Democrats 2020

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

Yes... and getting things like UHC and what not is not possible because of the shape of the Supreme Court. Thanks for participating in adult politics.

It is not my fault if the Democrats refuse to field a candidate who is popular.

They did. Gore won the popular vote, and lost Florida only in the courts. Obama won by healthy margins Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 millions votes. The only Democrat to lose the popular vote since 2000 was John Kerry. It is hard to argue the winner of the popular vote wasn't popular.

You can wag your finger of shame all you like, I'm not going to be embarrassed.

And I'm happy you can obfuscate that way in your mind. You/others want "liberal", but in the end, you've/they've made "liberal" impossible. When there are two primary candidates for President and one of them is an absolute danger to democracy, voting third party or making with a protest vote in a state where it matters, is just irresponsible. But you continue to feel pride in your principles. I mean, your principles won't ever matter on a national stage because the Supreme Court now has the power to support things like pro-religious based discrimination laws, undo Roe v Wade, ensure UHC is unconstitutional. I'm sure women in the south will be glad you stuck by your principles when they are incapable of aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

Adults may not always have consistency or principles, but the ones I admire most do. Every one should have a line they aren't willing to cross.

Yeah, apparently Trump becoming President wasn't that line?

Frankly I'm horrified by how many people apparently think "they're in my party" is enough reason to vote for someone even if you have every reason to believe they are cheating their way in.

I'm not narcassistic enough to think that what I want most should be the primary and sole goals of the Democrat Party. I realize that the Democrat Party has more than one member, people from across the country with different ideas and priorities.

I mean, I know this is the consensus, because Trump not only got elected once but is about to get acquitted by the Senate for trying to cheat in the next election, and the Supreme Court if challenged to will back the decision. But none of this will change if people never hold people on "their side" accountable for what they say and do.

*broing*

 

[Politesse]

I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

^ This is why we can't have nice things.

I don't want nice things if they come at the cost of having no principles at all, no, nor do I believe that always kowtowing to evil designs is somehow going to give everyone nice things.

 

[Politesse]

It is not my fault if the Democrats refuse to field a candidate who is popular.

They did. Gore won the popular vote, and lost Florida only in the courts. Obama won by healthy margins Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 millions votes. The only Democrat to lose the popular vote since 2000 was John Kerry. It is hard to argue the winner of the popular vote wasn't popular.

You can wag your finger of shame all you like, I'm not going to be embarrassed.

And I'm happy you can obfuscate that way in your mind. You/others want "liberal", but in the end, you've/they've made "liberal" impossible. When there are two primary candidates for President and one of them is an absolute danger to democracy, voting third party or making with a protest vote in a state where it matters, is just irresponsible. But you continue to feel pride in your principles. I mean, your principles won't ever matter on a national stage because the Supreme Court now has the power to support things like pro-religious based discrimination laws, undo Roe v Wade, ensure UHC is unconstitutional. I'm sure women in the south will be glad you stuck by your principles when they are incapable of aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

Adults may not always have consistency or principles, but the ones I admire most do. Every one should have a line they aren't willing to cross.

Yeah, apparently Trump becoming President wasn't that line?

Frankly I'm horrified by how many people apparently think "they're in my party" is enough reason to vote for someone even if you have every reason to believe they are cheating their way in.

I'm not narcassistic enough to think that what I want most should be the primary and sole goals of the Democrat Party. I realize that the Democrat Party has more than one member, people from across the country with different ideas and priorities.

I mean, I know this is the consensus, because Trump not only got elected once but is about to get acquitted by the Senate for trying to cheat in the next election, and the Supreme Court if challenged to will back the decision. But none of this will change if people never hold people on "their side" accountable for what they say and do.

*broing*

And I voted for all four of those folks you mention, save Obama the second time around who did not need another Californian vote at that time, and who had committed war crimes to maintain his position by then. I would have caved even on that if I'd lived in Ohio, though I would have felt a lot dirtier for that than you apparently do.

But the question posed wasn't "will you vote for Gore/Cilnton/Kerry?". The question was "Will you vote for anyone we field?". No. No, I absolutely will not. Democracy is all but dead if that is the majority opinion.

