Democrats 2020

[Politesse]

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good. You know why Americans don't vote? They feel, quite correctly, that the election has little to do with them, their lives, or their needs. This doesn't have to be true, and wouldn't be true if they all voted. But these corrupt centrist types would not like how everyone would vote if they became truly politically engaged. "Business as usual" in Washington is designed to hurt the average American, and Trump wouldn't have a political career if people weren't sick of being told what's best for them by people who knoe nothing about their lives.

Do you even remember Hillary Clinton? This is the kind of logic that gave us Donald Trump. And now you are saying that, if it didn't work then, well, you'll just try it again until people give you the result you want. It is hard to imagine a less successful strategy for enlightening the public. All you are doing is helping voters make bad choices over and over again.

I'm easy to understand. Just imagine that you have principles, and that one of those principles is a free and fair election. If Steyer or Bloomberg have a sudden, miraculous surge righg before the primary, the American public will rightly smell bullshit. I'm not willing to endorse any system, however corrupt, just to end the career of a jumped up reality star the GOP finds to be a convenient distraction. This pholosophy of "any evll measure is acceotable as long as it hurts my enemies" is hypocritical, and its popularity among both left-and right-leaning partisans is ripping Washington and the nation apart just as the framers of the Constitution rightly feared it would if Party identity ever came to outweigh state identity.

Picking the lesser of two evils is not equivalent to "any evil measure is acceptable as long as it hurts my enemy". I guess you had to make that equivalence in order to mount an argument against me, even though it is a total straw man. You are not going to improve the system by standing aside while Trump gets reelected because you think you have such high standards. I must say that I think you will bring about change to the system, just not the change you wanted. Trump has already done irreparable damage, and he can do a hell of a lot more over the next four years. And then what? You'll give us a lecture about not voting for the next Democratic nominee, because he or she still isn't quite up to your standards?

"Up to my standards", you say as though they were some unreachable goal rather than basic requirements of a presiding in a democratic system. Yes, Copernicus, I will always consider my vote to be an advisory endorsement which is mine to make or not make, and if the DNC were to run an transparently corrupt candidate twice in a row with devastating effects, my little California vote will be the least of their problems but they certainly won't have it. I would rather move countries altogether than let a Party dictate how I am allowed to vote, or who for. Thank goodness I don't think any of those things is actually likely to happen. I will frankly be surprised, possibly surprised and pleased, if the candidate is anyone other than Biden, and though I don't favor him, he's not the reason my answer is and always will be "depends". Don't tread on me, bro. And if I feel dissatisfied with party leadership, the DNC has a serious Rust Belt problem on its hands, that I am not the author of, TYVM.

 

[Toni]

It’s the Atlantic but here’s a nice piece that delineates the differences between Warren and Sanders:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...xqJn2VsYDZsnk0FnHLDbIFVs3rY9UmK-QgUOseWWxM-6Y

 

[lpetrich]

The Finland Model - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont from 2008 Apr 1

"We should do our very best to learn as much as possible about the best kind of economic and social models that exist throughout the world and, where these models make sense, we should see how we can adopt them to this state and this country. This is especially true today when the United States faces so many difficult problems," Sanders said.

After noting some differences between the two nations,

"And yet, as we acknowledge the difference we should also acknowledge that we are all human beings with very much the same DNA, the same kind of intelligence and the same human needs," Sanders said. "In that context we should ask how does it happen that in Finland they have virtually abolished childhood poverty, have free high quality child care, free college and graduate school education and have, according to international reports, the best primary and secondary educational system in the world. Is there something that we can learn from that model?

Sanna Marin is the Prime Minister of Finland, and at 34, that nation's youngest female leader.

