Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[Divine Retribution]

I did not post that...the fuck?

Cong mods strike again

 

[MikeDawg]

"Bernie is bad at his job because he can't pass legislation."

His job is literally to pass legislation. So, yes, he is bad at his job. He couldn't even pass single payer in his home state of 12 people who all look the same where he's supposedly the most beloved politician in America. He can be as uncompromising as he wants, but if nothing gets done, people suffer. Period. Hence why when someone asks Bernie for a single tangible thing he's done to help LGBT people, or black people, or anyone really, he has nothing to say.

He called Biden's healthcare plan as bad as 23 9/11s, but Bernie has no healthcare plan, because M4A is unpopular, unpassable, and grossly underfunded. The reality is that Bernie is the only candidate who will literally preserve the status quo via his own ineffectiveness.

The most hilariously poetic moment of the primary was when AOC said at a Bernie rally that she wouldn't be alive without CHIP, failing to realize that Bernie voted against CHIP.

Again, if his only merit is his purity, then his votes for Afghanistan, AUMF, Iraq regime change, and the crime bill, for example, should be disqualifying. But they aren't, because "purity for thee, not for me" is the narrative that arises when a man's support is driven by a cult of personality.

Speaking of purity, there's a lot of irony in the fact that Biden was actively and passionately campaigning against a segregationist in 1976 at the same time that Bernie was minimizing the same man's problems. If talk is the only metric we have by which to evaluate Sanders (which it is), he sure talks a lot of garbage.

[He] advocates some outrageous approaches to our problems, but at least he is sensitive to what people feel they need.

Over my dead political body is George Wallace going to get [the Democratic nomination]

I wonder if Bernie fans will latch onto this as hard as they latched onto Biden's praise of segregationists months ago?

 

[TheValkyries]

No his merit isn't purity it's that he's the only one whose pushing an actually progressive platform. If you think that I think of Bernie as "pure" in terms of leftist beliefs then that's a joke. But Bernie is a clear and blatant step in the correct direction that the whole fucking Democratic party needs to go towards, or else it should wither and die. And obviously, some parts of it has moved that way, as made evident by the various platforms other nominee hopefuls were running on in the wake of Bernie's run in 2016.

 

[MikeDawg]

No his merit isn't purity it's that he's the only one whose pushing an actually progressive platform. If you think that I think of Bernie as "pure" in terms of leftist beliefs then that's a joke. But Bernie is a clear and blatant step in the correct direction that the whole fucking Democratic party needs to go towards, or else it should wither and die. And obviously, some parts of it has moved that way, as made evident by the various platforms other nominee hopefuls were running on in the wake of Bernie's run in 2016.

The idea that Bernie's platform is progressive while Warren's isn't is laughable. Their only substantial difference is that Warren at least tries to propose plans to enact her platform, whereas Bernie has no interest in actually effecting progress.

There's absolutely nothing progressive about actively resisting progress while offering no tangible solutions of his own. That's just called narcissism.

 

[TheValkyries]

First of all, literally addressed Warren's campaign (and others) in the last line there. Second of all, the assertion that Bernie resists progress and offers no "tangible" solutions is just pure farce. Bernie resists the push to the Right that the Democrats have been running on for decades, and his solutions are only "intangible" because you believe that they won't get passed. That doesn't make them any less real.

 

[MikeDawg]

That doesn't make them any less real.

It does, though. If his ideas don't turn into plans, and if those plans don't get passed, then they literally aren't real.

Besides, his record of incompetence isn't the only reason I consider his ideas intangible. It's also the fact that he makes no effort to materialize them, even just in theory.

If you want an example, go back to the recent interview I linked where Bernie said he straight up doesn't know how much M4A will cost. If he doesn't even have the fundamentals of his ideas ironed out after 5 years of campaigning, then how can you possibly say with a straight face that he has "solutions"?

Both this and your "Biden cares the least about LGBT issues because he brings them up the most" comment are such blatant examples of working backwards from a conclusion that you've already settled on.

