Pete is definitely left. He said it himself, he would be the most progressive president to date. He's a little left of the old guard but still very right of Bernie and Warren.
He's just not batshit crazy, angry and doesn't scream and rant in your face...he communicates his positions very effectively.
He's definitely left of McMurtry, but he's right in the sweet spot for women voters...who are more passionate especially about this current SCOTUS decision, a larger base (there are 97 males for every 100 females) and becoming the dominant gender with college degrees and masters.
This is getting circulated around today. See how he answers this difficult question, particularly late term abortions, with empathy but in a manner that is easily understood.
This is what a really effective communicator can do...answer delicate and complex questions effectively without insulting because once you insult, you've killed the conversation.
Now compare with Harris and her stance on the topic, who makes great points and I agree with every one, but this is the standard political fire and brimstone that everyone uses these days featuring an angry tone, some insults and emotional words that are so big that it might get lost as 'over the top' and therefore tuned out and not heard.
It's just a comparison of style.
Right. Manchin is a centrist, Pete is left, Bernie is far left.
Bullock is centrist, Obama is left, AOC is far left
Reagan was owned by Wall St and the rich, and every move he made was to benefit them at the expense of the working class.
Clinton was owned by Wall St and the rich, and every move he made was to benefit them at the expense of the working class.
GWB was owned by Wall St and the rich, and every move he made was to benefit them at the expense of the working class.
Obama was owned by Wall St and the rich, and every move he made was to benefit them at the expense of the working class.
Biden was owned by Wall St and the rich, and every move he made was to benefit them at the expense of the working class.
Manchin, Sinema, and some other Dem senators, (though not all), are owned by Wall St and the rich.
all, to virtually all, Pub senators are owned by Wall St and the rich.
in a political system where buying politicians, policy, and even parties, is perfectly legal, it can be no other way, and expecting it to would be foolhardy.
that said, whether one defines being owned by Wall St and the rich, and serving them all the time on everything at the expense of the working class, is left or right, or far left or far right, is just someone assigning their own personal label to serving Wall St and the rich on everything all the time, at the expense of the working class.
literally all CORPORATE media serve Wall St and the rich, all the time on everything.
being they're CORPORATE, controlled by corporations and owned by the rich, and other corporations also owned by the rich, it can be no other way, and expecting it to would be beyond foolhardy.
now if one wants to say a politician who serves Wall St and the rich on everything all the time at the expense of the working class, occupies a different spot on the right-left scale because they back minorities, and/or personal freedoms, more of less than others, so be it.
but they still back Wall St and the rich on everything all the time at the expense of the working class.
the same with all CORPORATE media. i repeat ALL. as in ALL.
there is no "liberal" CORPORATE media, nor is it even possible for there to be.
that said, if one wants to assign right to left designation strictly on social matters and nothing else, then they should specify so in their designation, and that it only refers to social issues.
and if one is assigning right to left designations, be it to politicians or media, on social issues only, then they should clarify if being pro individual and pro personal freedom and pro equality is a right thing or a left thing, and vice versa, just so we'll know how they are defining right or left as to social issues..
en.m.wikipedia.org
... or I'm just stupid.
