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’s a crazy helpful site. Thanks for sharing.
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.
NYEHH!
Jk, yeah, this site is amazing, thanks.
the desperate mud slinging from the GOP is going to be hilarious. i’ll never forget when they tried to shit on AOC because she was caught gasp dancing in some student project music video.
and god-fucking-forbid anyone ever tends bar for money
They’re just mad that she’s an attractive young POC
They hate women so much, it’s crazy.
Especially women of color.
They’re just mad
that she’s an attractive young person of colourIt’s all manufactured outrage. In reality they don’t give a fuck since they are all dead inside. It’s the tan suit scandal all over again. If they have zero qualms with Melania being a former nude model and Trump’s infidelity then them being mad about someone dancing is all just theatrics. It means they have nothing on her.
young? young?? She’s almost 60, I mean no disrespect to anyone because of their age but I would not consider 60 young.Edit: My bad, i thought it was about KH
They’re talking about AOC
My bad
Wasn’t sure if this was a joke or if I didn’t read the thread correctly, but the reply above yours is in regards to AOC, yeah?
Scandalous! clutches pearls
never seen this clip before, i have been getting the wrong political gifs
She’s still got it!
What the fuck, is that a woman having fun? Dems are absolute degenerates, unbelievable. She’s smiling. What is wrong with you people?
they see no problem lambasting this, while voting for pornstar hush money paying con man rapist
Well, he’s a man.
Both sides can eventually lead to the same thing in the end, but are focusing on a different path to get there.
We take that video as something where someone is generically trying to say that AOC isn’t serious enough to compete in politics, but the goal for the other side is to show that AOC is just like all the other (comparatively) younger women out there and that specifically is what leads to her not being serious enough to compete in politics. It’s not bad because she isn’t serious, it’s bad because she’s acting like a woman. From that perspective, the only thing Stormy did wrong was going against the typical process and speaking out about what happened, beyond that, she was playing the expected part.
This better not turn me into a socialist or something
Resistance is futile. Surrender to the glory of Socialist Mommy.
The lack of Socialist Dommy Mommies is why the USSR failed
I hold no doubt in my heart that they absolutely hated this because they found her hot.
she’s undeniably super attractive, but what they hate most is that they fear her. they know that she will humiliate any one of them in a debate, and people love her for it. so they lash out and talk about her bartending days, thinking that it’s an attack because that’s just how fucking dumb they are
She is. And that video was.
I’m surprised Project 2025 doesn’t call for a ban on dancing.
Maybe there are parts even they don’t feel comfortable disclosing yet
What was Boebert doing before she got her GED at like 30?
Doesn’t matter, the GOP are hypocrites; Rules for thee but not for me.
Escort work.
Sex work is work 😤
You’re totally ignoring that she had her hair done and stuff
Whore!
I already love their crying haha. Its so funny
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.
Yes and no imo, our political leaders should be responsive to the desires of the people they lead, but on rare occasions the people are stupid and need to be told so (e.g. for most of the 1960s, civil rights were not popular), and a lot of the time leaders need to help people recognize problems or opportunities that haven’t been widely discussed by the media or other politicians before (e.g. universal healthcare, basic income, safe drug use sites, etc.).
Bad leaders do whatever public opinion polls say or whatever they want, good leaders find a way to do what they can without compromising on the values they ran on, great leaders find a way to move public opinion polls closer to them. Kamala is a good leader, not a great one, imo.
That’s good how you replied, but your reply was very general and idealistic. What about the current situation and a pragmatic situation? I mean, besides the fact who is on the opposite side lol.
Sorry for going into hypotheticals.
I’m not sure exactly what the question is, but with the way I defined things above I think Kamala is a good leader running against a party full of bad ones, so she’s got my vote.
I would love a great leader that could engage and organize the general public a bit more and push opinions on things like immigration/asylum, police accountability, and trans rights and human rights in general in more positive directions, but there’s nobody with a real shot of being President who fits that description so I’ll take what I can get.
I’d prefer for candidates to be ideologically aligned but votes in the interests of people i.e. ask the constituency what’s most important to them, and voting in that direction despite ideological beliefs. I see that as a trait in Bernie, and that has yet to be established in Kamala yet.
