Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum“Economic populism” isn’t just about Elizabeth Warren
The point of Elizabeth Warren and pushing Democrats to the left is to push them to the left, not to defeat Hillary
ALEX PAREENE
Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clintons worst nightmare, according to The New Republic. The Democratic Party emerging from the Obama era likes Warren, and her willingness to discuss class and go after the plutocrats, more than it likes Clinton, who has long aligned herself with Third Way types and money people.
Not so fast, says Politico Magazine. Those hoping for Warren to lead the Democratic Partys left turn will soon find that insurgent candidates rarely accomplish much in presidential primary campaigns, and Clinton will likely withstand a Warren challenge. Thats the argument of author Paul Waldman, a contributor to the liberal magazine The American Prospect.
And, well, Waldmans analysis is totally right. Hes smart, he gets the history right, and hes careful to avoid falling into the usual traps that bedevil pundits predicting far-off presidential elections. Its true that ideological crusader candidacies almost never beat establishment candidates in presidential primaries. Warren, who has repeatedly said she isnt running, would face tough odds in a campaign against the better-funded, more-famous Hillary Clinton. A non-Warren left-wing candidates odds would likely be in the Dennis Kucinich range.
But while Waldman is right, hes answering the wrong question. Its not his fault! Most pundits writing about Warren versus Clinton are answering the wrong question, because of the political medias fixation on national elections and presidents. But the economic populism fight isnt about Hillary Clinton and 2016. Its about the entire Democratic Party and every policy fight and campaign it will be involved in in the foreseeable future.
full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/09/economic_populism_isnt_just_about_elizabeth_warren/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 910 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
“Economic populism” isn’t just about Elizabeth Warren (Original Post)
DonViejo
Dec 2013
OP
"The point of “economic populism” is to fix the Democratic Party at every level."
polichick
Dec 2013
#1
polichick
(37,152 posts)1. "The point of “economic populism” is to fix the Democratic Party at every level."
k&r
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)2. I want to know where Hillary stands on some of the issues.
Min Wage?
Expanding Social Security?
Trade deals?
Stock transaction tax?
Ending the tax benefits of offshoring?
Allowing medicare to bargain for prescription drug prices.
Lasher
(27,640 posts)4. Here's my take:
Supports minimum wage increases.
Questionable on Social Security in general, most likely would not support expanding it.
Supported NAFTA but opposed CAFTA. Overall, she is in favor of expanding trade deals.
She has been encouraged to support a financial transaction tax but has given no indication she would do so.
Has supported ending tax breaks for outsourcing, but supports the offshoring itself.
She has voted yes on requiring negotiated drug prices for Medicare part D.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
Questionable on Social Security in general, most likely would not support expanding it.
Supported NAFTA but opposed CAFTA. Overall, she is in favor of expanding trade deals.
She has been encouraged to support a financial transaction tax but has given no indication she would do so.
Has supported ending tax breaks for outsourcing, but supports the offshoring itself.
She has voted yes on requiring negotiated drug prices for Medicare part D.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
She is an economic neoliberal like Obama, so their fiscal policies are similar. The two are a little different on social issues but not by much.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)3. Hillary is not going to convincingly be able to change her stripes. It will be Warren in 2016.