Honestly, the only explanation I can come up with for the "Bernie being unaccomplished is a GOOD thing!" crowd is that they're also unaccomplished and desperately seek comfort in the possibility that they too can fail upwards. Same line of reasoning that has Trump fans idolizing a corrupt idiot who will clearly do nothing to actually improve their lives.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Some of the comments in this thread do a phenomenal job corroborating the notion that American public education is criminally underfunded. The idea that a center-left Green party-kinda candidate in a global context (Sanders) is a communist is so mindbogglingly ignorant it skips 'plainly stupid' and goes right to 'redneck caricature' territory. Honestly, while yes education funding cuts do contribute to this kinda shit, there's also the fact that Google exists; you can type in "communism" into your browser and get a blurb about some basic principles at the very least. Seeing this level of ignorance makes me feel lucky my highschool offered a comprehensive comparative politics class that examines historically significant regimes like the USSR and the PRC. I hope that one day a comparative politics credit is required in highschools nationally; it'd do the world a looooot of good if the sole superpower's voter pool wasn't brimming with people only capable of thought on a gun-toting-hick level.

I love how "hey maybe we should have government health insurance like virtually every other developed country and maybe not contrivedly burden swathes of young people with crippling student debt and also not make the Earth uninhabitable for human beings" somehow prompts "OH MY GOD VENEZUELA THE SOVIET UNION IT NEVER WORKS" without fail every single fucking time. Sanders isn't even a good example of a socialist; his policies are all essentially all reformist. If you look at his workplace democracy plan, there is nothing about transitioning from private ownership to worker ownership of enterprise---the basis of socialism---it's all about strengthening the power of unions and combating the hierarchical and oligarchic nature of how capitalism organizes enterprise that way. Yeah, I know he calls himself a democratic socialist, but an actual DSA member or what have you would outflank Sanders economically 100%.

And this isn't to say that the best way to respond to "omg socialism bad it never works venezuela the PRC" is to cite than Sanders isn't actually a socialist---defending capitalism is an absurdly uphill battle for the poor soul who takes up the challenge, but it's important to note that these kinds of people are so profoundly ignorant they don't even understand where their opposition stands politically. I implore you to educate yourself on lefty economics ideas---Dr. Richard Wolff is the best orator on this in the context of the US (he is going to do a better job of explaining things than I could since I don't have a PhD in econ---I did write a big-ass post earlier you can check out, though)---but given the sub-middle school level of reading comprehension the "OMG VENEZUELA" people tend to have, I have little hope they'll sit through a 2 hour video that actually challenges their preconceptions.

Last thing: "worker owned enterprise" and its spirit have various interpretations in terms of substantive policy. State capitalism (USSR, PRC, what most people mean when they say "communist/communism") is one where the employer-employee undemocratic dichotomy remains in tact, but the employer is no longer a private entity---the immensely authoritarian nature of many regimes that employed this style would be the common evil. Reformist models like the Nordic countries are often considered "socialist"---socialism has an aim of destratifying class, which to an extent can be accomplished with reformist policies like hiking up the minimum wage, using highly progressive tax brackets, having an expansive social safety net, etc. Finally, worker co-ops (so a collective of private entities) owning enterprise is picking up interest (Dr. Wolff is a big proponent of this approach) and would be the most direct form of socialism of the three. It has limited experimentation to my knowledge.

edit: MikeDawg, you should probably read the post before you drop a like. I'm nowhere near being your ideological ally, and there is zero chance in hell any of what I just wrote resonates with your "woke centrist" alignment.

I think Bernie though, given opportunity, allies, political climate, would be up for pushing the window to the left even more. For example, I know many were disappointed that the "Workplace Democracy" plan had nothing to do with workplace democracy...

...but there were articles about how Bernie and his team were in fact looking into policy to give workers half of board seats and worker owned trusts that demanded 2% equity increases per year— which would turn all big corporations into coops eventually. It's a matter of pushing Bernie, and he's up for being pushed... already the platform is way more aggressive and progressive than in 2016; and Bernie is collecting the folks he'll need to make even better and more aggressive strides going forward.

It does, though. If his ideas don't turn into plans, and if those plans don't get passed, then they literally aren't real.

Besides, his record of incompetence isn't the only reason I consider his ideas intangible. It's also the fact that he makes no effort to materialize them, even just in theory.

If you want an example, go back to the recent interview I linked where Bernie said he straight up doesn't know how much M4A will cost. If he doesn't even have the fundamentals of his ideas ironed out after 5 years of campaigning, then how can you possibly say with a straight face that he has "solutions"?

Both this and your "Biden cares the least about LGBT issues because he brings them up the most" comment are such blatant examples of working backwards from a conclusion that you've already settled on.

