Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Machismo]

You'd have to ask Bernie why he choose to run as a Democrat. I would guess it has something to do with the entire narrative that there are only two viable parties. Despite how corrupt both have proven too be.

Bernie lost because Bernie chose not to go after Biden harder on his record. Opening every statement with "My Friend Joe", isn't something any politician running for office should continually say each time he mentions his opponent. Bernie failed to make his case to older voters, and he doesn't play insider politics to get endorsements. That's his own mistakes, but I won't gloss over the DNC putting their thumbs on the scale once again. As much as people here might like to pretend the DNC had been neutral arbitrators.

Bernie lost, because he didn't get enough votes.

The DNC is under no obligation to be unbiased, considering that Bernie isn't a Democrat.

- - - Updated - - -

So while you acknowledge that Sanders is an outsider and maybe his policy and programs don't belong, you still have the audacity to expect voters in favor of those policies to vote with eager enthusiasm for a party that told them to fuck off.

So, why don't you convince your husband to vote for Bernie?

[TrollHunter3000]

It also on the democrats to actually try to appeal to those sort of people. Internet slapfights won't do shit. That is how politics work in any democracy.

Sure, but appealing to them too much could make them less appealing for a larger portion of the democratic base. This is what has happened with Sanders these past two elections. The US two party system makes it very difficult for any new party to actually compete since the Republicans and Democrats currently appeal in somehow to the vast majority of Americans. I do believe the portion that they don't appeal to at all and only partially appeal to has been growing in recent decades but I don't think it would be enough for any new party to be formed and actually have a chance at winning an election simply because of how the electoral college works. Since the beginning of the US the electoral college has prevented anything other than a two party system which is why we've only ever had two major political parties.

- - - Updated - - -

So while you acknowledge that Sanders is an outsider and maybe his policy and programs don't belong, you still have the audacity to expect voters in favor of those policies to vote with eager enthusiasm for a party that told them to fuck off.

I think it's more that if you're truly a Sander's supporter then we think it makes absolutely no fucking sense for you to instead vote for someone who is even further away from the policies Sanders promotes. Whether you directly support Trump because Bernie lost or indirectly do so by not voting for Biden.

I'll take the infraction/ban every time when I say that anyone who claims to support Sanders but then doesn't vote for Biden/Democrats is a fucking idiot or a liar.

[Edge-]

You're Free to think whatever you want. His policy were popular among voters, but he lost the "electablity" narrative of the Media.

So his policies are popular and he wasn't? Blaming the media is a cop-out. If his base and policies were as solid/popular as folks like you keep saying, he'd have won.

Or are we forgetting that Biden's campaign was literally being declared completely dead before Super Tuesday? Or does the media narrative only apply to Bernie?

Literally how it's been done.

Literally not. You're conflating aides leaking garbage that both campaigns condemn to the candidates themselves personally attacking each other

Those are two different things, and given that you were blaming Sanders for calling Biden "My friend" you're moving the goalposts here.

I certainly won't get into this with you, because you've already bought into the notion the DNC didn't have anything to do with the 3rd place candidate dropping out before a Super Tuesday or another candidate posed to win her state dropped out. All just coincidence.

Because their remains no evidence of this. Pete already had an extremely difficult path to the nomination and with Biden poised to clean house on Super Tuesday off the back of his massive win in South Carolina. Similarly, Klobuchar had even smaller odds than even Pete.

And both were running in Biden's centrist lane, so it's not surprising that they'd throw behind him before Super Tuesday when they looked at their campaigns and the field and made a decision that if they wanted a more centrist victory in the primary that they should clear the way for Biden. It was their choice, and there remains no evidence of any strong-arming.

Obama giving Buttigieg the "Uncle Ben" speech isn't proof of anything, and the fact that Obama made it a point to not weigh in on the primary while there was a broad field further backs that Obama didn't have any interest in meddling.

They clearly did act upon them a number of times. Even pushing the primary forward despite the CDC saying social distance need to be observed.

That's a state-level choice, the DNC has no control over that.

