Democrats 2020

[Copernicus]

And for the love of god can we please all shut about his supposed problem with minorities

View attachment 20246
View attachment 20247
View attachment 20248

As was pointed out earlier, name recognition is a major factor in popularity polls at this point in the primary campaign season. However, it is worth thinking about why Sanders did so poorly with African Americans in 2016: Bernie Sanders Stumbled With Black Voters in 2016. Can He Do Better in 2020?

Basically, his problem seemed to be that his heart was in the right place, but his brain and body tended to put him in places that did not matter to African Americans. He never had enough minorities in important positions in his campaign, and some who joined became disillusioned with his commitment. A similar problem existed with women. Most of Sanders' campaign staff were white and male. So the advice they gave him tended to make him seem a little tone deaf when it came to African Americans and women, two constituencies that Hillary was strong in. This time around, analysts are looking to see if that lesson has been learned. Unfortunately for Sanders, he won't be able to cash in on the #NeverHillary vote (see How Bernie’s 2020 Map Might Change Without The #NeverHillary Vote), and he faces some competition from other Democrats who are perceived as closer to him in ideology (e.g. Warren).

 

[southernhybrid]

If Sanders wins the primaries, I will try to vote for him, and I probably will. To be honest, it will be very difficult since I have much stronger negative feelings regarding his ability to lead or accomplish anything of importance, more than any candidate I've voted for in my life. Perhaps, it's just that with age, I've grown more skeptical of candidates that promise the world, knowing they can't provide what they promise.

I disagree with you regarding Sanders being willing to compromise. He seems too stubborn and narrow minded to consider other's opinions. Maybe I just despise him too much and am having trouble viewing him objectively right now. I never disliked him when he was in Congress for many years because I think it's good to have a few offbeat eccentrics in Congress with views that aren't mainstream. I've been reading a lot about his history. I'm not impressed.

 

[southernhybrid]

Thanks Derec, for bringing up the Yellow Vest movement and how it's declined into a sometimes violent, anti semitic, hateful bunch of hooligans. I rarely agree with you, but this time I do. I was gong to link some articles about it yesterday but never had the time. It worried me that one of our posters seemed to be advocating some type of revolution. At least that's what it seemed like to me. Perhaps I'm wrong and he can explain what he actually meant when he brought up the Yellow Vest movement. That's the last thing we need in our already terribly divided country. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all discuss politics in a rational way without attacking each other?

I fear if Bernie becomes president, we will see more chaos and incompetence. I don't see him as a person who would be able to get things done. He's good at stirring up his base, but his history doesn't give me much hope that he'd be able to accomplish much, especially because he appears to be someone that refuses to compromise. We don't need another president that always tries to get his own way. We need someone who is rational and understands the need to work well with people, not one who only wants to please his base. Haven't we learned anything from our current populist president? No, I'm not saying that Bernie is Trump but I do see both of them as having cult like followings.

Still, I would love to hear the details of Bernie's plans. That's what nobody has been able to explain, not even the candidate himself. You can't just yell that you want certain things to happen without a very well thought out detailed plan.

As opposed to being bullshat to? You do realize that that is all moderate candidates do, right? They talk big and do little justifying their watered-down legislation as "compromise" so people who think this way will excuse them.

Those days are hopefully coming to a close and constituents, other than corporate constituents, are holding members accountable, not just for "getting something/anything done" but for confronting issues with meaningful legislation and questions that have teeth.

It's interesting as to why some of the newer members of Congress are questioning the status quo in congressional behavior while others who've been there for years "never thought" to ask.

Why is it that nobody other than a new member thought to grill Elliot Abrams about his past behavior and how it is relative to the current Venezuela issue? Because everyone is afraid of aleinating organisations and people for the sake of bipartianship and compromise. Some of these new members seem to be saying "no more". I'm liking what I'm seeing from these few members.

And, I"m sure you must know that the majority of the new members of the House are centrists. And, that is why compromise is always needed to accomplish most things. I like having members from all sides of the left, which included left of center, mid left of center and far left of center. Diversity is a good thing in life, but in a diverse political party there much always be compromise. Yup. I said it again.

