The American Left

[Shadowlandrea]

There is a tipping point coming in the USA for the left; either continue with the Democratic machines huge give aways to Wall street, or embrace a "new left" that will be more economically populist. For disclosure, I favor the latter.

Now, I believe Hillary Clinton would be the worst possible nominee. She is literally the Democratic establishment, refuses to take positions on "controversial" issues, and has protected Wall St. and big banks her entire career as a US Senator from NY. She will lose to a Republican, especially if they nominate someone like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul because they take stances on issues that matter to the conservative base.

I believe we need to nominate Bernie Sanders, as opposed to Elizabeth Warren. The reason being, Warren says she will not run. Sanders wants to run granted he has enough support at the grass roots. Progressive groups like MoveOn need to stop courting an unwilling Senator Warren, and throw ALL support behind Senator Sanders. (FYI, he will change his Independent party status to run).

I have only given two choices in this poll, but if you have another suggestion, please list that individual in the comments.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I believe Hillary Clinton would beat a Tea Party lunatic like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz isn't even eligible though, so he's quite irrelevant.

I'd support Sanders over Warren, but they'd be my #1 and #2 nominations for Democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton isn't someone who can make the American left enthusiastic at all, since she's not a part of it in any way and ultimately opposes much of what they support.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Rand Paul is a spineless nutjob and Ted Cruz is a batshit little weasel. Neither of them are much of a threat to Hillary.

This isn't to say the Repubs can't win, they can. But some teabagger loser isn't going to be the one to do it.

[Shilya]

When that post was titled "The american left", I didn't suspect it to be about America's center-right party.

But sure, try to move it back to the center.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The tide seems to be turning against the Democrats so - Hilary or not - your candidate is probably going to be a real Cnut.

[Shadowlandrea]

Rand Paul is a spineless nutjob and Ted Cruz is a batshit little weasel. Neither of them are much of a threat to Hillary.

This isn't to say the Repubs can't win, they can. But some teabagger loser isn't going to be the one to do it.

I disagree strongly. We cannot let our distain for fascists on the right sway us from realizing the power of the conservative base. They will come out in droves to vote after 8 years of Obama. Nobody on the right thought Barack Obama could beat seasoned establishment candidate McCain either....be wary and cautious not to dismiss them.

When that post was titled "The american left", I didn't suspect it to be about America's center-right party.

But sure, try to move it back to the center.

You are correct, Democrats are a center right party. Bernie Sanders is center left, and so is Warren. That is what I mean.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

The tide seems to be turning against the Democrats so - Hilary or not - your candidate is probably going to be a real Cnut.

I'd support Cnut the Great for president. Everything's better with vikings.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The tide seems to be turning against the Democrats so - Hilary or not - your candidate is probably going to be a real Cnut.

I'd support Cnut the Great for president. Everything's better with vikings.

The South does seem ripe for a jolly good pillaging.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I disagree strongly. We cannot let our distain for fascists on the right sway us from realizing the power of the conservative base. They will come out in droves to vote after 8 years of Obama. Nobody on the right thought Barack Obama could beat seasoned establishment candidate McCain either....be wary and cautious not to dismiss them.

The Repubs aren't fascists, they don't have anything close to any real ideology.

And 2008 was predictable. Bush was so disastrous and nearly universally hated that he made the word "Republican" poisonous to the general public. When Obama got the nomination it became pretty clear he was going to bulldoze McCain.

2016 will only be somewhat better for them. They still don't have any strong contenders for the crown, but their sabotaging has ensured Obama's presidency has been rather lukewarm at best. If they want to step to Hillary and successfully wrench the presidency they'll have to do it with someone a lot better than Tweedle Fucktard or Tweedle Dumbass.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

I really hope Clinton wins the primary. Sanders and Warren are better, don't get me wrong, but they simply cannot win. Hopefully Clinton is forced to pick one of the two as a running mate though as a check on her centre-right leanings which will force her presidency and party to centrism.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

I like big banks. They are vital to every economy. I don't get the lefties obsession with demonizing bankers.

[Fortschritte]

I've never understood the basis behind the extreme hatred of banks many American progressives hold. I'm a self described progressive, and a democrat, but we shouldn't demonize the big banks and use the word "Wall Street" and "Big Banks" as dirty words like so many economic populists like to.

