Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[cubby]

your either with us or against us is the political mantra of 12 yr olds. and president george w bush.

Um, yeah - no it's not. It's policy and the future of SCOTUS. You're really, really bad at this.

[Stormspellz]

The guy refereed to as the Senator from MBNA, who let the Credit Card companies write the Bankruptcy bill and who has the Tara Reade accusation over his head can't exactly claim to for sure not be corrupt or a rapist.

allowing to lobbyists to write bills is not exactly the same as literally stealing tax payers dollars,letting allies die for his hotel, or the other literal criminal activities of Trump

[Blur4stuff]

It's abundantly clear that Trump wants to be a dictator. We know for a fact that he and other republicans are going to cheat in the 2020 elections. They're already doing it now and have been for a number of years. The republican party does not want the US to be a democracy. They want to rule the country.

So no, it's not a conspiracy theory or extreme to suggest that if republicans manage to cheat their way to a victory this year that there won't be another election. At least, another election that's actually real. We'll get nothing but Russia style elections.

Trump already got caught extorting and bribing for help. Republicans let him get away with it. Now that he has free access to trillions of dollars with no oversight, not only he is going to line his pockets, but he's going to continue extorting and bribing to help himself win.

You cannot support Trump or the republicans party while also claiming to support democracy. Just be honest. You want a dictatorship where right wing extremists rule.

[downnola]

It's a shame that you seem incapable of having a real conversation about this topic. Perhaps you can read up a little more about election strategy and the merits of picking VP candidates, and we can revisit the topic when you're better informed.

Three quick things, just in case you're curious about your dangerously incompetent opinions:

1. two or more people can have the same opinion; it's not shtick, it's agreement after discourse.
2. You can't even remember what you post - you said what I quoted, you bolding it later in some sophomoric attempt to alter history is just silly. Why would you try to lie about what you said? I quoted you. Just more proof of your dangerous incompetence.
3. You've ignored most of what I've offered as reasons, and just continue with ad hominem attacks; that's fine, but it's tiring and a bit boring - especially considering how bad you are at all of this.

But I can't, in good conscious, continue a conversation with someone who is not only dangerously naive, but can't see the facts as they are laid out before him. Reading through the above it's clear you have a lot to learn about even the basics of politics and political strategy.

Right, I'm the one incapable of having a real conversation about this topic. Apparently, I'm supposed to ignore your snarky, arrogant attitude that started with the first sentence of your first response to me, despite you completely misreading what I said:

Then you don't understand even the first thing about mainstream DNC politics. I will be a VP candidate before AOC or Omar is - and I'm not female.

Again, I said they were the future of the party, not that they should be VP (neither are eligible, but don't let that get in the way of a perfectly uncharitable misunderstanding) over Abrams. Right off the bat you demonstrate that you're not actually interested in a conversation, but more interested in appearing to be right.

But that's the thing, you're not actually backing up anything you say with polling data, election forecasts, or anything substantial. You're going completely off conjecture and your own wishful thinking. That in itself wouldn't be a bad thing, far be it from me to deny someone of an opinion or worldview, but you're trying to pass it off like objective reality and insulting me for not just accepting it. That's not how it works, my guy.

Furthermore, that your pedantic ass is still trying to twist my words around like I conceded your point while ignoring the rest of my sentence and then calling me a liar is as disingenuous and pathetic as it gets. Thank you for reminding me why I don't spend much time in this hell hole of a sub-forum.

I meant to ask you, but of course it doesn't matter anymore, who would you pick for Biden's VP?

Warren, because she'd be fucking great at it and puts forward policy that actually appeals to progressives and would be a uniting force. She'd make a better President than Joe "walking corpse" Biden, too, but that's another story.

[fwc577]

I voted today. Was going to skip because of the stay at home order. Decided to check it out. All polling locations in my city have been moved to a single location. I normally vote with 3 or 4 other wards. Normally when we vote, there are about 2-4 people for each of the wards except one ward which encompasses a lot of low-income housing tends to have 20-30 people in line at all times, minimum. That's just the three or 4 wards I see when I go to vote.

Having them all in the same location to vote during the pandemic...

I got a front row parking spot and I was one of 5 people in there voting at lunch time.

[Milchshake]

Last cry of the Bernie Bros.
Their leftism stems not from conviction, but from their distress at the state of the world and their feelings of shame regarding their own social class’s roles in it.
They hate the Dems for experiencing this self shame.

[Flarelaine]

If there's a bright future for the democratic party, it will be because of AOC and Ilhan Omar, not Abrams. I don't get what the obsession is with Abrams. I'd understand it if she actually won that race, but she didn't and refused to concede the election and threw an illiberal hissy-fit over it like a spoiled child.

Hard pass.

Losing a race to the guy running the race will always bring forth bitterness and suspicion.

[Milchshake]

Losing a race to the guy running the race will always bring forth bitterness and suspicion.