All nations that have aspects of Democratic Socialism also have capitalistic based economic systems. The problem we have in the US is that we have allowed large corporations too much power. That doesn't mean that capitalism per se is a bad thing. It simply means that largely due to a lack of compromise on the conservative side of the table, regulation has been ineffective. Economic systems work best when they are diverse.

 

[untermensche]

If Sanders wins the primaries, I will try to vote for him, and I probably will. To be honest, it will be very difficult since I have much stronger negative feelings regarding his ability to lead or accomplish anything of importance, more than any candidate I've voted for in my life. Perhaps, it's just that with age, I've grown more skeptical of candidates that promise the world, knowing they can't provide what they promise.

I disagree with you regarding Sanders being willing to compromise. He seems too stubborn and narrow minded to consider other's opinions. Maybe I just despise him too much and am having trouble viewing him objectively right now. I never disliked him when he was in Congress for many years because I think it's good to have a few offbeat eccentrics in Congress with views that aren't mainstream. I've been reading a lot about his history. I'm not impressed.

So you would have trouble voting for Bernie over Trump because you think BERNIE is too stubborn and narrow minded?

 

[poster]

Thanks Derec, for bringing up the Yellow Vest movement and how it's declined into a sometimes violent, anti semitic, hateful bunch of hooligans. I rarely agree with you, but this time I do. I was gong to link some articles about it yesterday but never had the time. It worried me that one of our posters seemed to be advocating some type of revolution. At least that's what it seemed like to me. Perhaps I'm wrong and he can explain what he actually meant when he brought up the Yellow Vest movement. That's the last thing we need in our already terribly divided country. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all discuss politics in a rational way without attacking each other?

I fear if Bernie becomes president, we will see more chaos and incompetence. I don't see him as a person who would be able to get things done. He's good at stirring up his base, but his history doesn't give me much hope that he'd be able to accomplish much, especially because he appears to be someone that refuses to compromise. We don't need another president that always tries to get his own way. We need someone who is rational and understands the need to work well with people, not one who only wants to please his base. Haven't we learned anything from our current populist president? No, I'm not saying that Bernie is Trump but I do see both of them as having cult like followings.

Still, I would love to hear the details of Bernie's plans. That's what nobody has been able to explain, not even the candidate himself. You can't just yell that you want certain things to happen without a very well thought out detailed plan.

As opposed to being bullshat to? You do realize that that is all moderate candidates do, right? They talk big and do little justifying their watered-down legislation as "compromise" so people who think this way will excuse them.

Those days are hopefully coming to a close and constituents, other than corporate constituents, are holding members accountable, not just for "getting something/anything done" but for confronting issues with meaningful legislation and questions that have teeth.

It's interesting as to why some of the newer members of Congress are questioning the status quo in congressional behavior while others who've been there for years "never thought" to ask.

Why is it that nobody other than a new member thought to grill Elliot Abrams about his past behavior and how it is relative to the current Venezuela issue? Because everyone is afraid of aleinating organisations and people for the sake of bipartianship and compromise. Some of these new members seem to be saying "no more". I'm liking what I'm seeing from these few members.

And, I"m sure you must know that the majority of the new members of the House are centrists. And, that is why compromise is always needed to accomplish most things. I like having members from all sides of the left, which included left of center, mid left of center and far left of center. Diversity is a good thing in life, but in a diverse political party there much always be compromise. Yup. I said it again.

All nations that have aspects of Democratic Socialism also have capitalistic based economic systems. The problem we have in the US is that we have allowed large corporations too much power. That doesn't mean that capitalism per se is a bad thing. It simply means that largely due to a lack of compromise on the conservative side of the table, regulation has been ineffective. Economic systems work best when they are diverse.

This is the sort of shanangins moderate corporate dems participate in.

https://truthout.org/articles/trojan-horse-legislation-could-derail-single-payer-in-massachusetts/

 

[Toni]

Conservatives? Accusing a woman in power of slutting her way to the top of the company/government? I am shocked. Totally shocked.

Just because she is a woman should not mean she should be shielded from accusations of improper behavior.
If she used her sexual relationship with Brown to gain government jobs, that is corruption and fair game for attacks. Even if she was still in her 20s.
Certainly she gave Kavenaugh a lot of hell for his alleged behavior while he was still a minor. Surely her behavior when she was a young lawyer should not be off limits then.

