Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Blur4stuff]

I'd vote for a republican woman if she had details for how she would reform healthcare, tackle climate change, reduce debt, raise wages for middle class & poor, end corporate welfare, bring higher education costs under control, etc...

If all she did was what Trump did (make up shit, never give specifics, make promises you never intend to honor) then I wouldn't vote for her. Honestly, I no memory of any republican giving specifics of a workable plan for any of the issues we face going all the way back to GHW Bush. Just voodoo type stuff that we know doesn't work, but is forced to fit a conservative ideology (like trickle down or teaching abstinence).

[eschatological]

I mean, are you old enough to remember the 80s? For four straight elections (76, 80, 84, and 88), we nominated people who were considered real liberals. All of them would still be considered liberal by today's Democratic party standard. And the result? We got annihilated in those elections, except for '76, when people were so sick of Nixon they voted in Carter. And hell, they might have lost that election too if Gerald Ford had decided to actually run on his own terms, instead of not seeking re-election to wash the stink of Nixon off the Oval Office (a classy act by the last classy Republican).

For better or for worse, the Paul Begala-led Third Way Clinton movement won us power again. America is, by all standards, one of the most mainstreamly conservative Western democracies. Actual, true progressiveness has found little soil to take root in. It has a lot of causes, and most of them stem in conservative propaganda - McCarthy's Red Scare, the Cold War, Reagan's Welfare Cadillac Queens, and so on, and so forth.

[Wyrt]

CNN really brought out the knives for Sanders tonight. So much for having fair, unbiased moderators for the debate.

[Milchshake]

I mean, are you old enough to remember the 80s? For four straight elections (76, 80, 84, and 88), we nominated people who were considered real liberals. All of them would still be considered liberal by today's Democratic party standard. And the result? We got annihilated in those elections, except for '76, when people were so sick of Nixon they voted in Carter. And hell, they might have lost that election too if Gerald Ford had decided to actually run on his own terms, instead of not seeking re-election to wash the stink of Nixon off the Oval Office (a classy act by the last classy Republican).

For better or for worse, the Paul Begala-led Third Way Clinton movement won us power again. America is, by all standards, one of the most mainstreamly conservative Western democracies. Actual, true progressiveness has found little soil to take root in. It has a lot of causes, and most of them stem in conservative propaganda - McCarthy's Red Scare, the Cold War, Reagan's Welfare Cadillac Queens, and so on, and so forth.

Carter was fairly conservative, so much so that Ted Kennedy wanted to primary him.
Which just reinforces your point. That when the Dems nominated very progressive candidates, they lost badly on a national scale.

The far left, and the very ignorant euro left just dont see this nuance of US politics. It just takes longer to build a progressive base.

Then they trash the whole project after 8 good years under Clinton or Obama. A Gore or Hillary would have been slightly more left than their predecessor.

Look at how LBJ moved to be very progressive after succeeding Kennedy.


But this has been my contention since 2016, BernieBros are very illiterate in terms of history.

I have never been involved with the "Bernie Bros" or GamerGate (in fact I criticized it a few times in the past), but all of a sudden I'm being told that I am one and all the things that are wrong with me for being one. This just leads me to being pissed off and feeling alienated / outcast by the Democratic Party.

For some reason all your attacks seems to be a direct feed from them. You are not shy about attacking Warren out of the blue. Using their exact language, or links from teenvogue lol.


"This just leads me to being pissed off and feeling alienated / outcast by the Democratic Party." That's one of Connal's or Theo's lines. I hope you pay them royalties when using it.
Damn shame, the Dems can build an incredibly diverse coalition thats many times the size of your European coalitions. Yet it's woe is me...

[Wyrt]

Carter was fairly conservative, so much so that Ted Kennedy wanted to primary him.
Which just reinforces your point. That when the Dems nominated very progressive candidates, they lost badly on a national scale.

The far left, and the very ignorant euro left just dont see this nuance of US politics. It just takes longer to build a progressive base.

Then they trash the whole project after 8 good years under Clinton or Obama. A Gore or Hillary would have been slightly more left than their predecessor.

Look at how LBJ moved to be very progressive after succeeding Kennedy.


But this has been my contention since 2016, BernieBros are very illiterate in terms of history.