I can make a compromise, just not every compromise. I'm baffled that you are trying to claim the moral high ground here, while advocating for contextual amorality.

 

[Worldtraveller]

No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

Yes... and getting things like UHC and what not is not possible because of the shape of the Supreme Court. Thanks for participating in adult politics.

It is not my fault if the Democrats refuse to field a candidate who is popular. You can wag your finger of shame all you like, I'm not going to be embarrassed. Adults may not always have consistency or principles, but the ones I admire most do. Every one should have a line they aren't willing to cross. Frankly I'm horrified by how many people apparently think "they're in my party" is enough reason to vote for someone even if you have every reason to believe they are cheating their way in. I mean, I know this is the consensus, because Trump not only got elected once but is about to get acquitted by the Senate for trying to cheat in the next election, and the Supreme Court if challenged to will back the decision. But none of this will change if people never hold people on "their side" accountable for what they say and do.

But apparently, you are partly to blame for thinking the dems should field a candidate who is popular, rather than candidates (note the plural) that have reasonably progressive policies that actually believe in those policies.

So yeah, the system sucks, but voting for trump doesn't actually make things better.

 

[Politesse]

If you were going to vote for Bernie, presumably because economic justice is a big thing for you, voting instead for a billionaire who bought his way into the nomination is an awfully bitter pill to swallow. Throw me in with the "depends" crew. Biden, I could live with. But not "any Democrat". The DNC has done nothing to earn my unconditional loyalty.

I'm not in the "any democrat" column, rather the "any body except Trump's" column. No loyalty to the Dem party whatsoever.

Don't forget that any Democrat who beats Trump gets to set the tone for the party for decades.

I doubt that will be the case unless whoever supplants Cheato becomes wildly popular, which seems like a long shot at this point.

Assuming the RNC is going to continue putting monsters in office every time, what's the effective difference between those categories? There will always be another GOP demon to defeat.

 

[Politesse]

It is not my fault if the Democrats refuse to field a candidate who is popular. You can wag your finger of shame all you like, I'm not going to be embarrassed. Adults may not always have consistency or principles, but the ones I admire most do. Every one should have a line they aren't willing to cross. Frankly I'm horrified by how many people apparently think "they're in my party" is enough reason to vote for someone even if you have every reason to believe they are cheating their way in. I mean, I know this is the consensus, because Trump not only got elected once but is about to get acquitted by the Senate for trying to cheat in the next election, and the Supreme Court if challenged to will back the decision. But none of this will change if people never hold people on "their side" accountable for what they say and do.

But apparently, you are partly to blame for thinking the dems should field a candidate who is popular, rather than candidates (note the plural) that have reasonably progressive policies that actually believe in those policies.

So yeah, the system sucks, but voting for trump doesn't actually make things better.

I disagree that Progressive policies are unpopular. But yes, I'll vote for any genuinely popular Liberal candidate, because I am, in fact, a fan of democracy, and self-aware enough to understand that not everyone is going to agree with all of my personal ideals. In fact, almost no one does, and I accept that. It's the blank check to open, undefiant corruption and collusion that I'm not willing to write

 

[Worldtraveller]

Those wars were just as bloody under Obama's watch. I am scared, terrified, of losing the court. But putting someone in who gives lip service to the left but also believes in "leading with compromise" is not making me feel that much better. Let's not forget that Merrick Garland was the Republican pick, until five seconds after he was actually announced. Moscow Mitch had asked for him by name, and Obama complied.

And your idea is to keep these people in office even longer.

You'd rather vote for the party who won't even go with their own pick. The party, who when offered an actual compromise, simply shifted the window and demanded more "compromise".

How's that working out for you?

 

[Politesse]

Those wars were just as bloody under Obama's watch. I am scared, terrified, of losing the court. But putting someone in who gives lip service to the left but also believes in "leading with compromise" is not making me feel that much better. Let's not forget that Merrick Garland was the Republican pick, until five seconds after he was actually announced. Moscow Mitch had asked for him by name, and Obama complied.

And your idea is to keep these people in office even longer.

You'd rather vote for the party who won't even go with their own pick. The party, who when offered an actual compromise, simply shifted the window and demanded more "compromise".

How's that working out for you?