She had a relationship with Brown. Brown has helped any number of promising people to move forward in their profession,including politics. Please answer what you've consistently dodged before: do you suppose that ALL of the people that Brown helped in their political careers slept with Brown and he helped all of them as a tit for tat in return for their sexual favors?

 

[Toni]

I do not think McCain was an idiot either.

He was when he allowed himself to be pushed into Palin as a running mate.

I will research her more if and when she gains some traction.
But I am still interested in some contradictory things you wrote. Like how you think she is Islamophobic but then also fault her for endorsing Keith Ellison, who is a Muslim.
Or how about you faulting her for endorsing a candidate not preferred by the bigwigs at DNC. Why is that a negative?

I think you can google enough of that all on your own. Gabbard endorsed Ellison--I'm not a fan and this is a negative for me. No, it has nothing to do with his religious affiliation. I realize that for some, this is seen as a positive but I have significant questions about his history with women, for starters.

Some of Gabbard's spotty (or horrifying, depending on your POV) record is outlined here:

https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-president-foreign-islam/
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/
https://ummahwide.com/my-personal-e...ds-islamophobia-at-standing-rock-9edbb5fde6e6

I think that she's new age-ier than any other new age nutcase I know--and I know more than a few.

I agree with you on that. Rejecting telescopes because of some superstitious hocus pocus is idiotic.

That's a HUGE red flag. We already have one crazy person who is a science denier as POTUS. We do not need to follow him up with a younger, prettier but no better informed or less crazy one.

Seriousy, Derec: google news sources you trust and some you always disagree with.

I think she's a new age authoritarian who is dishonest about her ties and her beliefs and is as opportunistic as anyone I've ever seen--and not in a good way. She's very pretty, yes. But so what?

 

[Copernicus]

And, I"m sure you must know that the majority of the new members of the House are centrists. And, that is why compromise is always needed to accomplish most things. I like having members from all sides of the left, which included left of center, mid left of center and far left of center. Diversity is a good thing in life, but in a diverse political party there much always be compromise. Yup. I said it again.

All nations that have aspects of Democratic Socialism also have capitalistic based economic systems. The problem we have in the US is that we have allowed large corporations too much power. That doesn't mean that capitalism per se is a bad thing. It simply means that largely due to a lack of compromise on the conservative side of the table, regulation has been ineffective. Economic systems work best when they are diverse.

This is the sort of shanangins moderate corporate dems participate in.

https://truthout.org/articles/trojan-horse-legislation-could-derail-single-payer-in-massachusetts/

No, it is the sort of thing that might make single payer possible, because it is the only way to map out a strategy for getting from the present system to a viable single-payer option. "Medicare for all" is not a single-payer option, since it is heavily integrated with big pharma, major health insurance carriers, and major health care providers. Frankly, it is something of a mess, but it is what progressives like Bernie Sanders are at least shouting slogans about. Your source web site appears to be assuming that we can achieve a viable single payer system by just excluding all of the stakeholders who run current health care programs and crafting some ideal plan from scratch that can just be put in place without massive confusion and disruption. The reality is that all of those big corporations employ hundreds of thousands of people and implement the health care of millions of Americans. They cannot simply be ignored or excluded from drafting a plan for the transition to single-payer.

What do you think "Medicare for All" means? Are you currently on Medicare? If so, then you know that the people who actually deliver Medicare are not employees of the US government. They are employees of private insurers, providers, and other businesses. There is also a huge government bureaucracy in the mix, but it outsources most of the actual work to private businesses.

 

[poster]

And, I"m sure you must know that the majority of the new members of the House are centrists. And, that is why compromise is always needed to accomplish most things. I like having members from all sides of the left, which included left of center, mid left of center and far left of center. Diversity is a good thing in life, but in a diverse political party there much always be compromise. Yup. I said it again.

All nations that have aspects of Democratic Socialism also have capitalistic based economic systems. The problem we have in the US is that we have allowed large corporations too much power. That doesn't mean that capitalism per se is a bad thing. It simply means that largely due to a lack of compromise on the conservative side of the table, regulation has been ineffective. Economic systems work best when they are diverse.

