Democrats 2020

[PyramidHead]

In what universe does Sanders gaining 12 points in the polls after the debate, with support at almost double the next two candidates combined, constitute shooting himself in the foot?

A self described socialist is not going to win the popular vote or a presidential election. Period. I think that most people are good people who want to help others. Bernie has hurt the democratic party deeply by associating increasing the safety net with socialism.

You're obviously not basing that conclusion on polls, which have Sanders consistently beating Trump in battleground states and second in the primary only to Biden, whose numbers are plummeting every time he opens his mouth. Polls also show stronger support for socialism compared to capitalism among likely Democratic voters, based on whatever the poll participants take those terms to mean. They also show Sanders with the highest popularity of any candidate in the race, which continues the long trend of his favorability being high among politicians generally in America. All of his policies enjoy strong support among partisan and non-partisan groups, and are the benchmark that most of the other candidates are trying to position themselves around in some way or another.

The only people scared of Bernie's socialism are (a) stuck in the 1980's mindset of appealing to the mythical Reagan Democrats who never existed in the first place, or (b) actually against his policies because they harm their potential profits, and are concealing this fact by re-framing it as a concern about electability.

 

[PyramidHead]

All the people ruling out Sanders in the media and on this board are the same people who ruled out Trump and thought Hillary would beat him in a landslide. 2016 happened, it's not going away, it's not an anomaly that can be discarded, and it means your idea of what people will vote for is false.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All the people ruling out Sanders in the media and on this board are the same people who ruled out Trump and thought Hillary would beat him in a landslide.

Only ardent Trump supporters thought he was going to win in '16. Not even Trump thought he was going to win.

2016 happened, it's not going away, it's not an anomaly that can be discarded, and it means your idea of what people will vote for is false.

I'm not saying Trump isn't winning in 2020. I'm saying Sanders isn't winning the nomination. That much seems assured.

 

[PyramidHead]

All the people ruling out Sanders in the media and on this board are the same people who ruled out Trump and thought Hillary would beat him in a landslide.

Only ardent Trump supporters thought he was going to win in '16. Not even Trump thought he was going to win.

And did he win? What does that say about people's ability to predict winners based on what they think the electorate wants?

I'm not saying Trump isn't winning in 2020. I'm saying Sanders isn't winning the nomination. That much seems assured.

Based on what?

 

[Elixir]

Based on what?

Prob'ly based on the idea that if Democrats want a septuagenarian candidate (which I doubt), they're going to choose the one who polls best against Cheato.

 

[PyramidHead]

Based on what?

Prob'ly based on the idea that if Democrats want a septuagenarian candidate (which I doubt), they're going to choose the one who polls best against Cheato.

Which according to every poll, is Biden and then Sanders. What you (or Jimmy) would have to be saying is: Biden will definitely be the nominee. I don't agree with that, and if he isn't the nominee, then the one who polls best against Trump is Sanders by a country mile.

 

[ZiprHead]

In what universe does Sanders gaining 12 points in the polls after the debate, with support at almost double the next two candidates combined, constitute shooting himself in the foot?

A self described socialist is not going to win the popular vote or a presidential election. Period. I think that most people are good people who want to help others. Bernie has hurt the democratic party deeply by associating increasing the safety net with socialism.

Bernie didn't do that. That was done long ago by conservatives.

 

[PyramidHead]

Also, I would really like to know the exact appropriate moment for actual socialist and leftists to exert pressure on the Democratic party and advocate for our agenda, because I am told that the years leading up to any election whatsoever are out, as are the years in between elections. Just trying to clear my calendar for when I have permission to support political movements that represent my views

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In what universe does Sanders gaining 12 points in the polls after the debate, with support at almost double the next two candidates combined, constitute shooting himself in the foot?

A self described socialist is not going to win the popular vote or a presidential election. Period. I think that most people are good people who want to help others. Bernie has hurt the democratic party deeply by associating increasing the safety net with socialism.

Bernie didn't do that. That was done long ago by conservatives.

View attachment 22401

Wow... a quote attributed to a historical figure that is actually accurate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, I would really like to know the exact appropriate moment for actual socialist and leftists to exert pressure on the Democratic party and advocate for our agenda, because I am told that the years leading up to any election whatsoever are out, as are the years in between elections. Just trying to clear my calendar for when I have permission to support political movements that represent my views

What is your actual agenda?

 

[PyramidHead]

Also, I would really like to know the exact appropriate moment for actual socialist and leftists to exert pressure on the Democratic party and advocate for our agenda, because I am told that the years leading up to any election whatsoever are out, as are the years in between elections. Just trying to clear my calendar for when I have permission to support political movements that represent my views

What is your actual agenda?