I’m just so fucking happy that Kamala is the candidate, the news actually made me relax a bit for the first time in a while.
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.)
(RIP)
I do think idealists are important to help inspire us to work towards the future. In terms of actual voting, pragmatism is more important IMO. There’s nothing stopping someone from doing both, if they’re good enough at both speeches and policy.
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?
Workers councils are definitely a thing in Europe
The comment wasn’t about whether worker councils are a thing or not, the comment was about Sander’s policies being “standard govermental procedure” in Europe… They aren’t… I wish they were, but they aren’t, and I don’t understand how denying reality is in any way helpful…
Man I wish, it could all be so easy
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.
Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany’s, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions
Codetermination/worker representation is a thing in some countries, but with the exception of Germany, it’s not half of the BoD.
I’d probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties
I’m sure there are members of social democratic politicians who are as left wing or even more left wing than Bernie. I think if he was European, he would be in the left wing of a social democratic party. But what many people don’t seem to want to realize is that we aren’t living in the 70s anymore… Europe might have some remains of social democratic elements left, but barely…
And it certainly isn’t “standard governmental procedure”. And I do wish Bernies policies were the norm in Europe, but they simply aren’t…
Mostly. She didn’t quite make that mark but she is between Sanders and Warren ideologically.
Should be noted that these kind of statistics are typically heavily influenced by the sheer number of garbage bills like what to rename a post office. Specific major issues is more the problem actual voters have.
If the stats lean closer to Bernie’s record than others (I’d have to do some research to see, but let’s assume) then it’s still more of an indication she’ll be better than the others she’s being compared to on major issues. Biden is on record saying he wouldn’t sign a bill for universal healthcare, but he’s still better than Trump overall.
Biden’s quote had a qualifying statement to that iirc. Something about without tax support?
So it was technically saying he wouldn’t support paying for universal healthcare on credit.
Buy, hey, he’ll pay for the Gaza genocide on credit, so who cares about the details?
Shouldn’t those garbage bills have basically the same votes from nearly all democrat senators? So they wouldn’t really affect the differences that much, right?
They would make the difference between them all small, thus allowing for everyone to look similar, exactly what this meme talks about
It’s not saying her voting is similar to Sanders, it’s saying her voting is MORE similar to Sanders than other senators. Those are two very different things.
It also doesn’t count progressive bills that died in committee before getting a real vote.
Whoa, really? Is there somewhere I can verify this?
It’s not accurate. But she did vote closer to him than most other Democrats.
I’ll take that.
Same!
Oh shit is she a secret progressive???
She’s a good person and a political pragmatist, who is willing to concede a point to gain ten. She has, like most intelligent adults, evolved farther and farther left to embrace reality.
(While those in the the Wrong Wing cling to their assorted bigotries and boogiemen, as they lose all grip on sanity and embrace a venal madman as their Savior.)
For what it’s worth, I’ve helped her in a retail context and she was the good kind of customer.
Damn. A good customer in a retail setting. Now that’s how I know someone’s an actual good person. Having worked like 10 years of retail front line, that alone make me want to vote for her more. Lol.
For what it’s worth, I’ve helped her in a retail context and she was the good kind of customer.
Not that I needed more reason than “let’s not have fascism”, but that’s a big endorsement to me.
Good person? Good Lord tap the brakes people. She was a prosecutor.
Yes, it was her job, and she did it effectively. She also fought against a measure allowing juveniles to be tried in adult court, but she lost that one.
Let’s see, prosecutor or felon, prosecutor or felon, which should I vote for? (Remember, we’re not talking about a weed felony or stealing food for a starving family here.)
I’ll take Kamala any day. And if Trump walked in the front door where I was working retail, I’d walk out the back.
Yes, it was her job, and she did it effectively
Really, the Nuremberg defense?
Oh honey, we all know who the Nazis are in this race.
I don’t think republicans are even using the excuse, they’re just doing it unabashedly
Cops use the excuse though, I’m sure they will double down on it if their guy wins and the changes start to happen.