This is the sort of shanangins moderate corporate dems participate in.

https://truthout.org/articles/trojan-horse-legislation-could-derail-single-payer-in-massachusetts/

No, it is the sort of thing that might make single payer possible, because it is the only way to map out a strategy for getting from the present system to a viable single-payer option. "Medicare for all" is not a single-payer option, since it is heavily integrated with big pharma, major health insurance carriers, and major health care providers. Frankly, it is something of a mess, but it is what progressives like Bernie Sanders are at least shouting slogans about. Your source web site appears to be assuming that we can achieve a viable single payer system by just excluding all of the stakeholders who run current health care programs and crafting some ideal plan from scratch that can just be put in place without massive confusion and disruption. The reality is that all of those big corporations employ hundreds of thousands of people and implement the health care of millions of Americans. They cannot simply be ignored or excluded from drafting a plan for the transition to single-payer.

What do you think "Medicare for All" means? Are you currently on Medicare? If so, then you know that the people who actually deliver Medicare are not employees of the US government. They are employees of private insurers, providers, and other businesses. There is also a huge government bureaucracy in the mix, but it outsources most of the actual work to private businesses.

And this is why Bernie Sanders is the compromise candidate. I'm no fan of medicare for all. All my medical concerns are through the VA, which is single-payer health care.

This issue could have been and should have been addressed 30 years ago. However, what has occured is moderate democrates have compromised their way to the entrechment of the insurance industry. This is why it's time to stand firm, or at least the beginning of standing firm.

 

[Copernicus]

No, it is the sort of thing that might make single payer possible, because it is the only way to map out a strategy for getting from the present system to a viable single-payer option. "Medicare for all" is not a single-payer option, since it is heavily integrated with big pharma, major health insurance carriers, and major health care providers. Frankly, it is something of a mess, but it is what progressives like Bernie Sanders are at least shouting slogans about. Your source web site appears to be assuming that we can achieve a viable single payer system by just excluding all of the stakeholders who run current health care programs and crafting some ideal plan from scratch that can just be put in place without massive confusion and disruption. The reality is that all of those big corporations employ hundreds of thousands of people and implement the health care of millions of Americans. They cannot simply be ignored or excluded from drafting a plan for the transition to single-payer.

What do you think "Medicare for All" means? Are you currently on Medicare? If so, then you know that the people who actually deliver Medicare are not employees of the US government. They are employees of private insurers, providers, and other businesses. There is also a huge government bureaucracy in the mix, but it outsources most of the actual work to private businesses.

And this is why Bernie Sanders is the compromise candidate. I'm no fan of medicare for all. All my medical concerns are through the VA, which is single-payer health care.

This issue could have been and should have been addressed 30 years ago. However, what has occured is moderate democrates have compromised their way to the entrechment of the insurance industry. This is why it's time to stand firm, or at least the beginning of standing firm.

You are very lucky to have true single-payer health care, screwed up as the VA is. It is still a better solution than Medicare, which is a Rube Goldberg mess. However, please note that "Medicare for All" is what Bernie Sanders and other progressive liberals are calling for. I would prefer true single-payer, but I just don't see any practical path to that. "Medicare for All" will be hard enough to implement, and it will require a massive tax increase. However, there are plenty of things that could be fixed to make that system more cost-effective (especially drug costs), and the government needs to do a far better job of regulating it. A place to start is to remove the cap on FICA taxes. That would make FICA a more progressive system and help to make Social Security and Medicare solvent in the future.

 

[lpetrich]

PyramidHead? Where is the source of your charts of candidate favorability? I looked in YouGov | What the world thinks and I could not find any source, though I found some poll numbers that those charts may have been based on.

I copied the numbers off of PyramidHead's graphs, and I added them to some numbers that fivethirtyeight.com had for favorable rating and amount of acquaintance.

I found a good fit for overall, with the standard deviation declining from 16.2 to 3.7, and also for blacks, with 10.9 to 5.2, though not with Hispanics, with 5.8 to 4.7, or others, with 8.2 to 8.0.