Yes, because nominating a conservative Democrat worked out so well in 2016.

[Theodarzna]

In Warren's case, they stated that the “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”

Such a vicious attack. Is Warren going to be able to survive such mean words?

Working class people vote for Bernie (because they can easily find all the things he did for them through the years). Meanwhile Warren comes off as just another opportunist career politician because she was preaching Reaganomics during a time when Bernie was out there helping workers at the picket-lines. Warren used to be an anti-feminist ffs: "Capitalist to the bones!" - People can change their opinions and stances over time of course, but history is the only true measure you have of a person's true personality and worth.

Accurately describing her base and support is I guess a no go now.

- - - Updated - - -

Citations of what? Trump's lies? Are you fucking serious?

Cite some examples of me doing whatever I'm accused of?

- - - Updated - - -

The only people who care about the Cherokee thing are conservatives and they only care because it's a trolling tool. The people who dislike her m4a policy are voting for Bernie anyway, so that's also a moot point.

None of those things are going to keep any left-leaning voters (aside from reactionaries posing as socialists) from picking her over Trump in the general election.

She is as Neo-Liberal as they get; here policies are all means tested crap and given her full throated endorsement of Wokesterism; it is unlikely she will do anything different than Obama.

This is what we are working with and why it’s failing.

Sanders and Warren have completely different politics. Sanders has always advocated a worker oriented politics. Warren has always advocated for a well-run tripartite class system with poor, middle, and rich. To believe Warren was "good enough" either reveals oneself to be profoundly privileged, or profoundly lacking in well knowledge of Marx I guess. One is a Socialist, the other is someone who when Bernie was a feminist fighting for Unions, she was fighting for deregulation and the Reagan Revolution.

[Milchshake]

Yes, because nominating a conservative Democrat worked out so well in 2016.

Ya a conservative Democrat that supported expanding the ACA, DACA protections, the Paris accords, the Iran agreement, and raising the federal minimum wage.



Wait, i just described the most progressive candidate since Hubert fucking Humphrey. WTF you guys are warped.

[eschatological]

Yes, because nominating a conservative Democrat worked out so well in 2016.

I mean, she won the popular vote by 3m people, and lost the electoral college by about 70k votes across 4 states.

This was after literally 25 years of Republicans making up bullshit scandals about her and her husband, investigating them ad nauseum, finding nothing, but blowing so much steam out of their ears they could then claim it was the smoke that indicated a fire, somewhere, somehow, just out of sight. Newt Gingrich, when the House flipped to the GOP in '94 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FIFTY YEARS did so on a platform of "We're here to ruin Clinton's presidency." That was literally his legislative agenda.

Any other Democrat, including "conservative" Dems (read: moderate Dems) like Tim Kaine, could have won that election. It wasn't a moderate Dem problem, it was a Clinton problem.

[Wyrt]

Ya a conservative Democrat that supported expanding the ACA, DACA protections, the Paris accords, the Iran agreement, and raising the federal minimum wage.



Wait, i just described the most progressive candidate since Hubert fucking Humphrey. WTF you guys are warped.

Imagine thinking the ACA is progressive. What a joke.

[eschatological]

Imagine thinking the ACA is progressive. What a joke.

Progressivism has always been an inch-by-inch fight in this country. Most of the political neophytes of the past 10 years seem to think you can "hope and change" and things will just happen overnight. Gay marriage took 40 years of fighting that most people have forgotten about, they just think someone filed a lawsuit one day and we won, as if no one had ever thought of filing that lawsuit before. Hell, I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and gay kids were still tied to fences and stoned to death on occasion. They were often disowned and thrown out of their homes, even in the 90s, leading to one of the most vulnerable homeless populations to date.

ACA wasn't perfect. But it was a step. Even Obama and Clinton acknowledged that.

