[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.
has more ideologically in common with Republicans than Democrats
not only that but his favorability with Republicans is substantially higher than that of Democrats. guy's probably running in the wrong primary and if he didn't have a handful of "too liberal" takes he'd be getting a VP call come 2024 convention season
MW: Is an anti-vaxxer woo-woo person, so no thanks.
CW: Nothing to wrong with him in a vaccum but all he's going to do is take away votes from Biden.
RFK JR: conspiracy theorist and generally a POS, hard pass
Not completely dismissing the criticism about woo-woo spiritual stuff, but she has directly addressed accusations of being anti-vax
Misrepresentations of my work are in high gear this morning, so just in case it need be said: I am not anti-vaxx. I am pro-science & medicine. I’ve never suggested to anyone they should pray away their illness & not see a doctor. I’ve never blamed a victim nor fat-shamed anyone.
I don't think she's a malicious nut like Kennedy, but does seem into spiritual and self-help stuff. Which is fine to me as long as she's grounding her politics in the real world.
CW is the only one that's remotely interesting to me, but I don't think any of them are particularly good for anything except being a spoiler and getting Donald Trump elected.
Westerners safe from bombardment like long-shot third-party presidential candidate Cornel West continue to accommodate Russia. In a July 13 interview with CNN's Kaitlan Collins, West called Russia's invasion "criminal" but insisted it was "provoked by the expansion of NATO" and is a "proxy war between the American Empire and the Russian Federation," adding Neville Chamberlain-esque icing on the appeasement cake by proposing Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia.
So that's enough for me to lose any interest I had in him.
I just read cw's Wikipedia page and boy is it a doozy. He's really outspoken and rude. The article paints him as a 0 or 100 type of person who either hates or loves you. The is no in-between. I don't think he'd make a good president but I think he has the right politics overall. One really odd belief cw holds is that Marxism and Christianity are incompatible with each other. I don't understand how that can be but I didn't look further into it.
How is MW? She seems like she'd be generally the same political alignment as cw but maybe not so ready to throw insults at people. At least how you described her. Both cw and her endorsed Bernie.
This really encouraged me to vote in the primaries and I'm going to see what it takes to do so in my state..
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.
Yes, in 2024 too I suppose but, and perhaps I'm too cynical, I really do not see Biden losing the nomination despite rock bottom approval. I'm registered, so I may as well vote in the primary but I don't have any expectation that it's going to be very impactful in this instance.