernie?

The Berniac push-back is, at the very least, entertaining.

[emulatorloo]

35. Yes, every progressive/left liberal I know wanted her to run in 2016

But we all settled for Bernie.

He seems redundant this time since Warren is running.

I had hoped he would sit this one out and endorse Warren.

At any rate will be an interesting primary, may the voters choose the best/strongest candidate as our nominee.

[saljr1]

36. I recently saw her interview on The Beat with Ari and I thought she was

very good. She came off as authentic, thoughtful, decisive, energetic a real believer in her issues and total grasp of what ails this country. A very smart woman. She never thought of running for office till she was 60 years and that's a plus in my book. I just don't know if she can win.

[grumpyduck]

37. Why do these people keep falling for the label-making?

It's just a way of dividing people, especially when the labels aren't even understood because there isn't a common definition.

Just say what you want to do in good o'l Queen's English and ignore the labels.

Of course, labels = controversy = ad time for the media.

[edit] The below may or may not be accurate today as in right now. I "voted" for her a couple of weeks ago but haven't thought about it since.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

38. Elizabeth Warren--being super smart--knows that she's not a "Democratic Socialist."

Every Democrat in the race (save one recent convert) is going to disassociate from this failed ideology.

Well done Liz!!!

[Garrett78]

40. She's in a tough spot.

Warren and Sanders seem to appeal to the same constituency, but Sanders has a larger following and more money. Meanwhile, Warren is going to have a really hard time competing against Harris, O'Rourke, Biden, Inslee, etc.

I like Warren but she's not very charismatic. And the ancestry matter has hurt her.

Also, only Sanders and Biden are older than Warren among those in the race or expected to join the race. Due to sexism, age is likely to be a bigger problem for her than for those other two. But the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of presidents have been considerably younger than those three (along with Inslee and Hickenlooper). Our electorate has consistently favored younger candidates, partly (though not entirely) due to them having developed less baggage. The average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents was 48 upon taking office.

[Lazy Daisy]

50. Very true

When men grow older they're seen more positively than women. And that whole "wine" thing pisses me off. I'm not a fkn beverage, I'm a woman who has become wiser and more patient JUST LIKE MEN do with age.

[Bradshaw3]

78. So many wrong assumptions here

To me and many others Warren is more likeable, and certainly more authentic, than Harris. And, no the "ancestry thing" hasn't hurt her, as her support among Native Americans shows (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-native-american_us_5c19550fe4b0432554c512bb). This is a right winrg meme that has no business being reapeated on DU.

What is more important is s record as an AG and DA, which would disqualify here among most of her supports if she wasn't a POC. And isn't it funny that those who are offended by obvious points like that feel free to use ageism to attack Warren.

[Carrito]

41. I like Warren and Democratic Socialists

They only ones I dislike are Republicans

[MineralMan]

42. I have no trouble believing her on that.

However, she is a former Republican, so there's that.

[TexasTowelie]

44. I would phrase the sentence as,

"However, she was a Republican, so there's that."

I don't see the value of using the present tense when the past tense provides a portrayal that is accurate.

[MineralMan]

66. I choose my words carefully.

I might say something differently than you would.

[peggysue2]

43. Elizabeth Warren has said this before

She's defined herself as a progressive capitalist, a capitalist who believes in guard rails and regulations. Her work in the Senate underscores the definition. The fact that she voted with Republicans before entering politics is secondary to what she's done since entering the fray. And she's talked about her transition to the Democratic Party and viewpoint on numerous occasions.

She's smart and honest. She isn't pretending to be something she's not. She should get props for that. Isn't that what we want from our candidates? Transparency.

At least that's what we say we want.

Interesting that Bernie Sanders suggested she not run. Hummmmm.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

48. Interesting that Elizabeth Warren is being attacked on DU as a "neoliberal."

I wish I could find a laugh in that. But I can't.

[TwilightZone]

53. Laugh anyway.

It's not worth taking seriously.

[CentralMass]

51. Nobody is perfect.

[David__77]

70. Cool. Ideological diversity.

...

[Gothmog]

71. Opinion: The myth of ideology, and why Democrats' energy isn't all on the left

Link to tweet

The vast majority of Democratic primary voters then and now do not identify as democratic socialists. Perhaps Sanders capitalized on unaffiliated anti-establishment types and Democrats who preferred him despite his ideology and not because of it. Move forward to the 2020 contests. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is providing the most substantive, interesting agenda that committed progressives could hope to see. Yet she is lagging in the polls. If this was all about progressive ideology and policy plans, she’d be running rings around the rest of the field.

As for Sanders, he benefits this time around from 100 percent name identification. However, the flip side of 100 percent name ID is that he’s no longer new, no longer saying things no one else will. He’s just as much of a democratic socialist as he was in 2016, but in the space of a few days we’ve seen that the “energy” isn’t all on the left; it’s drifting toward a centrist, young, optimistic candidate. Voters follow the energy and the ethos. They don’t carry around a thermometer gauging where on the scale of ideological purity each candidate rates.....

All you need to be is progressive enough to win a Democratic primary. Seeming more moderate than the Sanders clan is an advantage in the general election.

Why are pundits, the media and party insiders so convinced that ideological extremism equals energy/success? Part of it may be wishful thinking for progressives. However, part of the difficulty is linguistic. "Moderate” sounds to many ears to mean mild-mannered, prone to compromise and wishy-washy in beliefs. Nonsense. If ever there was a radical moderate, a fervent centrist Democrat, it’s O’Rourke. And gosh, he’s showing that can be exciting.

[NurseJackie]

72. She's got that in her favor. She understands that it's a

... toxic label. I agree. Democrats only. No Socialists of any flavor or disguise for me. I'm not fooled. Warren is very smart.

[stonecutter357]

79. K&R

[still_one]

80. That is practically the same thing Kamala Harris said, and they both aren't. I am somewhat surprise

that Sanders reportedly discouraged her from running for president. Why would he do that?

[Gothmog]

81. Trump plans to hit Democrats on "socialism" but faces own vulnerabilities

Link to tweet