Edit: It actually reminds me of my law school roommate, in 2008. I was far more progressive than he was, but I literally worked for HRC in the primaries, and he fell hard for Obama in the primaries. He always asked me why I wasn't for Obama, and I said, "HRC might be more moderate than him, but she won't take any shit from the GOP, and in the end her policies will be left of his because she won't capitulate." He saw this as crass politicking. FWIW, when Obama won the nomination, I was full-throated in my support of his campaign, unlike some still-racist remnants of the Democratic Party who vowed to never vote for him (tbf, McCain was a reasonable choice). Then, 8 years of Obama happened. I disagreed with many of the things Obama did or didn't do (drone strikes, not closing Guantanemo, etc), but I was proud of what he accomplished, at least domestically. My roommate, who stopped caring about politics as soon as the chants of "Si se puede!" faded, was disappointed, saying that Obama didn't live up to his progressive, "hope and change" message, and thus ended up not voting in 2016, and then wailing to me when Trump won. Luckily, he lives in Boston, so his lack of voting didn't end up meaning much, but still.

[Theodarzna]

I have not been following this so much, but is this really the script that Warren is complaining about? Please tell me it's not.

If it is, then Warren is getting desperate. If this is how she reacts when the going gets tough, then there is no way she'll defeat Trump.

The best case scenario is that Warren panicked because her support among say college students had utterly collapsed leaving her with a withered coalition of "Girlbosses" and Wine Aunts to high brow for Buttigieg and a handful of people who unironically call themselves "Wonks". In desperation she tried to #MeToo Bernie. Which looks craven and calculating because its an event that allegedly happened two years ago and she just happened to only mention it once her polls started to tank? BS.

The worse scenario is she has a sweetheart deal with Biden for a VP slot and the price of admission is the try and Kamikaze Sanders campaign with a #MeToo'ing. Still has the issue of being a two year old he said she said event that she just sat on for two years until now. And given her refusal to get into specifics or talk much about it, its craven and slimy, she doesn't even have the guts to either say it or lie with conviction.

Ultimately her issue is that the grift was over, the long spell of loving articles from Jacobin were running dry as people started raising the point that she was a complete sham and have been for months. That and her waffling on Health Care, and people actually looking at her policies started to notice it was all means tested schlop.

[Milchshake]

Imagine thinking the ACA is progressive. What a joke.

Getting people coverage for pre-existing conditions was actually a really monumental achievement.

Shame you're too good for it. But your inluck, the GOP is about to scrap it for you. Then you can really do round of "told you so's" to the libs.

Any other Democrat, including "conservative" Dems (read: moderate Dems) like Tim Kaine, could have won that election. It wasn't a moderate Dem problem, it was a Clinton problem.

It was also had historically new problems, no other candidate had faced before.
First election with a gutted Voter Rights Act
First election with unprecedented amount of foreignratfucking
First election ever where the director of the FBI put his hand on the scales, twice.

Sure one by itself might be of not much consequence. But all together in one election, thats a doozy.

[Wyrt]

Getting people coverage for pre-existing conditions was actually a really monumental achievement.

Shame you're too good for it. But your inluck, the GOP is about to scrap it for you. Then you can really do round of "told you so's" to the libs.

You're just letting the Republicans frame the politics in this country. They've pretty much have had free reign to do it since the Cold War and Red Scare shit. Now we're decades behind other developed nations on so many areas.

[eschatological]

You're just letting the Republicans frame the politics in this country. They've pretty much have had free reign to do it since the Cold War and Red Scare shit. Now we're decades behind other developed nations on so many areas.

I mean, I've been a card-carrying member of the ACLU for 25 years. I've never been "letting" anyone do anything. I was part of the less than 10% against the Iraq War, when everyone would now have you believe everyone was against that silly ole war. I was part of Occupy. I've volunteered formally or worked on 4 Presidential campaigns. I missed Kerry's because I was in the Peace Corps.

The Republicans have been very effective at framing the message. Much of that is historical, and waaaaaaay before our time. The Red Scare and McCarthy may have been overblown propaganda, but the USSR was still actually antagonistic, and their Communist government was branded left wing, as opposed to merely authoritarian. This led to us, naturally, being more right wing as a counterbalance. We've had to fight tooth and nail to de-stigmatize left wing politics in this country. Hell, GHW Bush on the campaign trail in '88 literally called liberal "the 'l' word" as if it was some sort of unforgivable curse word. And we're still not there. The Boomers still exist, and frankly, they're probably the biggest and most important voting bloc still.

[Endus]

On another note:

Some people on this board express very progressive values but over the past year some of them started preaching nonsense like: "our candidate needs to be moderate / conservative or he wont be able to enact policies or build alliances". That thought process is described under political science as one of the main exemplary fallacies that undermine democracy. The election boot really is not the place for pragmatism.

