Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

You know, I thought about this a lot last night before I went to sleep and then again this morning, and I think Im actually seeing your point here.

All it amounts to in practice is, try to recruit as many left-leaning people to run for offices at all levels, but especially in safer areas. And of course, don't try to block them unless you have very good reasons.

The limitation is the number of people you can find willing and able to run for office, which is not unlimited or evenly distributed.

Yeah I'd say thats pretty cynical. And considering that Bernie is hardly a unifying figure, far-fetched.

Reagan was hated and derided by traditional Republican elites, until he had a track record of winning big in the 80s.

One observation I have, Sanders comes off as sharper and physiologically more vigorous than Biden. But that's the thing with advanced age, things can turn around in a hurry, or they can be stable up to your last days. Who would have been comfortable expecting Trump to still be staggering along at this stage?

Katie Hill only won because Steve Knight hid from the district during wildfires and had terrible charisma. Fun fact, one time he threatened to punch a citizen on camera because the guy (a conservative who wanted tougher immigration policy) shook his hand too hard. The only reason he was elected was because the Republican everyone loved got cancer and had to step down.

So - who would have won? If the enemy has a weakness you exploit it, what are you supposed to do.

To test your theory keep an eye on Cenk from The Young Turks who is running in the district as the progressive alternative to Christy Smith the centrist dem.

Problem: no one likes Cenk (and he hates unions anyway).


In other news:

[a completely inoffensive name]

So - who would have won? If the enemy has a weakness you exploit it, what are you supposed to do.
Problem: no one likes Cenk (and he hates unions anyway)

I'm just saying don't take anything from Hill's win. Any dem would have won.

Agreed about Cenk, dude doesn't even live here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62i2feu9fxk

On Warren's toxicity.

She's pretty toxic - yes it's Fox but the point is not that, the point is the way she looks. Frankly, it's the fact she's pushing a policy of deabt forgiveness of this scale under these circumstances and she simply doesn't have an answer for that guy.

If you didn't borrow the money, you do get screwed.

[Montmorency]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62i2feu9fxk

On Warren's toxicity.

She's pretty toxic - yes it's Fox but the point is not that, the point is the way she looks. Frankly, it's the fact she's pushing a policy of deabt forgiveness of this scale under these circumstances and she simply doesn't have an answer for that guy.

If you didn't borrow the money, you do get screwed.

Ugh

Sadly, misogyny appears to be a stronger force in this world than even racism.

Sanders has a more comprehensive debt relief plan than Warren, and the fairness counterargument is totally upside down. In extreme, it's like arguing that the 8 billion living humans today are an affront to the hundred billion who have lived and died before them.

'Why should we get to be alive but not them? So unfair!!!'

Moronic crab mentality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51693714

Looks like Biden is crushing it, with 18% of votes counted he has a majority of the vote - this will surely give him a bounce going into Super Tuesday.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Err....

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/sta...p2tkq0mSl1slt0

[Hooahguy]

Reagan was hated and derided by traditional Republican elites, until he had a track record of winning big in the 80s.

One observation I have, Sanders comes off as sharper and physiologically more vigorous than Biden. But that's the thing with advanced age, things can turn around in a hurry, or they can be stable up to your last days. Who would have been comfortable expecting Trump to still be staggering along at this stage?

Not wanting to get into a debate about Reagan, but in his second presidential primary attempt he got almost 60% of the votes. Somehow I dont see that happening with Bernie.

And about Biden, as someone who stutters as well, a lot of his gaffs are chalked up to that stutter. I do a lot of the same things he does, such as word replacements and stumbling over those. I do wish he was more open about it and not insisting he is cured of it as its not something that can be.

And lets be honest, I'm not really sure that Sanders comes off sharper considering he falls back on his stump speech more often than not.

Speaking of his stump speeches though, I'm surprised that more people aren't calling him out more about how he conveniently dropped the "millionaires" part of his "millionaires and billionaires" line once he became one.


At least Steyer is dropping out now.

[Montmorency]

Not wanting to get into a debate about Reagan, but in his second presidential primary attempt he got almost 60% of the votes. Somehow I dont see that happening with Bernie.