Here are the raw numbers:

• Overall (F): Bernie Sanders, 52, Elizabeth Warren, 44, Kamala Harris, 38, Cory Booker, 33, Julian Castro, 23, Kirsten Gillibrand, 21, Amy Klobuchar, 15, Pete Buttigieg, 6, John Delaney, 5, Tulsi Gabbard, 4
• Black (F-U): Bernie Sanders, 31, Kamala Harris, 24, Cory Booker, 23, Elizabeth Warren, 22, Amy Klobuchar, 15, Kirsten Gillibrand, 10, Julian Castro, 9, John Delaney, 3, Pete Buttigieg, 2, Tulsi Gabbard, -5
• Hispanic (F-U): Bernie Sanders, 6, Amy Klobuchar, -1, Julian Castro, -4, Elizabeth Warren, -5, Kamala Harris, -7, John Delaney, -9, Pete Buttigieg, -10, Cory Booker, -11, Kirsten Gillibrand, -13, Tulsi Gabbard, -14
• Other: (F-U): Bernie Sanders, 18, Pete Buttigieg, 9, Cory Booker, 4, Julian Castro, 3, Amy Klobuchar, 1, John Delaney, 0, Elizabeth Warren, -1, Tulsi Gabbard, -2, Kamala Harris, -9, Kirsten Gillibrand, -13

After the fit to the degree of acquaintance:

• Overall (F): Kamala Harris, 5, Julian Castro, 3, Amy Klobuchar, 2, Cory Booker, 2, Pete Buttigieg, 2, Elizabeth Warren, 1, John Delaney, 0, Kirsten Gillibrand, -3, Bernie Sanders, -4, Tulsi Gabbard, -8
• Black (F-U): Amy Klobuchar, 8, Cory Booker, 5, Kamala Harris, 5, John Delaney, 1, Pete Buttigieg, 1, Bernie Sanders, -2, Julian Castro, -2, Elizabeth Warren, -3, Kirsten Gillibrand, -3, Tulsi Gabbard, -11
• Hispanic (F-U): Amy Klobuchar, 8, Bernie Sanders, 6, Julian Castro, 4, John Delaney, 2, Pete Buttigieg, 1, Elizabeth Warren, -2, Kamala Harris, -2, Tulsi Gabbard, -5, Cory Booker, -6, Kirsten Gillibrand, -6
• Other: (F-U): Bernie Sanders, 13, Pete Buttigieg, 11, Julian Castro, 3, Cory Booker, 2, Amy Klobuchar, 1, John Delaney, 1, Tulsi Gabbard, -1, Elizabeth Warren, -4, Kamala Harris, -11, Kirsten Gillibrand, -14

The degree of acquaintance is "cand", and the first parameter is the linear fit: {FittedModel[-11.2275+0.759732 cand], FittedModel[-8.07476+0.461823 cand], FittedModel[-14.1803+0.158715 cand], FittedModel[-3.56567+0.0981864 cand]}

As you can see, the slopes are much less for Hispanics and others than for overall and blacks, meaning much less correlation.

 

[poster]

No, it is the sort of thing that might make single payer possible, because it is the only way to map out a strategy for getting from the present system to a viable single-payer option. "Medicare for all" is not a single-payer option, since it is heavily integrated with big pharma, major health insurance carriers, and major health care providers. Frankly, it is something of a mess, but it is what progressives like Bernie Sanders are at least shouting slogans about. Your source web site appears to be assuming that we can achieve a viable single payer system by just excluding all of the stakeholders who run current health care programs and crafting some ideal plan from scratch that can just be put in place without massive confusion and disruption. The reality is that all of those big corporations employ hundreds of thousands of people and implement the health care of millions of Americans. They cannot simply be ignored or excluded from drafting a plan for the transition to single-payer.

What do you think "Medicare for All" means? Are you currently on Medicare? If so, then you know that the people who actually deliver Medicare are not employees of the US government. They are employees of private insurers, providers, and other businesses. There is also a huge government bureaucracy in the mix, but it outsources most of the actual work to private businesses.

And this is why Bernie Sanders is the compromise candidate. I'm no fan of medicare for all. All my medical concerns are through the VA, which is single-payer health care.

This issue could have been and should have been addressed 30 years ago. However, what has occured is moderate democrates have compromised their way to the entrechment of the insurance industry. This is why it's time to stand firm, or at least the beginning of standing firm.