I have not voted for a Republican in more than a decade. Yes, I know the retort that's on your lips, but your rhetoric is bullshit. And in any case, I did vote for Hillary in the last election. You're retroactively blaming me for Trump's original election, because I'm not willing to pass a hypothetical party loyalty test in advance of the next one. Someone needs to sit you down and explain that time is linear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those wars were just as bloody under Obama's watch. I am scared, terrified, of losing the court. But putting someone in who gives lip service to the left but also believes in "leading with compromise" is not making me feel that much better. Let's not forget that Merrick Garland was the Republican pick, until five seconds after he was actually announced. Moscow Mitch had asked for him by name, and Obama complied.

And your idea is to keep these people in office even longer.

You'd rather vote for the party who won't even go with their own pick. The party, who when offered an actual compromise, simply shifted the window and demanded more "compromise".

How's that working out for you?

I have not voted for a Republican in more than a decade. Yes, I know the retort that's on your lips, but your rhetoric is bullshit. And in any case, I did vote for Hillary in the last election. You're retroactively blaming me for Trump's original election, because I'm not willing to pass a hypothetical party loyalty test in advance of the next one. Someone needs to sit you down and explain that time is linear.

Who the heck is talking about loyalty? This is about pragmatism. There are very few people that the Dems could reasonably name as their candidate, that I wouldn't vote for.

 

[southernhybrid]

While, I totally disagree with what Politesse is saying, since he lives in California, it's not really going to matter who he votes for in the election. California is going to go blue, no matter who.

We need to convince those who live in the swing states to vote blue not matter who. Due to our insane system, it's only a small number of states that matter when it comes to winning the presidential election.

I think Bernie is another irrational cult leader, but Trump is far more dangerous. So, I will vote for the lesser of two evils, if Bernie is the nominee. My vote probably won't matter if Bernie Isi the nominee because I live in Georgia. But, the thing that most Bernie supporters don't seem to realize is that no matter who becomes president, if it's a Democrat, there will only be a limited number of things that will be accomplished because more than half of Democrats in Congress are moderates.

We can hate the electoral college all we want, but it's the system that we have and I don't see that changing in my lifetime. In fact, we will probably be stuck with it as long as the country exists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those wars were just as bloody under Obama's watch. I am scared, terrified, of losing the court. But putting someone in who gives lip service to the left but also believes in "leading with compromise" is not making me feel that much better. Let's not forget that Merrick Garland was the Republican pick, until five seconds after he was actually announced. Moscow Mitch had asked for him by name, and Obama complied.

And your idea is to keep these people in office even longer.

You'd rather vote for the party who won't even go with their own pick. The party, who when offered an actual compromise, simply shifted the window and demanded more "compromise".

How's that working out for you?

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think that Paul Krugman did a good job of explaining why it really doesn't matter who is the Democratic nominee, assuming he/she can defeat Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/does-it-matter-who-the-democrats-choose.html

So I’d like to offer an opinion that will probably anger everyone: In terms of actual policy, it probably doesn’t matter much who the Democrats nominate — as long as he or she wins, and Democrats take the Senate too.

If you’re a centrist worried about the gigantic spending increases Sanders has proposed, calm down, because they won’t happen. If you’re a progressive worried that Biden might govern like a Republican, you should also calm down, because he wouldn’t.

In practice, any Democrat would probably preside over a significant increase in taxes on the wealthy and a significant but not huge expansion of the social safety net. Given a Democratic victory, a much-enhanced version of Obamacare would almost certainly be enacted; Medicare for All, not so much. Given a Democratic victory, Social Security and Medicare would be protected and expanded; Paul Ryan-type cuts wouldn’t be on the table.

It’s true that Sanders enthusiasts believe that they can rally a hidden majority of Americans around an aggressively populist agenda, and in so doing also push Congress into going along. But we had a test in the midterm elections: Progressives ran a number of candidates in Trump districts, and if even one of them had won they would have claimed vindication for their faith in transformative populism. But none did; the sweeping Democratic victory came entirely from moderates running conventional campaigns.

The point is that even though Trump commands humiliating personal subservience from his party, he hasn’t caused any significant shift in its policy priorities.