Yupe, same problem. The DNC did all they could to prevent the candidate that would hamper their lobbyist paychecks.

Citation needed*

[Theodarzna]

I think it's more that if you're truly a Sander's supporter then we think it makes absolutely no fucking sense for you to instead vote for someone who is even further away from the policies Sanders promotes. Whether you directly support Trump because Bernie lost or indirectly do so by not voting for Biden.

I'll take the infraction/ban every time when I say that anyone who claims to support Sanders but then doesn't vote for Biden/Democrats is a fucking idiot or a liar.

Not voting is strategically the best you can do because if someone knows you will support them no matter what, than they really don't have to do anything for you. You cede all power by adopting slave like brand loyalty.

[beanman12345]

So mail in ballots are more important than ever, trump and republicans outright admit they are against mail in ballots because they'll never win, so their response is to threaten the usps and try to privatize or threaten to cut funding to it. Fucking a, we are never gonna get rid of Chump or down ticket republicans.

[Machismo]

Not voting is strategically the best you can do because if someone knows you will support them no matter what, than they really don't have to do anything for you. You cede all power by adopting slave like brand loyalty.

So, who are you voting for?

[Sunseeker]

Bernie lost, because he didn't get enough votes.

The DNC is under no obligation to be unbiased, considering that Bernie isn't a Democrat.

The reasoning behind their need to be unbiased is based on the fact that they want to have an open public primary. They have a vested interest in being, or at least appearing unbiased if they want people to feel their participation is valued, and people who feel their participation is valued feel they are valued, which is what the DNC really wants to achieve.

Besides, even if Bernie put a (D) behind his name, what would that mean really? The DNC doesn't hold its members to any particular party line. We've got Democrats who espouse positions across the board, from being pro-gun to anti-abortion. We've got pro-war Democrats, we've got New Green Deal Democrats, we've got Dixiecrats, we've got DINOs.

The only qualification for being a Democrat is deciding to wear the blue hat.

If the Democrats want to hold a closed primary and just pick their candidate, they're free to do so. Noone is required to hold an open primary, noone is required to ask voters who they like better. America just enjoys that shit. As long as they hold an open primary, they have a vested interest in appearing unbiased.

[Machismo]

The reasoning behind their need to be unbiased is based on the fact that they want to have an open public primary. They have a vested interest in being, or at least appearing unbiased if they want people to feel their participation is valued, and people who feel their participation is valued feel they are valued, which is what the DNC really wants to achieve.

Besides, even if Bernie put a (D) behind his name, what would that mean really? The DNC doesn't hold its members to any particular party line. We've got Democrats who espouse positions across the board, from being pro-gun to anti-abortion. We've got pro-war Democrats, we've got New Green Deal Democrats, we've got Dixiecrats, we've got DINOs.

The only qualification for being a Democrat is deciding to wear the blue hat.

If the Democrats want to hold a closed primary and just pick their candidate, they're free to do so. Noone is required to hold an open primary, noone is required to ask voters who they like better. America just enjoys that shit. As long as they hold an open primary, they have a vested interest in appearing unbiased.

In all honesty, they were staying out of it to a large degree.

As for their "big tent" strategy, that means taking a moderate stance, which they did.

[TrollHunter3000]

Not voting is strategically the best you can do because if someone knows you will support them no matter what, than they really don't have to do anything for you. You cede all power by adopting slave like brand loyalty.

For what strategy, exactly? The strategy to help the person who is even more opposed to your preferred policies win? Solid fucking strategy there. Your strategy is basically saying if I don't get 100% of what I want rather than 50% then I'll drive us all off a fucking cliff and none of us get anything.

You should fight your fight in the primaries like they've been doing. Sanders is certainly causing the democratic platform to change and a candidate like him can very well win the primary in the future. If they don't have enough support yet then it's simply not what enough Americans want at this time. To be a whiny idiot about it and help someone win who completely opposes almost all of what Sanders fights for because you didn't get everything you wanted is a pretty piss poor strategy.