Bernie Sanders is a fan of the ‘Nordic model.’ Finland’s leader says it’s the American Dream. - The Washington Post

Across the Atlantic, at least one leading proponent of the Nordic model welcomed its embrace by U.S. politicians. “We feel that the Nordic Model is a success story,” said Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin in an interview with The Washington Post last month on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

She recognizes that each country is different, but she continued

“I feel that the American Dream can be achieved best in the Nordic countries, where every child no matter their background or the background of their families can become anything, because we have a very good education system,” she said. “We have a good health-care and social welfare system that allows anybody to become anything. This is probably one of the reasons why Finland gets ranked the happiest country in the world.”

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Warren strikes me as a good legislator and a weak campaigner. I do think she should be in whoever the winner's cabinet is. I don't think she should be the nominee.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If, by some chance, Bernie wins so strongly that the Democratic Party can't cheat him out of his victory, who would he choose as his running mate?

Not Warren, not Biden. Let's get that out of the way now.

 

[Politesse]

If, by some chance, Bernie wins so strongly that the Democratic Party can't cheat him out of his victory, who would he choose as his running mate?

Not Warren, not Biden. Let's get that out of the way now.

The revivified corpse of Vladimir Lenin.

 

[J842P]

If, by some chance, Bernie wins so strongly that the Democratic Party can't cheat him out of his victory, who would he choose as his running mate?

Not Warren, not Biden. Let's get that out of the way now.

The revivified corpse of Vladimir Lenin.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjiT1ppXXq4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Although far fetched, my question was serious.

 

[Politesse]

Although far fetched, my question was serious.

I think his best option would be a lesser known face, to be honest. He's got name recognition, what he needs is a young politician with a lot of energy to burn making more events than he can.

 

[Patooka]

Although far fetched, my question was serious.

In US Presidential elections, there is a fixation on balance so maybe Stacey Abrams?

 

[Copernicus]

We should pin or highlight this thread so we can all revisit it once Bernie is the clear front runner and set to clinch the nomination. I predict many of those now saying vote blue no matter who will suddenly reverse that sentiment along with the DNC and Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc.

Absolutely not, and I don't care how many pictures they circulate from Bernie's hobnobbing with socialists and communists. If he is the nominee, I will support him and vote for him. There are a lot of things I don't like about Sanders, but it looks like a really, really small number in comparison to the number that Trump gets up to. In that light, I can overlook Sanders' blemishes.

 

[Copernicus]

Warren strikes me as a good legislator and a weak campaigner. I do think she should be in whoever the winner's cabinet is. I don't think she should be the nominee.

She is actually one of the better campaigners in the running. She knows how to inspire people and appeal to moderate conservatives, but you have to actually listen to her rather than the commentary on her speeches. She has made some blunders, e.g. her stupid blood test challenge and her more recent evasiveness about raising taxes to support her health plan. On balance, however, she does really well in her interactions with audiences.

I believe that Toni's article from the Atlantic made a good point about what sank her in the polls--her efforts to align too closely with Sanders. Sanders was much better in defending his program by simply admitting that it would raise taxes and then explaining why that wasn't a bad thing. Warren wasn't prepared to admit that in Iowa, although she had been more straightforward about it in past months. If she doesn't turn her sinking image around soon, it will be too late for her to recover.

The Differences Between Warren and Sanders Matter

 

[Harry Bosch]

If, by some chance, Bernie wins so strongly that the Democratic Party can't cheat him out of his victory, who would he choose as his running mate?

Not Warren, not Biden. Let's get that out of the way now.

If he gets the most votes, he'll win. If someone else gets more votes, they will win. Same as 2016. Votes almost always track with delegates.

 

[Copernicus]

...Picking the lesser of two evils is not equivalent to "any evil measure is acceptable as long as it hurts my enemy". I guess you had to make that equivalence in order to mount an argument against me, even though it is a total straw man. You are not going to improve the system by standing aside while Trump gets reelected because you think you have such high standards. I must say that I think you will bring about change to the system, just not the change you wanted. Trump has already done irreparable damage, and he can do a hell of a lot more over the next four years. And then what? You'll give us a lecture about not voting for the next Democratic nominee, because he or she still isn't quite up to your standards?