Now, the Democratic Party is very different from the G.O.P. — it’s a loose coalition of interest groups, not a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists. But this if anything makes it even harder for a Democratic president to lead his or her party very far from its political center of gravity, which is currently one of moderate progressivism.

What about Joe Biden? The Sanders campaign has claimed that Biden endorsed Paul Ryan’s plans for sharp cuts in Social Security and Medicare; that claim is false. What is true is that in the past Biden has often been a Very Serious Person going along with the Beltway consensus that we need “adjustments” — a euphemism for at least modest cuts — in Social Security. (Actually, if you go back a ways, Sanders turns out to have said similar things.)

But the Democratic Party as a whole has moved left on these issues, and Biden has moved with it. Even if he has a lingering desire to strike a Grand Bargain with Republicans — which I doubt — he would face such a huge intraparty backlash that he would be forced to back off.

But my main point is that Democrats should unify, enthusiastically, behind whoever gets the nomination. Any moderate tempted to become a Never Bernie type should realize that even if you find Sanders too radical, his actual policies would be far more tempered. Any Sanders enthusiast tempted to become a Bernie or Bust type should realize that these days even centrist Dems are pretty progressive, and that there’s a huge gap between them and Trump’s G.O.P.

Oh, and all the Democrats believe in democracy and rule of law, which is kind of important these days.

If you're not familiar with Krugman, he's a very progressive economist and professor who has been writing columns for the Times since 2000.

I completely agree with what he has said in this column.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

^ This is why we can't have nice things.

I don't want nice things if they come at the cost of having no principles at all, no, nor do I believe that always kowtowing to evil designs is somehow going to give everyone nice things.

Oh, good lord. Drama queen much?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not my fault if the Democrats refuse to field a candidate who is popular.

They did. Gore won the popular vote, and lost Florida only in the courts. Obama won by healthy margins Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 millions votes. The only Democrat to lose the popular vote since 2000 was John Kerry. It is hard to argue the winner of the popular vote wasn't popular.

Actually not at all, and by your own logic. The winner of the "popular vote" may very much be made up of people who are voting for the lesser of two evils as you are insisting Politesse do. That doesn't make them actually popular. They can still be evil and far from popular. The actual popular choice may be left out entirely, running with a third party that you've convinced everyone a vote for is a vote for your enemy. The system is fundamentally flawed in that way. And I think you've just made Politesse's points for her/him. A vote for the "lesser of two evils" may be taken as a sign that you approve and support them when you very much do not and want the country to go the other direction (opposite the Republicans and Democrats).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Those wars were just as bloody under Obama's watch. I am scared, terrified, of losing the court. But putting someone in who gives lip service to the left but also believes in "leading with compromise" is not making me feel that much better. Let's not forget that Merrick Garland was the Republican pick, until five seconds after he was actually announced. Moscow Mitch had asked for him by name, and Obama complied.

And your idea is to keep these people in office even longer.

You'd rather vote for the party who won't even go with their own pick. The party, who when offered an actual compromise, simply shifted the window and demanded more "compromise".

How's that working out for you?

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

Why do you think a Centrist Democrat (and who is that? Do you mean corporate Democrats?) can beat Trump but Bernie can't, when you've also argued that those who will vote for the centrist democrat will turn out to vote blue no matter who? Bernie should get just as much support, and he also has cross over support and brings out independents and people who otherwise wouldn't vote. Same with Yang. Truckers for Yang is a thing. He's got a bunch of ex-Trump people. So can Bernie if he plays his cards right and speaks inclusively and doesn't make the "deplorables" trype of mistake that Hillary made. Plus you already ran a "Centrist Democrat" (Hillary) and she lost.

 

[Elixir]

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good.

Doing good is too risky because fear the bigger bad. Slowly slide further and further towards the bad with no hope of the good. There is something fundamentally wrong with this voting system. Yet there are so few seeking to change it.