Bernie's closing speech in the first debate is a good start.

Identify the malefactors and bad actors in society--drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, private insurers, the financial sector, the military-industrial complex, the rising tide of far-right extremists, corporate media outlets, and the capitalist class--mobilize popular sentiment against them in the form of labor unions and other organized movements, and exert tangible pressure from above and below on state, local, and federal governments to reclaim the ground that has been lost since Reagan.

Treat all human beings as deserving of basic freedoms and necessities without calculation or means-testing, acknowledge that bottom-up economic democracy is the next battle to win, and accept nothing less than rapid and comprehensive action to stem climate change as soon as humanly possible.

End all acts of American imperialism, including invasions, drone strikes, support for Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen, billions of dollars to fund Israel's encroachment and strangulation of innocent Arabs, and meddling in the affairs of South and Central American sovereign countries.

Oppose, fully and without reservation, the entire platform of the Republican party. Make no concessions in the name of bipartisanship for its own sake, because none have ever been made in the other direction.

If you advocate this agenda, there is only one possible candidate for president in the Democratic race. Nobody else comes close, and even he isn't perfect on all points. If you don't advocate it, then in my opinion you are mistaken about scale and stakes of what is wrong with the United States in 2019.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, I would really like to know the exact appropriate moment for actual socialist and leftists to exert pressure on the Democratic party and advocate for our agenda, because I am told that the years leading up to any election whatsoever are out, as are the years in between elections. Just trying to clear my calendar for when I have permission to support political movements that represent my views

What is your actual agenda?

Bernie's closing speech in the first debate is a good start.

Identify the malefactors and bad actors in society--drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, private insurers, the financial sector, the military-industrial complex, the rising tide of far-right extremists, corporate media outlets, and the capitalist class--mobilize popular sentiment against them in the form of labor unions and other organized movements, and exert tangible pressure from above and below on state, local, and federal governments to reclaim the ground that has been lost since Reagan.

Nice politics there and saying something people could get behind. But what was the actual plan and the actual losses you are citing?

Treat all human beings as deserving of basic freedoms and necessities without calculation or means-testing, acknowledge that bottom-up economic democracy is the next battle to win, and accept nothing less than rapid and comprehensive action to stem climate change as soon as humanly possible.

You can feel free to define "basic freedoms and necessities" any time you want.

End all acts of American imperialism, including invasions, drone strikes, support for Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen, billions of dollars to fund Israel's encroachment and strangulation of innocent Arabs, and meddling in the affairs of South and Central American sovereign countries.

At least some specifics there.

Oppose, fully and without reservation, the entire platform of the Republican party. Make no concessions in the name of bipartisanship for its own sake, because none have ever been made in the other direction.

Technically, the Republican Party no longer has a platform. But there are still elected Republicans who make passing laws require some level of support from them necessary.

If you advocate this agenda, there is only one possible candidate for president in the Democratic race.

Yes, there is only one person to choose who supports these nearly undefined goals.

 

[Derec]

End all acts of American imperialism, including invasions, drone strikes,

Whether you like it or not, US is part of the World. Should US not for example drone Islamic terrorists like Al Alwaki?

support for Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen,

There is no "Saudi-Arabian genocide in Yemen". We have Iranian-backed Houthi rebels - whose slogan is "God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam" - wage war against and in 2014 depose the legitimate government of Yemen. KSA is fighting against them.
If anybody is guilty of genocide in Yemen, it is the IRGC subsidiary the Houthis.
Yemen: Houthi Landmines Kill Civilians, Block Aid
Yemen's Houthi rebels accused of diverting food aid from hungry

It is not in US national security interest to leave Yemen under Iranian control, and neither would that outcome be good for the Yemeni people, majority of whom are not even Shiite.

billions of dollars to fund Israel's encroachment and strangulation of innocent Arabs,

Israel is not "encroaching" on Arabs, and these Arabs are hardly "innocent".
Gaza incendiary balloons spark dozens of fires in southern Israel
As far as "strangulation" ...

... not Israel but those "innocent" Arabs of Hamas.

and meddling in the affairs of South

You mean Venezuela? The country whose economy has been ruined by the program of "Socialism for the 21st century"?

Venezuela inflation falls below 1 million percent in May for first time since 2018: congress
Inflation of only 815k%. Socialism works!

and Central American sovereign countries.

How about a deal: we stop meddling and they stop sending us their surplus population?

 

[Derec]

Only ardent Trump supporters thought he was going to win in '16. Not even Trump thought he was going to win.

Which was quite stupid. For example, Nate Silver gave Trump 29% chance of winning. While that is less than a half, it's still a considerable probability. Nobody should have taken the 2016 election for granted.

