is this true? I know nothing about US politics, but everything I hear from/about Bernie makes him sound awesome.
As a fan of Bernie this fantastic news, I want to hug the scroll if it can be corroborated.
I would imagine it depends a lot on how you quantify things, there’s all sorts of procedural votes and “renaming a post office” bills with no real substance that you could reasonably argue should or shouldn’t be included, to say nothing of ranking the partisan quality of different legislation (like, if Sanders and Harris both voted the same way in a routine budget bill that got unanimous support, should that count the same as them voting the same on some legislation he sponsored that failed or something?).
That all said, this CNN article I found from 2020 makes it sound more true than not, but there’s some nuance - tl;dr, at the start of her career as a state AG she did some more conservativ-ish things, but she’s been consistently more and more progressive since then.
My personal opinion is that she’s willing to change her positions a lot if she thinks that’s where voters are going, which isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than the last generation of Democratic leaders who are also willing to change their positions a lot but think voters are way more conservative than they actually are (because that generation is still stuck in the 1980s). Kamala didn’t start talking about Medicare for All until Bernie made it popular, but when he did she didn’t have a problem jumping on board (unlike Biden, who would only ever go as far as public option).
Isn’t it good that she is willing to change her position if she thinks that’s where the voters are going. It seems to me that nobody really cares what the voters are thinking.
It’s one thing for a politician to say whatever to get elected and then go the opposite way. Actually changing positions based on new information and what you think is what voters need is exactly what a politician SHOULD do. I never get this complaint… I guess it’s just that people don’t trust that politicians are ever genuine?
Pretty close to it, yeah.
Sanders is more of a populist and idealist, while Harris is more pragmatic. Sanders has voted against a lot of things that were 95% positive because they had 5% awful shit, while Harris (and Warren, for that matter) would tend to vote for them to get policy points through. That means that while Sanders remains ‘pure’, Harris (and, again, Warren) end up being more effective.
Neat. I’m liking Harris more every day. Pragmatism is one of the core tenets of my political belief system.
I’m… torn. I think that we need idealists to lead because they can inspire. But pragmatists get more done. I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, and again in 2020, because I believe in his message. But I also voted for Biden in 2020 even though the Democratic party fucked Sanders. (I voted for Stein in 2016, because I was in a reliably blue state, and could vote for her without risking affecting anything. And man, do I regret that.)
Note that both of these behaviors may be valid strategies, rather than ideological fervor. As members of the Democratic Party, Harris and Warren are somewhat expected to participate in team efforts; while Sanders, by virtue of being independent, should avoid being taken from granted, as forcing other representatives to negotiate with him gives him a bit of leverage to introduce changes to bills. There’s a reason why he’s been capable of influencing so much policy despite being an outsider.
Bernie is pushing for what is standard governmental procedures in areas of Europe like France, Germany, Sweden, or Norway
So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers? Are you sure about that?
So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers?
It is absolutely not standard in Europe, so have my upvote. Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany’s, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions to worker-elected union members.
I’d probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties, roughly landing around the positions of contemporary left populist parties (Podemos, France Insoumise, old Syriza), perhaps somewhat distanced from Eurocommunist parties.
Whoa, really? Is there somewhere I can verify this?
It’s not accurate. But she did vote closer to him than most other Democrats.
Source?
Kind of.
Harris: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678
Sanders: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
There are some who voted ideologically closer. But the fact that she’s somewhere between Sanders and Warren is reassuring.
that website is very sus because it paints democrats who voted against gay marriage; supported anti-gay federal service members; voted for inescapable student loans; supported segregationists; etc. as only slightly more liberal than democrats that never did those things.
i bet they either skewed the x axis or weighted some votes to get the graph to look like a continuum instead of a few distantly separated clouds.
This has to be verified. Like if this is true, then this can be one of the main messages. No?
It’s a terrible message for trying to convert ex-republican independents. It’s not Trump’s welfare policies they object to.
Yes, that would make no sense for that. It would make total sense to energise the people. Democrats don’t need to convert anyone to win, they just need to get people to vote.