Honestly, the only explanation I can come up with for the "Bernie being unaccomplished is a GOOD thing!" crowd is that they're also unaccomplished and desperately seek comfort in the possibility that they too can fail upwards. Same line of reasoning that has Trump fans idolizing a corrupt idiot who will clearly do nothing to actually improve their lives.

The Organizer in Chief, President & De Facto Leader of the Democratic Party turns to Nancy & the rest and says:

“We are going to do my platform. We will do my method of fundraising. In other words, this bankrupt party will take zero special interest, donor, PAC money. You work for me, you are dependent on me, you will fall in line— pass my party rules, fight for my agenda. And if you don’t, I go to the American people and make you.”

 

[MikeDawg]

The Organizer in Chief, President & De Facto Leader of the Democratic Party turns to Nancy & the rest and says:

“We are going to do my platform. We will do my method of fundraising. In other words, this bankrupt party will take zero special interest, donor, PAC money. You work for me, you are dependent on me, you will fall in line— pass my party rules, fight for my agenda. And if you don’t, I go to the American people and make you.”

1. Congress literally does not work for the president.

2. The entire Dem party hates him and would not be eager to cooperate with him. (Rememeber how hard it was for Obama to get the ACA passed with a Dem majority? And everyone liked Obama.)

3. Bernie is in fact dependent on the party for him to have a platform. If he didn't hijack the Dem monniker and run on their ticket, he would be nobody. Moreover, the party is definitely not dependent on him for fundraising.

4. Considering Bernie's best case scenario is swinging a tight plurality of the votes (almost certainly < 30%) in the primary, the majority of Dems wouldn't have even voted for him. What influence does he have that Congress doesn't? Every single candidate he endorsed in 2018 lost.

5. Ah, so we're going back to the "he'll hold rallies in kentucky!!" approach.

Honestly, Gato's answer was a lot better. He at least tried to base it on data rather than a bunch of truly absurd platitudes. I appreciate your passion, though.

Edit: first 10 seconds sums up my thoughts

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223064375289958401

 

[Chou Toshio]

1. Congress literally does not work for the president.

2. The entire Dem party hates him and would not be eager to cooperate with him. (Rememeber how hard it was for Obama to get the ACA passed with a Dem majority? And everyone liked Obama.)

3. Bernie is in fact dependent on the party for him to have a platform. If he didn't hijack the Dem monniker and run on their ticket, he would be nobody. Moreover, the party is definitely not dependent on him for fundraising.

4. Considering Bernie's best case scenario is swinging a tight plurality of the votes (almost certainly < 30%) in the primary, the majority of Dems wouldn't have even voted for him. What influence does he have that Congress doesn't? Every single candidate he endorsed in 2018 lost.

5. Ah, so we're going back to the "he'll hold rallies in kentucky!!" approach.

Honestly, Gato's answer was a lot better. He at least tried to base it on data rather than a bunch of truly absurd platitudes. I appreciate your passion, though.

Edit: first 10 seconds sums up my thoughts

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223064375289958401

Congress does not work for a President, but a President is the party’s leader. Bernie can completely transform the operations and rules of the DNC. He’s already said, in his Money in Politics policy, that the Democratic Party under him will have it’s internal fundraising rules completely changed. Seeing as the party is constantly in the red and it is right now...

just as the DNC was entirely dependent on Hillary to raise its cash, so will it be dependent on Bernie.

If you strip away party leadership’s ability to fundraise their way, you strip away the candidates’ ability to fundraise except the progressive way, you strip away their power— their electability entirely dependent on the good will and popularity of the President.

You work for the people, or I replace you. I go to the people and have you thrown out. This is why they’re panicking—because under Bernie, the staffers, the party functions, the power within the party is entirely re-written— and Bernie will have the people’s mandate to do it.

 

[TheValkyries]

Yeah if you’re really gonna step up to the plate for Biden’s record on LGBT issues again you’re really beyond worth considering at all.

Bernie isn’t a perfect candidate you are right on that, but for the entirely wrong reasons. Yes his ideas are overly simple, but simplicity doesn’t mean being wrong. And compromise in the face of the constant slip of the right into deeper and deeper depths of moral depravity is not a good quality at all actually so yeah I’d much rather an uncompromising simpleton who fights for the right thing rather than craven blowhards who capitulate on what’s right in the name of “cooperation”.