"Up to my standards", you say as though they were some unreachable goal rather than basic requirements of a presiding in a democratic system. Yes, Copernicus, I will always consider my vote to be an advisory endorsement which is mine to make or not make, and if the DNC were to run an transparently corrupt candidate twice in a row with devastating effects, my little California vote will be the least of their problems but they certainly won't have it. I would rather move countries altogether than let a Party dictate how I am allowed to vote, or who for. Thank goodness I don't think any of those things is actually likely to happen. I will frankly be surprised, possibly surprised and pleased, if the candidate is anyone other than Biden, and though I don't favor him, he's not the reason my answer is and always will be "depends". Don't tread on me, bro. And if I feel dissatisfied with party leadership, the DNC has a serious Rust Belt problem on its hands, that I am not the author of, TYVM.

First of all, I wasn't dictating anything to you, just disagreeing with your view that abstaining is better than voting for the lesser of two evils, your thought being that an abstention would somehow lead to improvement. Trump was the result of that logic in 2016, and it did real permanent damage. We will be lucky if we make it to 2021 without a war or other disaster either caused by, or mishandled by, the current "greater evil" now running our government. So your logic just doesn't make any sense at all, given that we will always have a two-party system under our current method of electing public officials. We need to work hard to get the best candidate for the coalition that we belong to (Democratic coalition for liberals and progressives), but we also need to realize that the system will tend to produce candidates that disappoint a large number of people in the coalition. Nevertheless, the alternative is almost always worse.

What concerned me about your reference to voting in California was the implication that you can more easily toss your vote away than people living in some other states. I understand that point of view, which is a natural outgrowth of plurality-based first-past-the-post voting. California is going to go for the blue candidate regardless of how you vote, so why not send a message? My only real problem with that is that the message also gets sent out to a lot of liberal-progressives in states that are not as overwhelmingly blue as California. You make an argument that can do real harm if taken to heart by folks in purple states, and that is one of the major things that went wrong in 2016. And it is totally ineffective in California. Most of your fellow Democrats will just ignore it, since it does not put pressure on them to change their past voting habits.

 

[Rhea]

We should pin or highlight this thread so we can all revisit it once Bernie is the clear front runner and set to clinch the nomination. I predict many of those now saying vote blue no matter who will suddenly reverse that sentiment along with the DNC and Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc.

No chance at all. This claim directly contradicts the evidence in front of you.
I supported Sanders at one time, and I still support most of his platform. I don’t think he’s the best candidate, so he doesn’t get my primary vote. But if he wins the nomination then he has my full throated support as being far far superior to Trump (or any Republican who might remotely possibly be on the ballot)

All of the liberals here have already said the same thing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If, by some chance, Bernie wins so strongly that the Democratic Party can't cheat him out of his victory, who would he choose as his running mate?

Not Warren, not Biden. Let's get that out of the way now.

If he gets the most votes, he'll win. If someone else gets more votes, they will win. Same as 2016. Votes almost always track with delegates.

And that answers the running mate question?

 

[Politesse]

What concerned me about your reference to voting in California was the implication that you can more easily toss your vote away than people living in some other states. I understand that point of view, which is a natural outgrowth of plurality-based first-past-the-post voting. California is going to go for the blue candidate regardless of how you vote, so why not send a message? My only real problem with that is that the message also gets sent out to a lot of liberal-progressives in states that are not as overwhelmingly blue as California. You make an argument that can do real harm if taken to heart by folks in purple states, and that is one of the major things that went wrong in 2016. And it is totally ineffective in California. Most of your fellow Democrats will just ignore it, since it does not put pressure on them to change their past voting habits.