Reagan had basically only Bush as a major opponent in the 1980 primaries. Bush represented the traditional Republican elite. The point is that the "establishment" became Reaganite in short order and promoted his brand as a point of consolidation for movement conservatism. If you don't think this can happen with Sanders, then it would come down more to either the resistance of the old guard or a comparatively less successful record of Sanders to Reagan, not necessarily the lack of receptivity of the public to mythmaking.

And lets be honest, I'm not really sure that Sanders comes off sharper considering he falls back on his stump speech more often than not.

He seems more physically and mentally alert and quick. This is separate from the political content of their utterances.

Speaking of his stump speeches though, I'm surprised that more people aren't calling him out more about how he conveniently dropped the "millionaires" part of his "millionaires and billionaires" line once he became one.

That was a whole event about a year ago; people lost interest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not wanting to get into a debate about Reagan, but in his second presidential primary attempt he got almost 60% of the votes. Somehow I dont see that happening with Bernie.

And about Biden, as someone who stutters as well, a lot of his gaffs are chalked up to that stutter. I do a lot of the same things he does, such as word replacements and stumbling over those. I do wish he was more open about it and not insisting he is cured of it as its not something that can be.

And lets be honest, I'm not really sure that Sanders comes off sharper considering he falls back on his stump speech more often than not.

Speaking of his stump speeches though, I'm surprised that more people aren't calling him out more about how he conveniently dropped the "millionaires" part of his "millionaires and billionaires" line once he became one.


At least Steyer is dropping out now.

Reagan was also Governor of California for eight years, as a Republican, which means that:

A: He had already achieved victory for the GOP in a very important state.

B: He had executive experience.

Sanders has neither of these virtues and, as I said, has spent almost all his political life as an Independent. Sanders is also very much the anti-Reagan in that Reagan was driven primarily by his belief in the myth of American exceptionalism and American Liberty. Listening to many of Sanders' supports it's apparent they're Liberals, not Socialists, and they don't really understand what Sanders stands for.

If Sanders wins the nomination he's going to have to sell his brand of Social Democracy and Socialism (he's somewhere in the middle) to all of America - I'm betting they won't buy it.

[Hooahguy]

That was a whole event about a year ago; people lost interest.

So the hypocrisy doesn't bother you?

[Montmorency]

So the hypocrisy doesn't bother you?

He hasn't compromised his tax proposals.

As for South Carolina, the final analysis for our purposes:

Biden began rebounding in his polling immediately following Nevada, possibly owing to his strong second-place finish and the continued brittleness of his alternatives. Compared to the polling at his trough, Biden today recovered around 20% of voters from Sanders and the rest, with the most coming from Steyer (who probably could never have hoped to hold out as a Biden alternative given his performance in previous states). The other ~5% like came from the undecideds.

The Sanders campaign, as reported, bypassed South Carolina and has used this time to solidify his presence in Texas and California, where Biden has barely campaigned. But there is a subtle bit of bad news for Sanders besides the potential media boost for Biden and consolidating effect of voters abandoning Buttigieg et al. Namely, turnout in South Carolina's 2016 primary was 370K voters, where Sanders got 26% of the vote. Today, turnout is set to exceed 500K (up to 520K), an increase of 40%, with Biden gathering 49% and Sanders 20% of the total. So far turnout increases have only helped Sanders in Nevada. This suggests Sanders will not be able to outflank Biden in other Southern states, which are prominent on the March schedule. By my count there are 821 pledged delegates attached to Southern states in March (not counting Texas). Not counting Texas because Biden's resilience with black voters has so far been matched by Sanders' with Latino voters.

Unexpected developments are to be expected, but with this Biden rebound the safe bet is on a long fight to the finish.

[Hooahguy]

He hasn't compromised his tax proposals.

Nothing stopping him from voluntarily giving more of his income to the government. You know, practice what you preach.

[Montmorency]

Nothing stopping him from voluntarily giving more of his income to the government. You know, practice what you preach.

He preaches charity?

[Hooahguy]

He preaches charity?

Charity is not a replacement. Its better than nothing for sure, but not a replacement. Sanders should lead by example.

I think its because he doesnt want to vilify himself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Super Tuesday awaits, but the early results make it a two way race for the Dem nom, with Buttigieg a lagging third (though perhaps a big lead for VeeP nom).

[Hooahguy]

Pete has dropped out. Good for him honestly, knowing when to drop out when he saw no path forward. There are some candidates who could take a hint.