Vote for what you believe in, not for what you think other people want you to believe in.

People really need to get this concept through their heads.

Let's say the political spectrum boils down to a number from 0 to 10, with 0-4 being "left", 6-10 being "right", and 5 being "center".

If people voting for 0-1 are convinced to vote for a "feasible" candidate at 3 or 4, and nothing changes on the right, then the candidates don't stretch from 0 to 10. They stretch from 3 to 10. Now people present 3-5 as "left", 8-10 as "right", and 5-6 is "center".

Now those 3s are asked to support a 5, because that's "feasible", and they follow suit, because they want to work together, and the right doesn't change. Now the Overton Window stretches from 5-10. "Left" is 5-6, "right" is 9-10, and "center" is 7-8. Note that the new "center" is solidly in territory that used to be considered "moderately right", when we started. And the left-wing candidates are largely centrist. And they're told they need to vote for the 6, because 5 is too "extreme left" for the voters.

And that's why the USA leans so far right, compared to other Western nations. Why you don't have an actual left wing in politics. That's the explanation, right there. You keep letting them drag the Overton Window to the right, trying to play ball with people who are only interested in playing keepaway.

Fuck 'em. Vote your actual values and stop chickening out at the ballot box. It isn't right-wingers causing this drift to the right. It's the Democratic voters. 100%. Because you keep trying to appeal to people who have no interest in aligning with you, and abandoning those who would because you don't consider their views to be centrist enough.

[Theodarzna]

My observation is that americans are really prone to factionalism, to try and understand the world around them. Frankly, that needs to stop. Whenever I post something in support of Bernie on this board, I often get attacked with personal ad hominems instead of people discussing the policies or the arguments.

In the end either one is going to need the support of the other if they want to get enough votes to beat Trump.

I have never been involved with the "Bernie Bros" or GamerGate (in fact I criticized it a few times in the past), but all of a sudden I'm being told that I am one and all the things that are wrong with me for being one. This just leads me to being pissed off and feeling alienated / outcast by the Democratic Party.

On another note:

Some people on this board express very progressive values but over the past year some of them started preaching nonsense like: "our candidate needs to be moderate / conservative or he wont be able to enact policies or build alliances". That thought process is described under political science as one of the main exemplary fallacies that undermine democracy. The election boot really is not the place for pragmatism.

Vote for what you believe in, not for what you think other people want you to believe in.

More over, what is conservative / moderate in this context? Usually this is invoked to say "Lets not rock the apple cart on Neo-Liberalism" or "Lets center the most marginal intersectional person possible" which is fairly cheap because then real policy need only be some token gesture or at worst a pittance of the federal budget.

When they say Conservative they don't invariably mean say Tucker Carlson's social values. There is a reason that when they say "Become more moderate / Conservative" what they mean is become more Libertarian. It is always "Absorb the values of the Koch Brothers" never "Lets talk to Pat Buchannan". Which is itself a betrayal of any sort of Left Wing cause because in the end it all becomes Capitalism but Woke! The biggest reason going moderate hasn't been working, especially lately is because Capitalism is nakedly shit now. Compromising with Libertarians to create Market Friendly answers isn't going to build that pragmatic coalition except to amount to being a Simp to Corporations.

[eschatological]

-snip-

This is a poor understanding of the situation. The U.S. has been dragged right not because of the failure of left-leaning individuals, but because of the country's history of isolationism which led into antagonistic opposition to a country which was, on paper, left-wing (even though that government could have been more aptly labeled authoritarian or fascist). Like mentioned, we put up very progressive candidates in the 80s, and got annihilated. The hippies of the 60s literally betrayed the cause because of the deregulatory excesses of the 80s during which they all got filthy fucking rich. And it all started well before any supposed "capitulation" by the left.

