Fair point. Warren is more in the Walz camp in that she's worked within the party instead of taking to exert influence from the outside, which was why we focused on Sanders.
Fair point. Warren is more in the Walz camp in that she's worked within the party instead of taking to exert influence from the outside, which was why we focused on Sanders.
OK, but there are several bona fide progressives in Congress -- including some originally inspired by Sanders -- also working within the party. I believe "progressive" fits within the Democratic big tent, but I'm not sure about "leftist." OTOH, the way "leftist" and "far leftist" get tossed around by the right, it's hard to tell what they mean in contemporary U.S. politics. Thanks to the long shadow of McCarthyism and its predecessors, "socialist" and even "social democratic" are still risky labels -- but a few politicians *are* taking that risk and getting elected. I'm wondering how things are going to develop going forward, now that the "capitalism über alles" crowd has revealed just how anti-democratic they are. Interesting times!
fwiw, I supported Warren in 2020. She just never caught fire with left influencers, in part because Sanders was in the race. (I liked Castro a lot too, who was similarly boxed out.)
I think the thing about Walz is that he's got the support of the (small number of) Warren supporters, and of the (larger) Sanders wing, and is also just generally acceptable/liked by many center-y dems who don't consider themselves progressive or who are leery of leftists/progressives (including Warren and Sanders.)
Castro was my 2nd choice in 2020! I especially like Walz this time around because as a governor he's been able to get real things done on the ground. The achievements of senators and reps are usually less tangible, e.g., they secure the funding that makes things happen, but they're a couple of steps removed from the results. All of which is crucial, but it's harder to sell to an electorate that often isn't up on what it takes to make things happen.
Fair point. Warren is more in the Walz camp in that she's worked within the party instead of taking to exert influence from the outside, which was why we focused on Sanders.
OK, but there are several bona fide progressives in Congress -- including some originally inspired by Sanders -- also working within the party. I believe "progressive" fits within the Democratic big tent, but I'm not sure about "leftist." OTOH, the way "leftist" and "far leftist" get tossed around by the right, it's hard to tell what they mean in contemporary U.S. politics. Thanks to the long shadow of McCarthyism and its predecessors, "socialist" and even "social democratic" are still risky labels -- but a few politicians *are* taking that risk and getting elected. I'm wondering how things are going to develop going forward, now that the "capitalism über alles" crowd has revealed just how anti-democratic they are. Interesting times!
fwiw, I supported Warren in 2020. She just never caught fire with left influencers, in part because Sanders was in the race. (I liked Castro a lot too, who was similarly boxed out.)
I think the thing about Walz is that he's got the support of the (small number of) Warren supporters, and of the (larger) Sanders wing, and is also just generally acceptable/liked by many center-y dems who don't consider themselves progressive or who are leery of leftists/progressives (including Warren and Sanders.)
Castro was my 2nd choice in 2020! I especially like Walz this time around because as a governor he's been able to get real things done on the ground. The achievements of senators and reps are usually less tangible, e.g., they secure the funding that makes things happen, but they're a couple of steps removed from the results. All of which is crucial, but it's harder to sell to an electorate that often isn't up on what it takes to make things happen.