Talking about someone who doesn’t support the death penalty and Feinstein had the gall to call her out for it during a funeral.
She was never secret about it. She just got painted as a hard conservative in the 2020 primaries.
Not exactly secret, most of the stuff progressives find objectionable are basically just she had a job that progressives attach to systemic problems and didn’t throw her career away by not doing it to be a better progressive.
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.
I think in swing states the numbers are close enough that you need to do both. Dems will vote if they’re afraid enough of Trump. It’s the undecideds they need to sway.
I’m all for Kamala. What the coconut refers to.
Source?
Am I crazy to think he’d be a great VP pick?
Crazy? No. The timing and optics would be wrong since Sanders wouldn’t help Harris’ campaign play to its advantages. Finding younger candidates with consistent and (hopefully) progressive records, who aren’t currently targets for the Right, and who hold little political baggage, is a better play.
By the same reasoning I think Newsom and Buttigieg aren’t good picks even though they’d do well in the role. The new Dem Pres campaign should make sure the Right’s propagandists have to work hard at effective attack ads. Running any Left-Wing Face misses this initiative.
For context: I’m still bitter about Bernie being pushed out of previous Presidential campaign runs, still think he was the best choice both times, and know he’d make a great VP.
The age is still an issue. He would be better as an advisor of some kind.
Primary goal for the DNC has to be to distance themselves as much as possible from the age issue. I’m not saying it will be someone young, we’re not getting someone like under 45ish, but priority has to be on getting someone who at least comes across as relatively youthful comparatively.
I mean, if people think kamala is very progressive then yes. Age and policy wise. The VP should net you votes you might not otherwise get. A Midwestern pick or similar would probably do well.
She needs to find her Biden just like Obama did
AOC would be a much better pick.
I am a green man standing in shallow water, throwing a scroll.
I don’t think that is how statistics work… but ok.
Closer than Bernie himself?
Coconut? Is she from Hawaii?
Her
momdad is CaribbeanHer dad is Carribbean.
Her dad is Jamaican- American, her mom is Indian
It’s cute that you still think the Sanders trolls care about Bernie Sanders.
Man I was so frustrated being called a “bernie bro” when more Bernie supporters turned out for Hillary Clinton, including me, than did Hillary Clinton supporters turn out for Barack Obama in 2008. I was tired when national head-to-head polling consistently showed Bernie Sanders outperforming Hillary against Donald Trump. Yet was shoved aside by the same sort of folks who insisted without merit that Biden should stay in the race. Quite literally some of the same people, including former Clinton strategists or the former DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Even feminist leaders like Steinem and Albright claiming young women were just with Bernie because of the boys in a painfully ironic attack… It showed their true colors. The same bullshit patronizing platitudes. Alas, I am quite shocked Democrats actually organically adapted to new data. I’m honestly thrilled.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there were trolls; I know there were astroturfers, and it got far worse in 2020. But anyone who actually went to a Bernie rally and conversed with real supporters knew that campaign was the most organic vibrant loving community since Obama’s first run, if not more so. Alas, we missed an opportunity.
I would then go on to support Elizabeth Warren in 2020; I would ultimately then go on to vote for Biden.
I am quite happy with her record matching Bernie. Seems like a good sign. I’ll be supporting Harris and I’m HOPING Mark Kelly as her running-mate.
Well said.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to burn the Democratic Party to the ground for how they evaporated enthusiastic (mostly) young voters who were aligned with what Sanders was saying in 2016 and 2020. But I won’t allow fascism to be re-elected in my pursuit of that goal.
South Park’s “Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich” thing is seemingly more right all the time.
We got one dude who is a massive douchebag and then another party that’s one massive shit sandwich. Either we eat the shit sandwich and deal with the fallout after or we get to stare at a giant douche for four years.
HOPING Mark Kelly as her running-mate.
Only foreign skin in the game here but I think he’d be a great choice. If America voted against a Harris / Kelly ticket in favour of the other two gobshites I’d have a total meltdown. I really like America. C’mon guys. Don’t let me down.
See also, Jill Stein and Cornel West enthusiasts.
