So with 2020 ramping up already and major candidates declaring and others still expected to throw their hat into the ring, I started evaluating and developing opinions of some of these candidates. I even have a full on metric going in which I evaluate the candidates on a scoring system out of 100, but it's still being tweaked and the results vary and fluctuate a lot. Still, it does give me an idea of where the candidates stand relative to one another and allowed me to systemize them in a way that gives me a rough idea of how much I support them. To summarize, this metric takes a look at things like their policy positions on a variety of issues weighted toward ones I give priority to (economics in particular). They also look at their political history, their experience, their ideology/worldview, and their commitment to progressive values over time. Here's a rough idea of the results. I am explicitly avoiding a strict ranking system at this time because the ratings are fluctuating and rankings change regularly, although most candidates stay within their tier.
Tier 1 candidates
Tier 1 candidates are candidates that are, in my opinion, near perfect. They may have minor flaws, but they are incredibly minor, and all in all I have strong agreement with these candidates and they consistently score high on all of my metrics, getting at least a 90/100. Only one candidate currently scores this high and that's:
Bernie Sanders
Pros: He has a very strong record of commitment to progressive values, lots of legislative experience, and his platform and worldview excels on virtually every metric.
Cons: He doesn't support basic income. Really, that's the worst I have to say about the guy. And I likely wouldn't even bring it up if there weren't candidates who did endorse UBI.
Other thoughts: This guy is the real deal and so far gets my endorsement although I am open for alternatives as some say he's too old.
Tier 2 candidates
Tier 2 candidates score below tier 1 candidates and tend to have minor to moderate flaws. They are still candidates I can at least somewhat enthusiastically support, but they are not necessarily my ideal candidate. They generally scores between 70 and 89 points on my metric.
Andrew Yang
Pros: Very strong platform endorsing UBI and has a very strong history and commitment to studying solutions to our economy. His worldview is very similar to where my worldview was in 2016 when I started this blog.
Cons: Lack of political experience, has some weird libertarianish ideas toward cutting regulations and reducing the size of the federal work force, some of his proposals may not be pragmatic.
Other thoughts: The guy founded a nonprofit called "Venture for America" and has a history of trying to create jobs in the economy. He has come to the conclusion that this is like bailing water out of a sinking ship and that a basic income is needed to prepare us for a future world where work is less central to our lives. As you can tell this would resonate with my worldview and I hope he has as much rust belt appeal as he's trying to generate.
Tulsi Gabbard
Pros: Very progressive platform that is similar to Bernie's, showed a willingness to go against the grain in 2016 when she resigned from the DNC. Strong focus on anti interventionism in foreign policy.
Cons: Questionable history on some issues regarding gay marriage, islam, and foreign policy.
Other thoughts: One of the most underrated candidates and unfairly attacked by the media, probably because she actually is progressive and poses a threat to the status quo. While her past stances are concerning, as an ex-Christian conservative I can understand where she was coming from and believe her shift to the left to be genuine.
Pete Buttigieg
Pros: Strong millennial oriented worldview that is a breath of fresh air in politics, seems very progressive on issues.
Cons: Not a lot of information on the guy, commitment to some issues questionable. Would like more information to get an idea of how he thinks more.
Other thoughts: He's a mayor from Indiana who is one of the youngest candidates running. He's a relative unknown and flying under everyone's radar, but is a candidate that resonates with me somewhat strongly. Endorses the green new deal, medicare for all, etc. Could be a very progressive candidate.
Elizabeth Warren
Pros: Strong anti wall street track record, unique solutions like a wealth tax, workers choosing parts of their board of directors, etc. Perhaps the most progressive "establishment" candidate.
Cons: Commitment to some issues like medicare for all questionable. She emphasizes being a "regulatory capitalist" and seems to like markets a little too much for my tastes. As such, while a very strong, tough candidate in some ways she also seems kinda wishy washy at the same time. She has convictions but such convictions may not necessarily align perfectly with mine. Still she's good enough to be a tier 2 candidate at this time in my opinion.
