Indivisible scorecard ranks Elizabeth Warren #1

Great idea, Indivisible folks.

You've fashioned a clear, easy to understand, transparent scorecard for the Democratic presidential contenders that rates them on three criteria:

Policy Platform: Indivisibles want a candidate who is committed to enacting bold, popular, progressive policies across a range of areas, including immigration, climate, economic justice, health care, and other critical policy areas.

Day-One Democracy Agenda: None of the policy reforms we want to see in 2021 are possible without a democracy that responds to the people. Indivisibles want a candidate who is committed first and foremost to ambitious reforms to save our democracy.

Building Grassroots Power: Indivisibles know that national change won’t come from any one leader - it will take a movement. Indivisibles want a candidate who is committed to building grassroots power, as demonstrated by their fundraising, campaign strategy and management, support for other progressive candidates, and their engagement with Indivisible groups.

Who comes out on top? Elizabeth Warren.

 

I like Warren a lot, so I was pleased to see this result. However, my wife favors Buttigieg, and I can understand why she does. Buttigieg strikes us as the most compelling speaker, since what he says seems to come from the heart, not from canned campaign lines.

However, along with most progressives I look upon the Democratic presidential candidates through the lens of who could stand on a debate stage with Trump and kick his butt (metaphorically... though I'd enjoy seeing a literal butt-kicking).

To me, Warren would fare best going toe-to-toe with Trump. She's composed, fearless, and has an in-depth understanding of every topic that might come up.

Of course, it could be argued that the candidates who do worse on the Indivisible scorecard would fare better in the general election, since their moderation would appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.

I can resonate with that argument, since more than anything else, I want a Democratic candidate who will win, even if their policy positions aren't perfectly progressive.

On days that my psyche is in that frame of mind, I look upon Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar with considerable fondness. They'd stand a good chance of doing well in the mid-west "rust belt" states that are key to winning the 2020 election.

Indivisible has a good rejoinder to my a moderate would be best theory, though. This is a screenshot from their Rubric document.

 

Comments

[Jim Scheppke]

Here's how I look at Mayor Pete. I ask myself, would Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett be qualified by his experience to be President of the US? Of course not (no offense to the Mayor). If that is so, what makes Mayor Pete qualified? He is mayor of a town that is considerably smaller than Salem (102,000 vs. 169,000). Case closed.

[tucson]

"To me, Warren would fare best going toe-to-toe with Trump. She's composed, fearless, and has an in-depth understanding of every topic that might come up"

--I have seen Warren on several occasions lose composure when pressured into explaining her radical (not progressive.. radical) proposals which would cost 10's of trillions of dollars.. basically free sh-t for everybody, except the rich and the corporations who would theoretically pay for it. (Any of us who own stock would pay for it)

Trump is now presiding over the strongest economy in the world. Unemployment is the lowest since the '60's and for blacks it is the lowest ever. Warren's proposals would ruin the economy. Literally rip the sheet to shreds pulling it all at once from the thorn bush. She would fare poorly against Trump putting her proposals up against that kind of success. All he has to do is point out:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

This is why socialism fails and goes against the values that founded this country.

[Skyline]

Oh PLEASE, PLEASE make it so, O Omniscient one!
Just to be a good neighbor, I promise to encourage all of my democrat friends to vote for Pocahontas in the primary. (sorry Laurel!)
One little request O Mighty one:
Please announce the date and times of Her and President Trump on the debate stage as soon as possible. After 1 1/2 hour of holding my sides, rolling on the floor laughing hysterically; I want to assure no further plans that evening.
Before I forget:
I want to wish Brian and Laurel a VERY merry Hinesmas!
xoxoxoxo

[Kurt]

My response to tuscon is to ask:.
Do you want to live in a society that, like the Romans, is comprised of rulers, the professional and merchant class, and slaves? Do you even think that that can work when the lure of material wealth is constantly waved in front of the noses of all?
In a wealthy society such as ours, opportunities to excel should be preserved and promoted while providing subsistence benefits to all. One has little faith in or understanding of the human spirit if one believes that humans will not strive when given the opportunity to do so.
I was in Montreal at a large demonstration that took place when the end of the Vietnam War was announced. I had a friend who was part of the international group that led the protests. After the announcement was made, he returned to the gym floor where we slept and explained the mood in the room of leaders. They were morose. They were wise enough to understand that the jubilation in the streets was essentially meaningless. They believed that as long as politicians everywhere continued to promote the military industrial complex as a way to aid their economies and hold power, the world would be insecure and providing an economic framework such as that that I described above would be impossible.
Another educational experience that I had was when I was working as a US agent aboard a Soviet Union fishing vessel when the Berlin Wall came down. We celebrated together. Soviet Communism would have failed even without the pressure from Reagan. Even the Communist party representative (who was there to protect the Russians from my decadent influence) celebrated and pleaded with me to leave my Playboys and Levis behind when I disembarked. I had previously worked with 5 other nationalities. The people of all of these nations want to live peacefully with others. It is the politicians that use fear as a way to market their brand and maintain control.
I believe that the current proliferation of dictatorships will be broadly opposed and dangerous times are ahead. I also believe that the racist agenda that these dictatorships depend on for their marketing will slowly (perhaps too slowly) dissolve into history as people realize that cultural changes such as this cannot be reversed and that racism makes victims of us all.

[tucson]

In response to Kurt:
My observation is that humans, regardless of political system, tend to become organized into "rulers, the professional and merchant class, and slaves" (low wage earners). Some people are lured by material advantage and power and will seek it even if it is having more cigarettes to trade in a prison system and thus gain control of other inmates.

"In a wealthy society such as ours, opportunities to excel should be preserved and promoted while providing subsistence benefits to all."

-- nothing wrong with a safety net but it should not provide benefits that equal or exceed such benefits that can be earned by the average wage earner. Such a safety net should be strictly enforced to eliminate as many cheaters as possible.

"One has little faith in or understanding of the human spirit if one believes that humans will not strive when given the opportunity to do so."

--There will always be those with strong character and work ethic but there will always be those who do not.

Corruption and evil are part of the human condition as well as high moral, ethical values.

A free-market society governed by a system of law is the best for humans. Inequities will occur, of course, and cannot be eliminated, only reduced in their scope and nature.

[Kurt]

Damn you and your realism. We idealists need hope. What a bummer you are.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that people are evil and their evil impulses must be controlled while liberals believe that people are fundamentally good and all we need to do is provide a just society.
As is the case for all great questions of this type, the truth lies somewhere in between.
Merry Christmas

[tucson]

My experience is that liberals (leftists/progressives) feel that people are stupid and can't take care of themselves. Therefore they need to be strictly controlled. True conservatives feel that some people are stupid but that those who aren't should not have to be governed (restricted) the same way stupid people are. Rather, a strong legal system will keep stupidity in check, somewhat, while intelligence is rewarded by the freedom to exercise it at least until the intelligent behave stupidly and thus have to answer to the legal system the same way stupid people do.

Damn you for your reasonableness.
Merry Christmas to you as well