We've gone with more moderate candidates in the past 30 years, and it was a necessary adjustment. The Democratic party, post Civil Rights, was on the brink of extinction as the Dixiecrats went permanently to the GOP, and the GOP painted itself as the "big tent" party. We have, since Clinton in '92, been slowly pushing more and more left with each candidate. And yes, I consider Hillary to be left of her husband, if not Obama, who coincidentally helped push her left as well. My contention is always that she was fairly left (as seen by her attempt at universal health care in '94), but then was rapidly politically bloodied by not only the political opposition but her own husband's White House and his eventual impeachment. People always forget that the opposition in the Citizens United case was Hillary. We adapted, to survive. And we'll be pushing that rock uphill for a long time still. It's just a cruel twist of history. If the USSR had been fascist nationalists, like Nazi Germany, I suppose this would have turned out alright.

[Milchshake]

People really need to get this concept through their heads.

Let's say the political spectrum boils down to a number from 0 to 10, with 0-4 being "left", 6-10 being "right", and 5 being "center".

If people voting for 0-1 are convinced to vote for a "feasible" candidate at 3 or 4, and nothing changes on the right, then the candidates don't stretch from 0 to 10. They stretch from 3 to 10. Now people present 3-5 as "left", 8-10 as "right", and 5-6 is "center".

Now those 3s are asked to support a 5, because that's "feasible", and they follow suit, because they want to work together, and the right doesn't change. Now the Overton Window stretches from 5-10. "Left" is 5-6, "right" is 9-10, and "center" is 7-8. Note that the new "center" is solidly in territory that used to be considered "moderately right", when we started. And the left-wing candidates are largely centrist. And they're told they need to vote for the 6, because 5 is too "extreme left" for the voters.

And that's why the USA leans so far right, compared to other Western nations. Why you don't have an actual left wing in politics. That's the explanation, right there. You keep letting them drag the Overton Window to the right, trying to play ball with people who are only interested in playing keepaway.

Fuck 'em. Vote your actual values and stop chickening out at the ballot box. It isn't right-wingers causing this drift to the right. It's the Democratic voters. 100%. Because you keep trying to appeal to people who have no interest in aligning with you, and abandoning those who would because you don't consider their views to be centrist enough.

Would you guys consider someone like Rep. John Lewis to be left? Or is he not cool enough for your club? or a Jim McDermott?

My point is, the Democrats are a uniquely broad and diverse party. There's nothing else like it in any other western democracy. You cant match it in shear numbers of constituents and then geography. Applying these European purity scales is dumb.

Sure, the Dems do have some conservative members, they also have some incredibly progressive members.

You want some villains for the ACA not being good enough? Blame Bill Nelson of Nebraska, or Joe Lieberman. They killed the option to lower Medicare buy-in to 55.

They're also not in the party anymore. Democrats have changed quite a bit since 2006. Fuck, they changed even more so in 2018.

Then again, maybe it's the diversity of the Dems is what these guys really like to sneer at.

[TexasRules]

Elizabeth Warren is just throwing shit against the wall trying to make it stick. She said today that she would ignore congress and cancel student debts:

When I was elected to the Senate, I used every opportunity and tool available to ease the burden of student debt. I fought to lower interest rates, refinance loans, and hold loan servicers and debt collectors accountable for breaking the law and hurting borrowers … Understand this: The Department of Education has broad authority to end the student loan debt crisis. When I’m president, I plan to use that authority.

I really liked Ted Cruz's response( I know, I know you guys will hate it):

Which clause of the Constitution gives a President the authority to give away a trillion $ w/o Congress? And if you like this policy, how would you feel if/when a GOP president does it for something you don’t like? Here’s a better idea: follow the Const & don’t be a dictator.

[Thelxi]

I liked this one. It helped me realize that Biden is not a good choice. If he does get it he might still beat Trump, but it'll be scary getting there.

I'm also moving away from Bernie. I really like the guy and I would like to see what he can manage to pull out of congress as president, but I get a very bitter taste in my mouth every time he says something disparaging about the media under his breath. It's not that he doesn't have a point, but this is absolutely not the time to incite even more passion and anger from idiots towards journalists. I'm all for fighting fire with fire, but replacing one demagogue with another doesn't sit well with me in the grand scheme of things.

As far as the gender argument between Bernie and Warren goes, I think neither of them lied. Bernie very carefully worded his denial, and of course he isn't sexist. He probably said a man might have an easier time beating Trump or something like that. Who knows and who cares. It was a cheap shot from Warren's camp.

Overall I'm getting pretty excited to see what ends up happening in Iowa. As long as it's not Biden I'm good.