Other thoughts: covered that in the cons.
Tier 3 candidates
Tier 3 candidates are candidates that I deem as not that progressive, or come off as fake progressives. They're not quite as bad as some of the more tried and true centrists I will mention in the next tier, but their visions and convictions on progressive issues is...well...questionable. Generally speaking these candidates score between 50 and 69 points on my metric. If they make it to the general I would consider voting for them but I would be holding my nose and not be very enthusiastic about them. I would consider voting third party if a third party puts forward a significantly better candidate but it really depends on the circumstances.
Kamala Harris
Pros: She sounds very progressive on paper and has a lot of interesting ideas. her LIFT act is basically a proto UBI. She supports medicare for all in theory. She's basically trying to occupy the same ideological space as Bernie. This is good, I like this.
Cons: She has a troubled history as a prosecutor, and does not have a history of being as progressive as she's portraying herself in this election. She walked back comments on medicare for all recently suggesting she would be okay with a more moderate approach, and while she sounds good, she scores very low in terms of her political convictions on these subjects. Also, the establishment loves her so something must be up there right?
Other thoughts: I really really wanna love Kamala Harris, but I really can't trust her. I'd describe her as a "trap" for progressives. Someone who fakes left, much like Obama, but who would likely govern from the center. I want to like her, but I just can't.
Kirsten Gillibrand
Pros: Much like Harris, has adopted a slew of progressive, Bernie-esque positions on various issues making her seem like a strong contender on paper.
Cons: Much like Harris, does not have a record of being progressive. She used to be a blue dog conservative democrat when representing upstate NY, then became progressive when becoming a senator, and is trying to be more progressive running for president. I don't buy it. I don't trust her. She also has a knack for "bipartisanship" and that kind of rubs me the wrong way. Tells me she won't have the convictions to pass progressive legislation.
Other thoughts: She's basically the same kind of candidate as Harris. Someone who I want to like, and seems progressive when I take them at their word, but also seems like the kind of person to sell out progressive values and compromise with the GOP. I want to like her, but I just can't.
Julian Castro
Pros: Endorses medicare for all on paper, seems progressive on paper. Also seems to have some decent convictions on issues and seems more genuine than some of the fake progressives on here.
Cons: History of being a bit more of a middle of the road democrat. I wouldn't call him a centrist, but I struggle to say he's as far left as I would like. He occupies the same ideological space as Obama and even served in his cabinet.
Other thoughts: I like Castro, but I'm not sure he's progressive enough for me on economic issues. He's not the worst candidate but we can do better.
Sherrod Brown
Pros: He has a certain midwestern charm and has some history and convictions of being progressive
Cons: Nowhere near as progressive as I would like. Does not endorse medicare for all, also campaigns on a "dignity of work" platform which is alienating to me as I believe the solution to midwestern problems is UBI.
Other thoughts: Nothing against the guy, he seems like a decent human being, I just don't believe he's progressive enough for my tastes.
Cory Booker
Pros: He's shifted significantly to the left, embracing medicare for all and other progressive legislation in theory.
Cons: He has a history of being an outright centrist neoliberal and his leftward turn is not believable at all.
Other thoughts:He would've been tier 4 but he's pivoted hard left enough to get enough support for me to include in the "maybe" column.
Amy Klobuchar
Pros: She has a certain level of genuineness to her and isn't an outright terrible candidate in my opinion.
Cons: While not as centrist as some of the centrists in tier 4, she's NOT that progressive.
Other thoughts: She just isn't that appealing to me. Reminds me of another Sherrod Brown style candidate.
Tier 4 candidates
Tier 4 candidates are candidates who are basically tried and true centrists. They generally align with the democratic party but are very neoliberal in their orientations, openly embracing economic conservatism or centrism while being somewhat socially liberal. If one of these candidates is a democratic nominee I will vote third party. They generally score between 30 and 49 points on my metric.