You are very lucky to have true single-payer health care, screwed up as the VA is. It is still a better solution than Medicare, which is a Rube Goldberg mess. However, please note that "Medicare for All" is what Bernie Sanders and other progressive liberals are calling for. I would prefer true single-payer, but I just don't see any practical path to that. "Medicare for All" will be hard enough to implement, and it will require a massive tax increase. However, there are plenty of things that could be fixed to make that system more cost-effective (especially drug costs), and the government needs to do a far better job of regulating it. A place to start is to remove the cap on FICA taxes. That would make FICA a more progressive system and help to make Social Security and Medicare solvent in the future.

Like I've said, I am willing to compromise this far.

As for the VA health care system; it isn't a screwed up from my perspective (and others I speak to that get care from it) as the corporate media makes it out to be.

Corporate insiders do their best to sabotage anything that isn't privatized.

 

[Copernicus]

You are very lucky to have true single-payer health care, screwed up as the VA is. It is still a better solution than Medicare, which is a Rube Goldberg mess. However, please note that "Medicare for All" is what Bernie Sanders and other progressive liberals are calling for. I would prefer true single-payer, but I just don't see any practical path to that. "Medicare for All" will be hard enough to implement, and it will require a massive tax increase. However, there are plenty of things that could be fixed to make that system more cost-effective (especially drug costs), and the government needs to do a far better job of regulating it. A place to start is to remove the cap on FICA taxes. That would make FICA a more progressive system and help to make Social Security and Medicare solvent in the future.

Like I've said, I am willing to compromise this far.

As for the VA health care system; it isn't a screwed up from my perspective (and others I speak to that get care from it) as the corporate media makes it out to be.

Corporate insiders do their best to sabotage anything that isn't privatized.

I don't have any experience with the VA, so I'm happy to rely on your judgment. I've heard very good things about it, but the press plays up some of the worst examples of failures. I'm not sure what experience you have of "corporate insiders", but I can't say that I agree with your generalization. I think that opinions are far more diverse.

That said, I would recommend this as a possible alternative to the Canadian model: A Better Path to Universal Health Care

 

[poster]

I am not in government but I was part of the corporate structure for quite a while. Trump appoints saboteurs of government to his administration posts unabashed. I assume you'd agree with that. Well, both Republicans and Democrats have been doing the same thing for decades to various degrees, just not so openly. Micky Kantor is a good example. The government is loaded with layers of these saboteurs that allow its systems to work just enough to suit corporate interests. Amtrak and the Postal Service are perfect examples.

Not realizing this stuff can make one appear quite naive.

 

[Copernicus]

I am not in government but I was part of the corporate structure for quite a while. Trump appoints saboteurs of government to his administration posts unabashed. I assume you'd agree with that. Well, both Republicans and Democrats have been doing the same thing for decades to various degrees, just not so openly. Micky Kantor is a good example. The government is loaded with layers of these saboteurs that allow its systems to work just enough to suit corporate interests. Amtrak and the Postal Service are perfect examples.

Not realizing this stuff can make one appear quite naive.

So can sweeping generalizations and unsupported claims of deep state conspiracies. There are Republican and Democratic officials with a sense of honesty and decency, although everyone has lapses in judgment and flaws of character. The government happens to be staffed with flawed human beings, which is why due process is such an important concept in our form of government. Republicans are in a particularly difficult position now, because the leader of their party has more character flaws than the usual party leader. It is not surprising that they feel pressured to turn a blind eye to the damage that Trump is doing to our institutions and traditions, just very disappointing. Democratic officials do not have to face the same dilemma between personal conscience and party loyalty, but I would agree with you, if your point is that they are just as flawed individually as Republicans are. Republicans seem to get a pass from their base with even more egregious scandals and criminal behavior than Democrats do. Democrats have their fair share of miscreants, but they seem to be less tolerant of them in these times.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Weiner-Smollett 2020

Winning ticket for Democrats 2020:

Anthony Weiner for President,

Jussie Smollett for VP.


So get on board the Weiner-Smollett bandwagon, for prison reform, gay & pedophile rights, and hate-crime awareness!

 

[poster]

I am not in government but I was part of the corporate structure for quite a while. Trump appoints saboteurs of government to his administration posts unabashed. I assume you'd agree with that. Well, both Republicans and Democrats have been doing the same thing for decades to various degrees, just not so openly. Micky Kantor is a good example. The government is loaded with layers of these saboteurs that allow its systems to work just enough to suit corporate interests. Amtrak and the Postal Service are perfect examples.