What happens when the Democratic party does start to shift more and a candidate like Sanders wins a primary but the more centrist leaning democrats pull the same shit you pull and vote for the opposing party or don't vote at all? I'm sure as to not appear to be a hypocrite you'll say "that's their best strategy blah blah blah" but I'm sure you'd think there an idiot.

Looks like I have my answer though. You're not a liar.

[Theodarzna]

The reasoning behind their need to be unbiased is based on the fact that they want to have an open public primary. They have a vested interest in being, or at least appearing unbiased if they want people to feel their participation is valued, and people who feel their participation is valued feel they are valued, which is what the DNC really wants to achieve.

Besides, even if Bernie put a (D) behind his name, what would that mean really? The DNC doesn't hold its members to any particular party line. We've got Democrats who espouse positions across the board, from being pro-gun to anti-abortion. We've got pro-war Democrats, we've got New Green Deal Democrats, we've got Dixiecrats, we've got DINOs.

The only qualification for being a Democrat is deciding to wear the blue hat.

If the Democrats want to hold a closed primary and just pick their candidate, they're free to do so. Noone is required to hold an open primary, noone is required to ask voters who they like better. America just enjoys that shit. As long as they hold an open primary, they have a vested interest in appearing unbiased.

I'll add, an open public primary paid for by the State. Like this is a taxpayer funded deal, the government has to spend actual tax dollars and since its been legally acknowledged to be a bunch of backroom deals anyway, why on Earth is the public spending their money on this?

[TrollHunter3000]

Actually my general election vote means less than that, because I can assure you and everyone else my state is going to the Democrat. Just like all of Trump voters in California are wasted, and every vote in Biden in South Carolina is worthless.

People are apathetic to voting, because our government is apathetic toward the people they govern. Even now, the first bill passed during this economic collapsed provided nearly a 5 trillion dollar slush fund for Steve Mnuchin, but the SBA loans were limited, they tried to hold up what little aid there was over a few hundred bucks to the poorest Americans. Yet now we just cleared 3.5 of some arbitrary bills not even proposed by Democratic leadership, and we can't even get the lowest hanging fruit into the current plans. The best the democrats did was a one time payment for $1200, and expansion of a unemployment system unable to handle the scope of the problem. The later of which appears to be more because of Bernie then the DNC.

Biden might have nothing to do with those plans, but the democrats failure to act in a way to aid workers and the poor in a meaningful way could hurt them come November. Biden's own lack of policy on such matters hurt him as does his inability to speak on the subject in a substantive way.

I think people are apathetic to voting because of the electoral college. They have the same mentality as you (not saying it's necessarily wrong) that their state is overwhelming blue/red so there's no reason to vote. I'd be pretty interested to see how many more people would vote if we went by popular vote and everyone's vote actually had the same weight to it.

[Edge-]

Even now, the first bill passed during this economic collapsed provided nearly a 5 trillion dollar slush fund for Steve Mnuchin, but the SBA loans were limited, they tried to hold up what little aid there was over a few hundred bucks to the poorest Americans. Yet now we just cleared 3.5 of some arbitrary bills not even proposed by Democratic leadership, and we can't even get the lowest hanging fruit into the current plans. The best the democrats did was a one time payment for $1200, and expansion of a unemployment system unable to handle the scope of the problem. The later of which appears to be more because of Bernie then the DNC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/u...-strategy.html

Because Democrats have fought for, and got, a lot of great funding for small businesses and people. They've just had to negotiate hard for it, because Republicans wanted considerably less money, considerably less oversight, and considerably more for corporations and businesses rather than people.

This is called understanding the realities of complex situations and the need for negotiation to get things you want. You never get everything you want. Both sides get some things they want, some things they don't want. The alternative being that both Democrats and Republicans pass nothing because neither side will budge on their demands and Congress remains paralyzed and unable to take any actions.

[Theodarzna]

For what strategy, exactly? The strategy to help the person who is even more opposed to your preferred policies win? Solid fucking strategy there. Your strategy is basically saying if I don't get 100% of what I want rather than 50% then I'll drive us all off a fucking cliff and none of us get anything.