For the nomination, I'll probably throw my support behind Elizabeth Warren or Martin O Malley. I'm not a huge fan of Warren's hatred of the banks, but many of her positions are pretty decent. O Malley would be the best, since he's pragmatic, and was a great governor and mayor. I could also back Jerry Brown, he seems decent.

[MERIZoC]

What American left?

[Insaeldor]

On the contrary Hillary will probably fight best against any sort of Tea Party candidate. With only thirst percent of the population determened to each side the real election winners are dictated by the 20% that don't affiliate with a party or are simply just swing voters. A republican candidate will almost certainly win the base wether that candidate is a Mitt Romeny, Chris Christi, or Ted Cruz amd a democratic candidate will almost always win their base wether that candidate is Clinton or Warren. If we're doing a hypathetical Clinton vs. Cruz Cruz will most certainly loss because he can't appeal towards the centrist, the swing voters, and the new voters that why the establishment repubs are diminishing any sort or tea party candidacy because they know if a tea parties wins the nomination it's going to be a blood bath with the Dems on top. Only 11% of Americans claim to be Tea Partiers so why put up a candidate that only really appeals to 10% of the population? That's why we're gearing up for a battle of the centrist establishments and thank god it won't be the Warren's vs. the Cruz's because as a democrat Warren might be an attractive pick but as a freshmen senator I have little major political experiance compared to Clinton whos has an extensive in national government. As far as Cruz goes he was the General Solicitor of Texas and is a freshmen senator compared to the only repub who's telegraphing his candidacy being Jeb Bush was a governer which in my opinion gives him much more of a candidacy for president.

Please let's not choose the least qualified candidates we can find.

[Fortschritte]

What American left?

You can't deny that left wing Americans do exist. You're not the only one.

[MERIZoC]

What American left?

You can't deny that left wing Americans do exist. You're not the only one.

They are largely unorganized and unseen. The left wing is nearly politically non-existent in the states, and even when it's around, it's on a local level.

[4years]

Neither of the two should be the Democratic candidate. Rather of either of them runs he or she should break with the Democratic Party entirely, run as Labor candidate, and appeal to the unions, existing left organizations (WIL, SA, SPUSA, CPUSA, the Justice Party, the Green Party, ISO, ICL, etc.), and to working people generally for support. The campaign should be conduct along clear class lines and additional support should be drawn from the civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, environmental and other such organizations. The masses who marched in the People's Climate March, in Flood Wall Street, and in the protests over events in Ferguson should be mobilized to the cause of labor. The Occupiers should be called back out onto the streets in labor marches and demonstrations and to the voting both to try and elect a labor candidate.

What is needed is not fussing with the Democratic Party by breaking with it altogether. Naturally I urge everyone to join the International Marxist Tendency (the Workers International League in the US) and to struggle for the socialist transformation of society. Failing that, we need a mass party of Labor based on the working people and sharply to the left of the Democrats. This is the perspective any left candidate should be running on, not one of capitulating to the Democrats (not that the Democrats will ever nominate a left candidate anyway) and thereby betraying the movement by encouraging illusions in a bourgeois and anti-worker party.

In the absence of a serious left alternative, the Democrats will likely win the next election with Hillary Clinton as the candidate. In the presence of such an alternative, it is possible that a Republican might win due to the spoiler effect, but it should be noted that the Republican candidate will be a 'moderate' rather than a Tea Party supporter and that the Democrats and the Republicans are not terribly different anyway- so we should not at all be deterred by that perspective as the Democratic leadership would like us to be. However, it is very likely that the official Democratic candidate will win the next presidential election in any case. The real task is not to worry about the next round of elections, but to strengthen the labor movement in the US and to capitalize on the shift to the left in the American (and the world) working class in the recent period to build up left parties and organizations to carry on the fight in the long term. The task is not to win the elections in 2016, but to fundamentally transform society.

The building of a Labor Party as a workers' party to the left of the Democrats ultimately pull the rug out from under the Democrats and would smash the Democrat-Republican dichotomy. The American proletariat is shapely to the left of either of the two major parties and would be drawn to a Labor Party which sought to mobilize it for the struggle in enormous numbers. This would be the political awakening of large segments of the proletariat and would enable the current capitalist system to be challenged on many points. It would also contribute immensely to the development of revolutionary Marxist and other such organizations working within and in a united front with this broader Labor Party.