Not realizing this stuff can make one appear quite naive.

So can sweeping generalizations and unsupported claims of deep state conspiracies. There are Republican and Democratic officials with a sense of honesty and decency, although everyone has lapses in judgment and flaws of character. The government happens to be staffed with flawed human beings, which is why due process is such an important concept in our form of government. Republicans are in a particularly difficult position now, because the leader of their party has more character flaws than the usual party leader. It is not surprising that they feel pressured to turn a blind eye to the damage that Trump is doing to our institutions and traditions, just very disappointing. Democratic officials do not have to face the same dilemma between personal conscience and party loyalty, but I would agree with you, if your point is that they are just as flawed individually as Republicans are. Republicans seem to get a pass from their base with even more egregious scandals and criminal behavior than Democrats do. Democrats have their fair share of miscreants, but they seem to be less tolerant of them in these times.

I don't know how you're defining "flawed human beings". Would you care to explain?

 

[poster]

I am not in government but I was part of the corporate structure for quite a while. Trump appoints saboteurs of government to his administration posts unabashed. I assume you'd agree with that. Well, both Republicans and Democrats have been doing the same thing for decades to various degrees, just not so openly. Micky Kantor is a good example. The government is loaded with layers of these saboteurs that allow its systems to work just enough to suit corporate interests. Amtrak and the Postal Service are perfect examples.

Not realizing this stuff can make one appear quite naive.

So can sweeping generalizations and unsupported claims of deep state conspiracies. There are Republican and Democratic officials with a sense of honesty and decency, although everyone has lapses in judgment and flaws of character. The government happens to be staffed with flawed human beings, which is why due process is such an important concept in our form of government. Republicans are in a particularly difficult position now, because the leader of their party has more character flaws than the usual party leader. It is not surprising that they feel pressured to turn a blind eye to the damage that Trump is doing to our institutions and traditions, just very disappointing. Democratic officials do not have to face the same dilemma between personal conscience and party loyalty, but I would agree with you, if your point is that they are just as flawed individually as Republicans are. Republicans seem to get a pass from their base with even more egregious scandals and criminal behavior than Democrats do. Democrats have their fair share of miscreants, but they seem to be less tolerant of them in these times.

I don't know how you're defining "flawed human beings". Would you care to explain?

Should I take your non-response as a no or are you still at work inventing a definition?

 

[Derec]

To get back to Dems 2020, how about the prospects that no candidate gets majority of pledged delegates in the first round, thus having a brokered convention?

Yes, I know, somebody always raises that possibility, but if the Dem field remains crowded (even three solid candidates remaining after Super Tuesday could do it) this is probable.
In 2016 the Dem race was basically a two-way race, as was the 2008 race after South Carolina. And while the Republicans had a crowded field, their contests are mostly winner take all. I think Republicans would have had a brokered convention had they been playing by Dem rules.

Another issue may be the open primary states. Remember Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"? Without a competitive contest on the other side, there is no reason for indys and Republicans not to vote in Dem primaries. While I think vast majority of indys would vote legitimately for whomever they support most, I think many Republicans could cross over to for example vote for Bernie if they perceive him to be the least threat in general or simply to stir some shit by denying whoever is the front-runner a first ballot nomination.

 

[Politesse]

To get back to Dems 2020, how about the prospects that no candidate gets majority of pledged delegates in the first round, thus having a brokered convention?

Yes, I know, somebody always raises that possibility, but if the Dem field remains crowded (even three solid candidates remaining after Super Tuesday could do it) this is probable.
In 2016 the Dem race was basically a two-way race, as was the 2008 race after South Carolina. And while the Republicans had a crowded field, their contests are mostly winner take all. I think Republicans would have had a brokered convention had they been playing by Dem rules.

Another issue may be the open primary states. Remember Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"? Without a competitive contest on the other side, there is no reason for indys and Republicans not to vote in Dem primaries. While I think vast majority of indys would vote legitimately for whomever they support most, I think many Republicans could cross over to for example vote for Bernie if they perceive him to be the least threat in general or simply to stir some shit by denying whoever is the front-runner a first ballot nomination.

Even in California, where he lost handily to Clinton, district-by-district he did very well in majority-Republican or Libertarian counties.

It's getting harder to cross party lines for the primaries, though.