You should fight your fight in the primaries like they've been doing. Sanders is certainly causing the democratic platform to change and a candidate like him can very well win the primary in the future. If they don't have enough support yet then it's simply not what enough Americans want at this time. To be a whiny idiot about it and help someone win who completely opposes almost all of what Sanders fights for because you didn't get everything you wanted is a pretty piss poor strategy.

What happens when the Democratic party does start to shift more and a candidate like Sanders wins a primary but the more centrist leaning democrats pull the same shit you pull and vote for the opposing party or don't vote at all? I'm sure as to not appear to be a hypocrite you'll say "that's their best strategy blah blah blah" but I'm sure you'd think there an idiot.

Looks like I have my answer though. You're not a liar.

The threat of not voting has served Neo-Liberal centrists very well. Heck, the entire Donor class threatened to not back the ticket if it was Bernie. Those re-heated NeoCons who were the architects of many terrible wars, that Biden was a champion of incidentally, Also were ready to walk away if they didn't get their guy.

Threatening to not back the party ticket works, many voices said they wouldn't back a ticket with Sanders on it. And what do you know? Those people got a former Senator from MBNA, Banking and Debt collector stooge who has never seen a war he didn't like, or a congressional staffer he didn't enjoy a little non-consensual finger banging apparently, who sings the praises of segregationists, and who said "Nothing will fundamentally change" and has tapped Larry Sommers as his economics advisor.

If taking hostages works for that political faction is can work for the Leftists. Certainly the repetitive "Blue no Matter Who" has proven to be a road to nowhere.

[Sunseeker]

In all honesty, they were staying out of it to a large degree.

I think "the media" (god I hate using that term) jumped on the Biden Bandwagon a lot more than anyone even remotely Democratic-aligned did.

As for their "big tent" strategy, that means taking a moderate stance, which they did.

I disagree. But I'm tired of arguing that the DNC actually needs to stand for something, so I'll leave it at that.

[Machismo]

I think "the media" (god I hate using that term) jumped on the Biden Bandwagon a lot more than anyone even remotely Democratic-aligned did.


I disagree. But I'm tired of arguing that the DNC actually needs to stand for something, so I'll leave it at that.

That's the point of a big tent, everyone is welcome... which means being more relaxed in platform.

The media was also friendly with Warren, Buttigieg, even Klobuchar.

[TrollHunter3000]

The threat of not voting has served Neo-Liberal centrists very well. Heck, the entire Donor class threatened to not back the ticket if it was Bernie. Those re-heated NeoCons who were the architects of many terrible wars, that Biden was a champion of incidentally, Also were ready to walk away if they didn't get their guy.

Threatening to not back the party ticket works, many voices said they wouldn't back a ticket with Sanders on it. And what do you know? Those people got a former Senator from MBNA, Banking and Debt collector stooge who has never seen a war he didn't like, or a congressional staffer he didn't enjoy a little non-consensual finger banging apparently, who sings the praises of segregationists, and who said "Nothing will fundamentally change" and has tapped Larry Sommers as his economics advisor.

If taking hostages works for that political faction is can work for the Leftists. Certainly the repetitive "Blue no Matter Who" has proven to be a road to nowhere.

So your argument that the threat of not voting works is because less than 1% of the voters weren't going to financially support the party?

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with votes but with money which is a different issue. Not saying it isn't an important issue, but an irrelevant one.

You seem to be one of those people who use a lot of words to say very little.

[Theodarzna]

So your argument that the threat of not voting works is because less than 1% of the voters weren't going to financially support the party?

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with votes but with money which is a different issue. Not saying it isn't an important issue, but an irrelevant one.

You seem to be one of those people who use a lot of words to say very little.

That was enough of a threat that the entire DNC and its coterie of establishment goons worked harder on preventing a Sanders nomination than they did for really anything else. Heck if the effort that went into fighting Sanders had been spent on Universal Healthcare we'd have had it over ten years ago.

The threats worked, even a marginal number of wealthy backers an institutional goons threats to pull out were enough to create a concerted putsch.