[Fortschritte]

You can't deny that left wing Americans do exist. You're not the only one.

They are largely unorganized and unseen. The left wing is nearly politically non-existent in the states, and even when it's around, it's on a local level.

Are you referring to the general public or elected officials? Because a fair chunk of the populace if left wing. They're not the majority, but they're not a minuscule group. When it comes to elected officials, there are plenty of left wingers on the local level, but few "true leftists" on a federal level.

[MERIZoC]

They are largely unorganized and unseen. The left wing is nearly politically non-existent in the states, and even when it's around, it's on a local level.

Are you referring to the general public or elected officials? Because a fair chunk of the populace if left wing. They're not the majority, but they're not a minuscule group. When it comes to elected officials, there are plenty of left wingers on the local level, but few "true leftists" on a federal level.

There are no true leftists on a federal level. Sanders is centre, centre-left at best. And what chunk of the population is on the left then? If they aren't minuscule, why don't we have more socialist politicians, or even social democrats?

[Shilya]

Neither of the two should be the Democratic candidate. Rather of either of them runs he or she should break with the Democratic Party entirely, run as Labor candidate, and appeal to the unions, existing left organizations (WIL, SA, SPUSA, CPUSA, the Justice Party, the Green Party, ISO, ICL, etc.), and to working people generally for support. The campaign should be conduct along clear class lines and additional support should be drawn from the civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, environmental and other such organizations. The masses who marched in the People's Climate March, in Flood Wall Street, and in the protests over events in Ferguson should be mobilized to the cause of labor. The Occupiers should be called back out onto the streets in labor marches and demonstrations and to the voting both to try and elect a labor candidate. [...]

Here's your problem: This way, you divide the vote between the democrats and labor. Thanks to winner takes all, the republicans won't have a problem being the largest single party in terms of votes.

[Fortschritte]

Are you referring to the general public or elected officials? Because a fair chunk of the populace if left wing. They're not the majority, but they're not a minuscule group. When it comes to elected officials, there are plenty of left wingers on the local level, but few "true leftists" on a federal level.

There are no true leftists on a federal level. Sanders is centre, centre-left at best. And what chunk of the population is on the left then? If they aren't minuscule, why don't we have more socialist politicians, or even social democrats?

I fail to see how Sanders is a centrist. He's a self described democratic socialist who claims to have been influenced highly by the cooperative Kibbutzim in Israel.

We don't have more social democratic and centre left politicians largely because of the influence of the third way, lobbying, and other various things. Often times, candidates may run on a centre left platform, but will become more "centrist" in office for various reasons.

[The New Sea Territory]

What do mean "left"?

[Imperial Esplanade]

Let me just say this, what we're seeing with the Democratic Party schism these days is reflective of the schism that took place in the Republican Party not too long ago, with the rise of the self-proclaimed "Tea Party." The question should be just how much will this schism affect the Democratic Party, and just how adversely will it affect the 2016 Presidential race. My guess is if it's a severe schism, and they end up nominating someone too far to the left, which I expect it to be the case with both, the GOP will be in prime position to take the presidency with relative ease with a "moderate" (but not too establishment-based) candidate.

All that said, if we also end up with a Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/Other Tea Party taking the GOP nomination, we might be in for a really bumpy ride, America... no matter how the Presidential Election ends.

[The New Sea Territory]

What American left?

You can't deny that left wing Americans do exist. You're not the only one.

Individuals may exist, but no party nor candidate represents them.

[The New Sea Territory]

There are no true leftists on a federal level. Sanders is centre, centre-left at best. And what chunk of the population is on the left then? If they aren't minuscule, why don't we have more socialist politicians, or even social democrats?

I fail to see how Sanders is a centrist. He's a self described democratic socialist who claims to have been influenced highly by the cooperative Kibbutzim in Israel.

We don't have more social democratic and centre left politicians largely because of the influence of the third way, lobbying, and other various things. Often times, candidates may run on a centre left platform, but will become more "centrist" in office for various reasons.

If he were elected president, he would not function like a democratic socialist. He would be forced to cave and pass as a centrist.