I hope my logic of refusing to knowingly vote for crooked politicians does, in fact, spread like a virus. At the end of the day, Republicans being Republicans are not anything like as dangerous as the Democrats who help them or imitate them. I can be practical, I can be pragmatic, I can reach across aisles, when there is a clear goal in mind and my concession will help attain it. But I will not help the DNC crush the poor and extinguish the free vote, if that's what they're going to choose to do. I don't think that's what they will do, but I am not giving them free license by saying "I will vote for you no matter what you do, even if it contradicts my principles, and even if it contradicts your stated principles." In the whole broad span of history, a population offering that kind of loyalty to those who are already in power has never been met with reciprocal responsibility. I will always have choice. Frankly, you can have my "depends" over my dead body. My vote will always depend.

'm becoming convinced that the Republicans are right, that the Democrats never actually cared about the charges they were leveling against the president. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" cannot exist in the same moral universe as "There are some things a President should never do."

 

[lpetrich]

I must note two more Bernie Sanders surrogates: Mark Pocan and Ro Khanna. Thus giving us

Reps. AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan
Also author Michael Moore

I remember wanting to like one of MM's books, but I found it unsourced, so that's why I couldn't recommend it. It wasn't even sourced in an informal sort of way. But AOC and MM together reminded me of a MTV year-end wrap-up from 1985(?). It started with Madonna and ended with Bruce Springsteen.

• AOC = Madonna
• MM = Bruce Springsteen

MM predicted in 2016 that Trump would win, not because he liked Trump, but because he thought that Trump did a better job of seeming to be concerned about the plight of many Rust-Belt working-class people.

MICHAEL MOORE - his home page. Also  Michael Moore
His documentaries:

• Roger & Me
• Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint
• Canadian Bacon
• The Big One
• Bowling for Columbine
• Fahrenheit 9/11
• Sicko
• Captain Mike Across America and Slacker Uprising
• Capitalism: A Love Story
• Where to Invade Next
• Michael Moore in TrumpLand
• Fahrenheit 11/9

His books:

• Downsize This!
• Adventures in a TV Nation
• Stupid White Men
• Dude, Where's My Country?
• The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader
• Will They Ever Trust Us Again?
• Mike's Election Guide 2008
• Here Comes Trouble

About Roger & Me:

In 1989, Michael Moore burst onto the American moviemaking scene with Roger & Me. The groundbreaking documentary chronicled the efforts of the world’s largest corporation, General Motors, as it turns its hometown of Flint, Michigan, into a ghost town. In his quest to discover why GM would want to do such a thing, Michael Moore – a Flint native – attempts to meet the chairman, Roger Smith, and persuade him to come and visit Flint to see the destruction first-hand.

 

[Rhea]

In the whole broad span of history, a population offering that kind of loyalty to those who are already in power has never been met with reciprocal responsibility. I will always have choice. Frankly, you can have my "depends" over my dead body. My vote will always depend.

'm becoming convinced that the Republicans are right, that the Democrats never actually cared about the charges they were leveling against the president. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" cannot exist in the same moral universe as "There are some things a President should never do."

The current “vote Blue no matter who” is not a life-long loyalty pledge. It is uttered in a specific situation. Right NOW: with the known Dem candidates and the known GOP Candidate. I’m surprised you somehow morphed that into thinking we are making some forever-after claim of uncritical subservience. I thought it was obvious to the most casual observer that it is about this election, this moment, these known people.

I’m surprised that you would apply a sophomoric straw man to what is obviously not an unbounded statement. We all know the democrats of the 1950s and no we would not vote for them. And you know that we know there are changes.

So you declaring moral superiority to something that no one has said is interesting, isn’t it.

It’s about THIS election. It’s about Trump. And the last time I said it, it was about that year’s particular election.
Now you know that no one is saying that you or they must vote blue if Blue puts up a Trump. But Blue hasn’t done that... and our coalition of individuals makes it unlikely.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If, by some chance, Bernie wins so strongly that the Democratic Party can't cheat him out of his victory, who would he choose as his running mate?

Not Warren, not Biden. Let's get that out of the way now.

If he gets the most votes, he'll win. If someone else gets more votes, they will win. Same as 2016. Votes almost always track with delegates.

And that answers the running mate question?

Sorry, I posted to the wrong post.