Beto O Rourke
Pros: He's socially liberal and not a terrible person
Cons: Dude is a tried and true "new democrat" who doesn't even try to be that progressive.
Other thoughts: My first impressions of him last year were nice but then as more came out about him, yikes, how about no.
Joe Biden
Pros: Hard to really come up with any. Um...he wasn't a bad vice president I guess?
Cons: Well, the dude told millennials complaining about the economy "give me a break", he bashed UBI to push the whole "work is about dignity" crap. He has a terrible history going back to the 1970s holding positions that in today's climate would be abhorrent on topics like drugs and school busing. If not for being Obama's VP, the dude would be a wash up given the left wing turn the party is doing right now.
Other thoughts: I just don't like him at all. He's basically Hillary 2.0 and the kind of old guard democrat who needs to just go away and let a new generation take over. Your time is passed.
John Delaney
Pros: Socially liberal I guess
Cons: Tried and true centrist running on things like bipartisanship and compromise.
Other thoughts: Not what I want at all
John Hickenlooper
Pros: Socially liberal as fudge
Cons: Another outspoken centrist candidate. No thanks.
Other thoughts: I mean, really, at least people like Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand have the sense to at least try to run to the left. Even if it's insincere it means something to me. These centrists are just no gos.
Howard Schultz
Pros: Socially liberal
Cons: basically a republican who is butthurt the party is moving left and fears paying more taxes.
Other thoughts: The guy is the CEO of Starbucks and is mulling a third party run, claiming the party is moving too far left. He has gotten ire from democrats and anti establishment progressives alike, fearing he will split the vote. While i have no problems with third candidates running their convictions and splitting the vote, the dude is just a scummy billionaire who wants his taxes lowered. Screw this guy.
Tier 5 Candidates
These candidates aren't democrats. Most democrats can easily break the 30 point threshold simply for being for social leftism and having SOME convictions there. If you score below 30, you're either a republican or maybe a libertarian.
Donald Trump
Pros: None really. But if I had to say something I like his protectionism and opposition to free trade agreements in theory I guess.
Cons: Everything. The dude is a puppet republican who is passing their agenda on economics and social issues in particular. And on foreign policy he's an unmitigated disaster. The dude has the temperament of a manchild and is completely unqualified to be president. I know I'm not releasing individual scores due to the fluctuating nature of my metric and my impressions of candidates yet, but let's be honest, the guy is currently sitting in the single digits on my metric.
Other thoughts: All I can hope for is the country takes a good hard look at conservatism and the republicans in this country and takes a hard shift left. I hope tier 4 candidates start representing the republican party. I hope to see the democrats become more progressive. I hope the democrat who will likely win in 2020 goes for the jugular as far as the GOP and what it stands for goes and says "THIS CRAP DOESN'T WORK", rejecting a decades long legacy of screwing our country up, and that they don't end up being some lame tier 4 or even wishy washy candidate who tries to "heal" the country via bipartisanship. GO. FOR. THE. IDEOLOGICAL. JUGULAR. It's the perfect chance. This guy is a failure of a president, and like FDR blamed Hoover and Reagan blamed Carter for the ideological failures of the other party, I hope the next president lays the broken legacy of conservatism at Trump's feet.
Overall
We have a very diverse set of candidates running this time. There are many candidates out there I like. There are many candidates I DON'T like. All in all, I have to say I am loving the shift left the democratic party seems to be taking. I just hope whomever gets into office has the vision and convictions to make the country a better place and doesn't turn into Clinton 2.0. As we know some of those candidates talk like a progressive but don't walk like one. We will have to see how things go. Right now I would say if I had to choose a candidate to endorse, it would be Bernie Sanders obviously. Although any tier 2 candidate would do in my opinion. I'm especially developing an affinity for and keeping my eye on Andrew Yang, but I'm open to many options. Again, we will have to see how this unfolds.
No comments:
Post a Comment