Skip Navigation
Politics @beehaw.org metaltoilet @beehaw.org

[US] Marianne Williamson, RFK Jr and Cornel West; let's discuss.

These candidates are really the only challengers to Biden in the primaries. All of their campaigns are extremely long shots (but not impossible in my opinion- if we decided we liked them more than Biden they could win). Let's all have a civilized discussion/debate over them. Let's try to not focus too heavy on their perceived inability to beat Biden but focus on them as actual candidates.

my take

MW: I recently watched an interview with Marianne Williamson who I'd never heard of before (I'm sure there's a reason media doesn't cover her). She really impressed me with her views, especially on neoliberalism. She heavily reminds me of Bernie and isn't running just for the sake of it or as a protest like some other long shot candidates do. In my opinion she deserves everyone's vote in the primaries, at least. She is also very talented at oration.

CW: I'll be honest, I know very little about him and need to do more research.

RFK JR: He's literally a clown. He's a nepo baby and all his views are inconsistent, harmful, and crackpot. He has no shot at winning.

44

You're viewing a single thread.

44 comments

  • I like Marianne Williamson's willingness to just call a horse a horse in interviews and the like. While I understand she doesn't have a lot on the line at the moment politically, so she can kind of say whatever she wants, it was refreshing to see her go on neoliberal outlets like MSNBC and CNN and deftly avoid the pitfalls that they routinely try to lay out for progressives.

    Her announcement video was really fantastic (sorry about the twitter link), and she grounded her campaign in progressive principles from the start. Rational National had some coverage of her campaign and tv appearances that illustrates why she's compelling. [1] [2]

    She speaks well and seems quite quick and present. She also doesn't seem to have too many obviously annoying or off-putting characteristics that critics could latch onto. She's polite but also has a sort of naturally commanding presence and matter-of-fact assertiveness.

    Williamson would have a better chance in a general as a woman than someone like Elizabeth Warren who, regardless of whether you like her politics or not, comes off as a bit shrill. Like, sonically her voice is unpleasant to listen to. I don't think people should care about that kind of thing, but it's undeniable that it does in contemporary politics and the first female president will have to navigate a lot of extra-stupid social perception hoops.

    Regarding Cornell West, I think I've said it on here before, but I'm kind of generally skeptical of people who overtly style themselves as intellectuals. I'm not against intellectuals, but he kind of gives me Michio Kaku vibes, and his campaign announcement of being in the People's Party was kind of weird. If nothing else, affecting the trappings of intellectualism in the current climate seems a bit politically oblivious, which is not a good sign of how his campaign would go in a general. People on both sides of the spectrum are over "Big Ideas", promises and political theory, they're suffering and want tangible results.

    So, I would vote for Williamson in a primary in 2028.

44 comments