I'm saying Sanders isn't winning the nomination. That much seems assured.

At this point, it seems very unlikely. And I really don't see what his breakout moment would be, other than Warren pulling out for health reasons and he getting most of her support.

 

[Derec]

Do you understand what "historically red-lined communities" means?

Yes. Her campaign seemed stuck in the 70s but now has regressed even earlier.

Do you know what "help black people buy homes" means?

 

[Derec]

Are black people less like to obatain a home loan than other people with the same financial credentials? If so (and I suspect it is so), then all this does is level the playing field a bit.

I don't think so, but even if there was some small difference, this proposal would not level any playing fields but would transform a slight tilt into a 60° one. She proposes giving $25k to black people to cover down payment and closing costs. That's a huge "gift". Basically, it's reparations through the back door.

Much like the first home owner grant proposed by a conservative Australian Government in 2000.

I do not see that it was a racially exclusive program.

Kamala Harris seems to respond to some questioning whether she is black enough (Jamaican father, Indian mother) by adopting a "blacker than thou" attitude. First with her attack on Biden over busing, now this. SMH!

Meanwhile, the target of her attack, Joe "four score years ago he was born" Biden continues to be the only one clearly beating Trump.

New poll says Biden is the only Democrat with a comfortable lead against Trump

 

[ZiprHead]

Bernie didn't do that. That was done long ago by conservatives.

View attachment 22401

Wow... a quote attributed to a historical figure that is actually accurate.

<smug>

 

[Playball40]

Blah blah blah. Every right wing nut job tries to tout Venezuela as the end all be all example of socialism - always ignoring the MANY MANY MANY successful socialist countries around the world INCLUDING South America. This person said it best

When leftist governments fail, the political right is quick to call it a failure of socialism, as Bret Stephens did. Many states have failed because of mismanagement, corruption and external interference, with many more capitalist states failing in Latin America over the past century than socialist ones, leaving huge portions of these populations in poverty.

It’s not the system (see Denmark, Sweden, etc.) but the governance, and it’s a shame when the same worn-out arguments are trotted out that avoid discussing the important factors that actually cause states to fail.

Whether you like it or not, US is part of the World. Should US not for example drone Islamic terrorists like Al Alwaki?

There is no "Saudi-Arabian genocide in Yemen". We have Iranian-backed Houthi rebels - whose slogan is "God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam" - wage war against and in 2014 depose the legitimate government of Yemen. KSA is fighting against them.
If anybody is guilty of genocide in Yemen, it is the IRGC subsidiary the Houthis.
Yemen: Houthi Landmines Kill Civilians, Block Aid
Yemen's Houthi rebels accused of diverting food aid from hungry

It is not in US national security interest to leave Yemen under Iranian control, and neither would that outcome be good for the Yemeni people, majority of whom are not even Shiite.

billions of dollars to fund Israel's encroachment and strangulation of innocent Arabs,

Israel is not "encroaching" on Arabs, and these Arabs are hardly "innocent".
Gaza incendiary balloons spark dozens of fires in southern Israel
As far as "strangulation" ...

... not Israel but those "innocent" Arabs of Hamas.

and meddling in the affairs of South

You mean Venezuela? The country whose economy has been ruined by the program of "Socialism for the 21st century"?

Venezuela inflation falls below 1 million percent in May for first time since 2018: congress
Inflation of only 815k%. Socialism works!

and Central American sovereign countries.

How about a deal: we stop meddling and they stop sending us their surplus population?

 

[lpetrich]

Democratic field readies for the big shrink - POLITICO
Likely after the upcoming July debate, and also after the September debate. Low-performing candidates are likely to see donations slow down, and they are likely to drop out as they run out of money.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, currently languishing near the bottom of polls, has said if he’s not in contention come December — California’s registration deadline to run for Congress — he’ll abandon his White House dreams and seek reelection to the House.

Others low in the polls are Bill de Blasio, Wayne Messam, and John Hickenlooper. Seems that JH's hippie-punching about socialism hasn't helped him very much.

But guess what happened.

Eric Swalwell ends White House bid, citing low polling, fundraising - POLITICO
Why Eric Swalwell’s Campaign Failed | FiveThirtyEight
He will likely be running for a 5th term in California's 15th House district.

Tom Steyer reconsiders 2020 and plans to enter the race - POLITICO - "The billionaire environmentalist who has poured millions into an effort to impeach President Trump had decided against a run in January."

 

[Trausti]

Tom Steyer reconsiders 2020 and plans to enter the race - POLITICO - "The billionaire environmentalist who has poured millions into an effort to impeach President Trump had decided against a run in January."

Hooray! I guess. I mean. Okay!