[Montmorency]

Charity is not a replacement. Its better than nothing for sure, but not a replacement. Sanders should lead by example.

I think its because he doesnt want to vilify himself.

Lead by example in what? There are some radicals who do go so far as to say no one should live on more than $100K a year, or $50K a year, and divest themselves of all other income and wealth, but I've never heard Sanders subscribe to either an ascetic or "morally rational" standard of living and income. He has not advanced caps on income or wealth. His platform remains focused on reducing the influence, and increasing the tax liability, of the "1%."

I think you may misunderstand his position, if I'm not mistaken about the thrust of your criticism. If you want him to be more radical, that's fine, but I don't see where he has laid claim to that flavor of radicalism.

Pete has dropped out. Good for him honestly, knowing when to drop out when he saw no path forward. There are some candidates who could take a hint.

Whoa. So it begins. I thought everyone wanted to ride out Super Tuesday. This will give Biden a shot in the arm. Veep nom indeed.

[Hooahguy]

Lead by example in what? There are some radicals who do go so far as to say no one should live on more than $100K a year, or $50K a year, and divest themselves of all other income and wealth, but I've never heard Sanders subscribe to either an ascetic or "morally rational" standard of living and income. He has not advanced caps on income or wealth. His platform remains focused on reducing the influence, and increasing the tax liability, of the "1%."

I think you may misunderstand his position, if I'm not mistaken about the thrust of your criticism. If you want him to be more radical, that's fine, but I don't see where he has laid claim to that flavor of radicalism.

No, if he wants people to pay more taxes, he should pay more first. Im not saying he should give up all his income. But if he wants the 1% to pay more in taxes for the common good, well he can start with himself. Because if not the whole dropping of the millionaires line screams "please dont demonize me."

[Montmorency]

No, if he wants people to pay more taxes, he should pay more first. Im not saying he should give up all his income. But if he wants the 1% to pay more in taxes for the common good, well he can start with himself. Because if not the whole dropping of the millionaires line screams "please dont demonize me."

I struggle with this, because it is a conservative argument I simply can't wrap around conceptually. 'Person who wants collective action should take independent individual action to prove they want collective action.'

That Sanders should donate an unspecified lump sum to the government in excess of his current liability because he wants tax reform is - a non-sequitur to me.


I'm not perverse enough to hope Bloomberg does well enough to deadlock Sanders, but it would offer an opening for vaguely racially-tinged jokes about Israeli politics.

[Hooahguy]

Say what you want, someone who used to rail against the millionaires and billionaires until he became one is very suspicious. Tell me, why do you think he dropped it from his rhetoric?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Say what you want, someone who used to rail against the millionaires and billionaires until he became one is very suspicious. Tell me, why do you think he dropped it from his rhetoric?

As I have said before, Socialists are opposed to charity inherently. They see it as a sop the rich feed the poor to reduce their resentment - thereby reducing class tensions and forestalling class war. They also see it as emblematic of the failure of ths State to provide - if the State provided the poor would not need charity. Then there's the fear that the poor will emulate the rich and give charity themselves, thereby making themselves poorer.

All of which kinda illustrates my core issue with Socialism - it's collectivist to the point of being inhumane.

Think about the shear intellectual and moral gymnastics required to see one human showing compassion to another as a bad thing.

[Montmorency]

Say what you want, someone who used to rail against the millionaires and billionaires until he became one is very suspicious. Tell me, why do you think he dropped it from his rhetoric?

Well, I don't know that he dropped "millionaires" - a quick check indicates he used it in his post-Iowa speech.

I'm willing to believe he has deprecated it somewhat in frequency, but that's just an assumption - I don't know of a way to compare hundreds of speeches from 2016 with hundreds of speeches this cycle (without a great deal of work that would deserve remuneration IMO).

He also still uses 1% as far as I can tell.

As for why he's emphasized billionaires, Steyer and Bloomberg could have something to do with it.


Warren talking good:

[Montmorency]

Then there's the fear that the poor will emulate the rich and give charity themselves, thereby making themselves poorer.

BTW, the poor already give more of their income in charity than the rich.

[Hooahguy]

Well of course he did, probably did after getting called out on it. Gotta maintain the grift after all, right?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well of course he did, probably did after getting called out on it. Gotta maintain the grift after all, right?