@downnola

Can you link the clip of this "hissy fit". Stacy Abrams has always seemed pretty collected.

Ilhan Omar on the other hand... she's known for more heated takes. I'd say her future in the party is way more limited than Abrams.

[Lenonis]

your either with us or against us is the political mantra of 12 yr olds. and president george w bush.

It's also how elections work in a 2 party system. If you would normally vote D and you sit out, you are supporting R. And vice versa. Not understanding this is the political mantra of 12 yr olds.

[Sunseeker]

It's also how elections work in a 2 party system. If you would normally vote D and you sit out, you are supporting R. And vice versa. Not understanding this is the political mantra of 12 yr olds.

The math doesnt work that way. If R and D each have 100 voters, and 5 D voters sit out, R does not have 105 voters.

If you subtract from column A it does nit get added to column B.

[Sunseeker]

But the D, in this case, will have 5 less voters, giving the R the advantage and them successfully being elected, all because 5 D voters decided to sit it out.

You don't need to literally add that 5 to the other side. The math is fine.

The issue YOU have with speaking the truth in this is that saying "sitting out gives the other side the advantage" is not as rhetorically powerful as "if you sit out your supporting the other side".

It's harder to shame people into voting with "you'll make the other guys job easier" than it is with "you support the other guy".

[Milchshake]

The math doesnt work that way. If R and D each have 100 voters, and 5 D voters sit out, R does not have 105 voters.

If you subtract from column A it does nit get added to column B.

But R has an easier path to 50+, or in reality a plurality which can be/is even lower.

• You guys are clearing the path for R victories.
• Sitting out makes it easier for R to target and suppress other progressive voters.
• So you guys are really fucking over fellow progressives.

I use the term "fellow progressive" loosely.

[Lenonis]

I will as soon as you realize the past 30+ years has destroyed the middle class and you'd have to be a sycophant to believe Biden would do a damn thing for Average Americans without the approval of the American Aristocracy.

Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with my comment but it sounds like and admission that Biden and Trump aren't actually the same and thus you are just posting nonsense. Thanks for confirming.

Now if you'd like to have a discussion about the detrimental progression of policy of the last 3 decades I'm happy to do so. I suspect we won't disagree a ton on the main points. I suspect we'd disagree on who carries most of the blame.

[Lenonis]

The math doesnt work that way. If R and D each have 100 voters, and 5 D voters sit out, R does not have 105 voters.

If you subtract from column A it does nit get added to column B.

Semantics. You know what I was getting at.

Someone sitting the election out is a net effect of +1 to the other side. Someone voting for the other side in a rage is a net effect of +2 to the other side.

Status quo: 100 R, 100 D
D voter sits out: 100 R, 99 D - Net +1 to R
D voter votes R: 101 R, 99 D - Net +2 to R

I think you knew that though...

[zealo]

The math doesnt work that way. If R and D each have 100 voters, and 5 D voters sit out, R does not have 105 voters.

If you subtract from column A it does nit get added to column B.

The US does not have parliamentary style proportional representation. The side that doesn't manage to achieve at least a plurality of votes in a state functionally does not exist as far as the system is concerned.

Not voting either D or R is effectively increasing the chances of the side you like even less of coming out ahead.

[unfilteredJW]

The issue YOU have with speaking the truth in this is that saying "sitting out gives the other side the advantage" is not as rhetorically powerful as "if you sit out your supporting the other side".

It's harder to shame people into voting with "you'll make the other guys job easier" than it is with "you support the other guy".

Imagine needing to go the semantics route.

[Machismo]

Semantics. You know what I was getting at.

Someone sitting the election out is a net effect of +1 to the other side. Someone voting for the other side in a rage is a net effect of +2 to the other side.

Status quo: 100 R, 100 D
D voter sits out: 100 R, 99 D - Net +1 to R
D voter votes R: 101 R, 99 D - Net +2 to R

I think you knew that though...

That is assuming that there are only two sides. Luckily, we have more than two options.

[Lenonis]

That is assuming that there are only two sides. Luckily, we have more than two options.

We really don't. We have two real options and other non viable options that just split the vote and help the other side.

I don't say that in support of the system, I think it's terrible. But it's the reality of how our political system works right now.

[zealo]

That is assuming that there are only two sides. Luckily, we have more than two options.

You don't under FPTP. Voting third parties is idealistic nonsense under such an electoral system.

[Machismo]

We really don't. We have two real options and other non viable options that just split the vote and help the other side.

I don't say that in support of the system, I think it's terrible. But it's the reality of how our political system works right now.

Nobody is obligated to pick one of the two. I vote third party. So, by your logic, I'm a +1 for both Democrats and Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't under FPTP. Voting third parties is idealistic nonsense under such an electoral system.

Well, I'd love to get rid of the EC and FPTP voting.

But, I still have other options, even if they will not win. I'd rather be right, than win.