“Economic populism” isn’t just about Elizabeth Warren

[DonViejo]

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 Clinton’s 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 Party’s “left turn” will soon find that insurgent candidates rarely accomplish much in presidential primary campaigns, and Clinton will likely withstand a Warren challenge. That’s the argument of author Paul Waldman, a contributor to the liberal magazine The American Prospect.

And, well, Waldman’s analysis is totally right. He’s smart, he gets the history right, and he’s careful to avoid falling into the usual traps that bedevil pundits predicting far-off presidential elections. It’s true that ideological crusader candidacies almost never beat establishment candidates in presidential primaries. Warren, who has repeatedly said she isn’t running, would face tough odds in a campaign against the better-funded, more-famous Hillary Clinton. A non-Warren left-wing candidate’s odds would likely be in the Dennis Kucinich range.

But while Waldman is right, he’s answering the wrong question. It’s not his fault! Most pundits writing about “Warren versus Clinton” are answering the wrong question, because of the political media’s fixation on national elections and presidents. But the “economic populism” fight isn’t about Hillary Clinton and 2016. It’s 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/

[polichick]

1. "The point of “economic populism” is to fix the Democratic Party at every level."

k&r

[hollowdweller]

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]

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

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]

3. Hillary is not going to convincingly be able to change her stripes. It will be Warren in 2016.