Sounds like you just want to bag on Sanders.

Monty, This is the exact type of mentality I am telling you the DNC organization has, which is why I had to switch my vote from Pete to Bernie (after today, a good choice).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sounds like you just want to bag on Sanders.

Monty, This is the exact type of mentality I am telling you the DNC organization has, which is why I had to switch my vote from Pete to Bernie (after today, a good choice).

Question: How do you feel about the people bernie attracts who basically want to overthrow your Republic?

[Hooahguy]

Sounds like you just want to bag on Sanders.

Monty, This is the exact type of mentality I am telling you the DNC organization has, which is why I had to switch my vote from Pete to Bernie (after today, a good choice).

Ah yes I totally represent the DNC and not other progressives who prefer people who actually get things done in their almost three decades of being in Congress.

I like how Warren described him: "a senator who has good ideas, but whose 30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done, and consistently opposes things he nevertheless fails to stop."

[Montmorency]

Sounds like you just want to bag on Sanders.

Monty, This is the exact type of mentality I am telling you the DNC organization has, which is why I had to switch my vote from Pete to Bernie (after today, a good choice).

If by DNC you refer to the Convention, the point stands:

1. They're not a hive mind and few of them are willing to block Sanders at the end of the process.
2. The end of the process is unlikely to depend on them.

Question: How do you feel about the people bernie attracts who basically want to overthrow your Republic?

Four years of Trumpian fascism, the Republic at its knees: Not a word from PVC
"We must stop capitalist oppression": PVC says ZOMG

Bloody hell.

Ah yes I totally represent the DNC and not other progressives who prefer people who actually get things done in their almost three decades of being in Congress.

I like how Warren described him: "a senator who has good ideas, but whose 30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done, and consistently opposes things he nevertheless fails to stop."

The problem with claims that Sanders has not accomplished anything in Congress is, well, he has. He's compromised with Democrats and Republicans alike to push forward his priorities in numerous pieces of legislation.

Then the goalposts shift to him not accomplishing "enough."

Compared to who, though? The Voltron of Henry Clay, LBJ, La Follete, and Taft?

[Hooahguy]

The problem with claims that Sanders has not accomplished anything in Congress is, well, he has. He's compromised with Democrats and Republicans alike to push forward his priorities in numerous pieces of legislation.

Naming a couple post offices doesn't count. Nor does the veterans cost of living compensation bill count because its a pretty standardized bill that gets passed almost every year. Show me something substantive. There were 4 other pieces of legislation he got through via other bills. One was a bill about the Federal charter for the VFW. One was about a Vermont's water supply compact. The third expanded the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont and the fourth established the Vermont bicentennial day. What a fantastic legislative record.

I will give him some credit on the 2014 Veterans Choice Act considering he worked with McCain on it. But to be fair, he was also the chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee so him playing a part was to be expected. Even then, some veterans groups criticize him for delaying action on the ongoing VA scandal as he repeatedly professed faith in the VA when all indications showed that there was a major crisis.

And don't come at me with the whole "amendment king" junk. Both Warren and Klobuchar have gotten a higher average per year of their amendments passed anyways. Looking at the more substantive stuff hes passed via amendment, a lot of it is boilerplate and/or included in the appropriations process. I dont know about you but I've actually done work on appropriation bills and let me tell you, its pretty easy to sneak things in. The way that these amendments are passed is they sit down in a session that can last anywhere from 4-8 hours (if not longer) for multiple days (they call it a conference) and they go through each of the hundreds of amendments. For example, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 had 648 amendments. And as long as its not something crazy like banning all nukes, it will very likely pass via roll call vote. It might be effective for small things but it wont work for his ambitious agenda.

I profess these concerns because if Sanders wants to enact lasting change on this country he has to be able to create alliances within Congress to pass the bills he wants and he has not shown to be able to do that. And I don't think his plan to have rallies to convince McConnell to vote his way will have any impact. He cannot do everything by executive order, because a) he is not a king and b) the next president will just undo everything.

[edyzmedieval]

With the consolidation going on, it's going to be progressive against moderate. And as things stand, with the Superdelegates reportedly really not into Sanders, it's becoming clear what the final match up will be.