Consider the inverse of Politesse's admonition: If you allow the triumph of the greater evil every time, things will get worse faster than if you voted for the lesser evil.
In reality, neither is absolutely the case. There are situations (like the present) that demand the removal or prevention of the Greatest Evil. But under the current system, if I was Politesse living in Chochenyo territory (where I lived in the 60s-70s) I might vote 3rd party, even under current circumstances. As a purple state resident though, I will vote for the major party candidate not named Trump. If we had a fair electoral system (President by popular vote) I would certainly chide Politesse for trying to build Rome in a day. As it is though, her response to the effect of "ok Boomer" would be perfectly appropriate if I tried to tell her who to vote for.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think that Paul Krugman did a good job of explaining why it really doesn't matter who is the Democratic nominee, assuming he/she can defeat Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/does-it-matter-who-the-democrats-choose.html

The point is that even though Trump commands humiliating personal subservience from his party, he hasn’t caused any significant shift in its policy priorities.

Now, the Democratic Party is very different from the G.O.P. — it’s a loose coalition of interest groups, not a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists. But this if anything makes it even harder for a Democratic president to lead his or her party very far from its political center of gravity, which is currently one of moderate progressivism.

What about Joe Biden? The Sanders campaign has claimed that Biden endorsed Paul Ryan’s plans for sharp cuts in Social Security and Medicare; that claim is false. What is true is that in the past Biden has often been a Very Serious Person going along with the Beltway consensus that we need “adjustments” — a euphemism for at least modest cuts — in Social Security. (Actually, if you go back a ways, Sanders turns out to have said similar things.)

But the Democratic Party as a whole has moved left on these issues, and Biden has moved with it. Even if he has a lingering desire to strike a Grand Bargain with Republicans — which I doubt — he would face such a huge intraparty backlash that he would be forced to back off.

But my main point is that Democrats should unify, enthusiastically, behind whoever gets the nomination. Any moderate tempted to become a Never Bernie type should realize that even if you find Sanders too radical, his actual policies would be far more tempered. Any Sanders enthusiast tempted to become a Bernie or Bust type should realize that these days even centrist Dems are pretty progressive, and that there’s a huge gap between them and Trump’s G.O.P.

Oh, and all the Democrats believe in democracy and rule of law, which is kind of important these days.

If you're not familiar with Krugman, he's a very progressive economist and professor who has been writing columns for the Times since 2000.

I completely agree with what he has said in this column.

Biden will cave to the Republicans and fail to try for truly progressive policies, as Obama did. Bernie will push those very same things and maybe fail to get them passed. So yes, it may be a similar end result.

But at least Bernie will try. And there is a chance, however slim, that he will succeed. I'd take slim chance over no attempt. And even if Bernie fails, there is also the factor that he will activate (and already has) others to push for progressive policy so these policies may come to pass after he leaves office. He would also clearly have a different (and I think far less corrupt and bought out) approach to dealing with special interests in Washington. Ultimately Bernie and the Presidency is just one step that needs to be taken amongst many others to truly transform your nation for the better.

Biden represents politics as usual. He's a throwback to the pre-Trump era under Obama. Bernie is instead pushing forward for change. To me that makes a big difference even if the laws wind up not so different.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't want nice things if they come at the cost of having no principles at all, no, nor do I believe that always kowtowing to evil designs is somehow going to give everyone nice things.

Oh, good lord. Drama queen much?

The drama queen was Rhea in waxing over how Politesse must not care or pay any attention to people dying in wars and children in cages, etc.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bernie's 2016 platform was the starting point for every other candidate. That's saying something about the direction the country is moving. Krugman himself was a champion of Medicare for All back in the days of the Clinton/Trump election, and has only now started hemming and hawing about its practicality. He's a typical American progressive liberal, sewn from the same cloth as all the other columnists who were wrong about the 2016 election, but he has good takes sometimes. This is my favorite:

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good.

Doing good is too risky because fear the bigger bad. Slowly slide further and further towards the bad with no hope of the good. There is something fundamentally wrong with this voting system. Yet there are so few seeking to change it.

Consider the inverse of Politesse's admonition: If you allow the triumph of the greater evil every time, things will get worse faster than if you voted for the lesser evil.

True. Unless of course you're actually voting for something better, and enough people vote with you, in which case you can actually get the good.

But under the current system, if I was Politesse living in Chochenyo territory (where I lived in the 60s-70s) I might vote 3rd party, even under current circumstances. As a purple state resident though, I will vote for the major party candidate not named Trump.

I would be inclined to do the same, unless of course the divide between the bad and the worse isn't significant. With Trump I believe it is.