I'll let Lawrence O'Donnell, brand safe establishment safe MSNBC pundit speak for me:


You are unlikely to find a more loyal party partisan than O'Donnell other than Maddow herself, or some of the posters in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

The early funding ran very quickly, and the current funding probably won't last till next month.

We are 4 bills in and the Democratic Leadership or the House hasn't introduced a single bill to put meaningful policies on the for-front. Instead the House is letting Mitch choose the bounds of what is acceptable. The democrats are pretending to fight over dimes for the SBA which according to reporting banks are favoring their top clients.

https://www.pymnts.com/legal/2020/cl...nks-ppp-loans/

The house bill passed was shit, and they have address the most basic solutions or introduce them into legislation. Things like rent/mortage freeze or debt extension till we can properly test for covid-19. Those things should have been fought for kicking and screaming if the DNC actually cared about the poor and middle class.

After Pelosi dutifully ensured a four trillion dollar slush fund, what leverage does she have? I mean, you either have to believe Pelosi is grossly incompetent at politics or so naive and stupid that she didn't know what she was doing, OR..... the nature of current legislation is by design and she is fine with it.

[TrollHunter3000]

That was enough of a threat that the entire DNC and its coterie of establishment goons worked harder on preventing a Sanders nomination than they did for really anything else. Heck if the effort that went into fighting Sanders had been spent on Universal Healthcare we'd have had it over ten years ago.

The threats worked, even a marginal number of wealthy backers an institutional goons threats to pull out were enough to create a concerted putsch.

I'll let Lawrence O'Donnell, brand safe establishment safe MSNBC pundit speak for me:

He's not wrong. You either support the Democrats or the Republicans. I'm just not understanding why you wouldn't want to support the party that at least aligns with some of your views. I understand there are other issues you want them to focus on and that's fine. You can fight for those in the primaries. Let's try a simple thought experiment so you can see why your strategy is shit.

Let's just use Universal Healthcare (UH) as the example. Let's say 100% of Republicans don't want it and 33% of Democrats do want it.

Let's say in the democratic primaries everyone votes on this one issue. We have two leading candidates and one wants it and the other doesn't. Obviously the one who doesn't want it wins because they have 67% of the votes. They're now the Democratic nominee.

Now you decide you don't vote because your candidate didn't get the nomination. Guess what, you still don't get UH regardless of who wins. However, UH isn't the only issue that matters in reality and if you actually support Sanders then it's likely the Democratic nominee supports other policies that you do care about so why wouldn't you support that candidate?

Eventually, in future primaries, maybe more people start supporting UH or maybe they don't. If it never gets enough support then it's simple not what the American people want. You can continue to refuse to help democrats win, sure, but you're still not getting what you want and you're actually just making things worse in regards to other issues by not helping the democrats win.

That's why your strategy is shit. You're not getting 100% of what you want so you're going to make sure no one gets anything even if they were willing to give you 80%.

Since you used a video to better explain things, I will too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dfYcQ_r_x8

[Edge-]

The media is owned by some of the largest corporations in America. It isn't a cop-out to claim they have a bias or that they put a spin that is favorable to their bottom line.

I'm not disputing that media were definitely more anti-Sanders than neutral, but that's a cop-out excuse that's a small part of a far larger and more complex set of reasons why Sanders wasn't able to find victory.

The media wasn't and has not been adversarial to Biden, and certainly not in the primary.

Coverage of a CNN contributor's comments - https://www.foxnews.com/media/van-jo...ad-man-walking
https://www.thenation.com/article/po...esults-defeat/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-...ere-all-scared
https://nypost.com/2020/02/11/why-jo...is-collapsing/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5cd_story.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...his-party.html
https://www.mediaite.com/election-20...-place-finish/

I could go on, but the point being that media were hardly ignoring the campaigns struggles. Or...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...stakes-history
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2...mpaign-1482189
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e70_story.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/30/opini...zer/index.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...en-gaffes-2020
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...-gaffes-matter

And his frequent gaffes.

Were they as critical of his policies? No, not really. Because they're more centrist "safe" policies that have fewer openings for criticism than something like M4A does. That's what being a centrist does often times, it limits your exposure to criticism for far left/right ideas.

Yet every single debate "How are you going to pay for it", without missing a step. As if that question hadn't been asked and answered a dozen time. How come the question was never "How are you not going to afford universal coverage", because we see how much that cost now.

Because it was, and still is, a fair question. And one that Sanders never really answered in a complete manner. Warren did, and it contributed to her campaign going from riding high and leading in polls to collapsing to the middle of the pack.

Blaming Clinton aides is a cop-out. I didn't say he couldn't say "Biden my friend", I said saying that every single time he criticized Biden was a dumb idea. The whole point of politics is to distinguish yourself from the other candidates.

Opening every statement with "My Friend Joe", isn't something any politician running for office should continually.

Your words. I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make now.

Pushing for a primary to go forward isn't a state choice, even Bernie screwed this one up. It is the states choice wiether to have one or not, but Biden, DNC, and Bernie all said we should have a primary. That was a mistake. They all should have been calling for the vote to be postponed.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ift-vote-mail#

Which primaries are you talking about? The last one was Wisconsin, where Sanders supported delaying the primary and apparently Biden didn't comment.

But that remains irrelevant given that

1. The state decides. Candidates can say whatever they want, but they have no vote in the states choice.
2. The courts ruled that the elections take place as planned after the governor tried to take action late.

https://readsludge.com/2020/02/28/co...es-at-the-dnc/

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/...=2020&cmte=DNC

The second one is a largely nothingburger. These are the rules of the game, and if you're not fundraising you're gonna get your asses kicked.

Again, Democrats have tried to take steps towards addressing this with HR1 in 2019 when they took back the House. Until the laws on campaign finance change, they've gotta play the same game if they want to have any chance of winning and effecting change.

The sludge report seems more a mixed bag. I see some questionsable current lobbyists in there, some questionable former lobbyists in there, but also things like "This person worked for the Bloomberg campaign!" which...ok? I'll have to dig into it more, but I've never pretended that the DNC are saints and don't have their problems.

- - - Updated - - -

After Pelosi dutifully ensured a four trillion dollar slush fund, what leverage does she have? I mean, you either have to believe Pelosi is grossly incompetent at politics or so naive and stupid that she didn't know what she was doing, OR..... the nature of current legislation is by design and she is fine with it.

Or, the Democrats know they have limited power in controlling only the House and that they need Republican support to get anything through the Senate, so they have to concede some of what they want in order to get concessions from Republicans, who wanted far less money and fewer controls.

I'm sure Pelosi is proud of the work she's done, but I doubt she'd tell you that any of it is "perfect" or that she doesn't see big room for improvements. This is how governance works, even if the other side is functionally try to kill the nation. You get something done, even if it's a half-measure, or you sit idle and nothing gets done because neither side will budge and inch, and both sides need to come to an agreement.

[Theodarzna]

He's not wrong.

I'll accept this and the rest as you simply have no intention of engaging in what I said.

Guess what, you still don't get UH regardless of who wins.

Sure, but lets say the Democrats run an Anti-Abortion candidate who is pro-UBI and pro-Universal Healthcare? Would the same logic of "Other issues matter?" still apply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dfYcQ_r_x8

At this point I am wondering if Leftists ever get what they want.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, the Democrats know they have limited power in controlling only the House and that they need Republican support to get anything through the Senate, so they have to concede some of what they want in order to get concessions from Republicans, who wanted far less money and fewer controls.

I'm sure Pelosi is proud of the work she's done, but I doubt she'd tell you that any of it is "perfect" or that she doesn't see big room for improvements. This is how governance works, even if the other side is functionally try to kill the nation. You get something done, even if it's a half-measure, or you sit idle and nothing gets done because neither side will budge and inch, and both sides need to come to an agreement.

So proud of her work that she held a voice vote to avoid anyone being on record one way or another for that vote.