Honestly at this point you’d praise the crew of people tying the noose around your neck rather than the few people who antagonize those doing so. Because at least the ones killing you can cooperate with one another!

 

[Machoke]

Let's also not pretend that Bernie hasn't MASSIVELY shifted the Overton window in US politics to the point where everyone in this race is defining their policies based on HIS framework. Medicare For All is the standard bearer of healthcare policy ideas now which everyone has to define their ideas on. Not whatever Hillary was proposing, even tho she won the primary with the help of some rigging. Why? Cuz it's immensely popular and it's what the people want the more they learn about it and democrats KNOW this, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to hijack it by naming their plan "Medicare for All Who Want It" or "Medicare For Choice" or trying to, in the words of one of Warren's surrogates, "staple" themselves onto Medicare For All as a plan.
That's Bernie's theory of change. Get the ideas of the people to overwhelm the machine from outside in to force them to pass what benefits the people. And it's working, otherwise the dems wouldn't have had to adopt things he proposed last time around.

But anyways, let's get to more exciting things like...
Now that Delaney has dropped out, who do you think his 2 supporters will go to!?

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Texas supports voting for the straight lunatic commie

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Me when cong celebrity mikedawg says I gave the best answer so now I can go back to simping for the fail upwards phantomware plarform white guy

 

[MikeDawg]

You'd praise the crew of people tying the noose around your neck rather than the few people who antagonize those doing so. Because at least the ones killing you can cooperate with one another!

Let me fix that for you, because you seem to be immensely confused about my political priorities:

I'd praise the person trying to cut me down instead of the old man yelling it's better that I'm hanged to death than potentially scrape my knee when I fall. Actually, he'll probably just avoid the subject and start taking about billionaires and big rope lobbyists. Also he didn't even bring a knife.

I love that even in your own metaphor, Bernie's idea is to "antagonize" people instead of actually doing something.

Also it's kinda funny that Machoke is complaining about people hijacking "Medicare for All" (which is, for the record, substantially less popular than a public option) when Bernie is the one who hijacked the term "Medicare".

When Bernie Sanders is your first foray into politics, of course you'd think every single idea belongs to him.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Bernie at #1 Nationally NBC/Harvard >:D

Also leads a new Iowa poll at 23-17

 

[Chou Toshio]

I meant the overall vote, not just Iowa; there’s really no way she hits 15 in a lot of precincts imo so it’s not really a possibility I’m seriously considering; her support and Biden’s are both pretty soft to me and I think during realignment a lot of them are gonna rethink Bernie very seriously. Biden’s definitely hitting 15 though, so if he consolidates the vote it’ll probably be worse.

Yes— and the thing is that no campaign in any election has had a precinct captain in every precinct. Bernie plans to have 2+

Biden has... zero ground game. Will he have precinct captains? Will they actually be trained? Real questions.

Bernie’s caucus goers will be close to 100% immovable and he’s likely to be viable in almost every precinct. Every other candidate is hovering just over viability, and so will definitely have unviable precincts.

And how many times will compassionate, friendly, well-trained Iowan Bernie volunteers talking about social security manage to flip some working class grandma’s and grandpa’s? Keeping in mind Biden’s voters usually have Sanders as #2.


it doesn’t have to happen a lot to make a huge impact— but that interaction will be happening in every. Single. Precinct.

And not just in Iowa. This same dynamic is happening all across the country— millions of times per day.

 

[TheValkyries]

I love that even in your own metaphor, Bernie's idea is to "antagonize" people instead of actually doing something.

Ignoring the whole mess of weird rambling about dying being better than scraping a knee or whatever the fuck you were trying to say with that, I just want to say this: yeah Bernie is antagonistic to those in power due to his nature of being a political body in a democracy. The ones actually doing things would be the groups taking direct action and organizing across the country.

But if Bernie is your first and only picture of leftist politics, of course you’d miss that reality.

 

[MikeDawg]

Ignoring the whole mess of weird rambling about dying being better than scraping a knee or whatever the fuck you were trying to say with that

It was one simple sentence. If you couldn't understand it, you desperately need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't have a response, but in that case... why did you respond?

I just want to say this: yeah Bernie is antagonistic to those in power due to his nature of being a political body in a democracy. The ones actually doing things would be the groups taking direct action and organizing across the country.

But if Bernie is your first and only picture of leftist politics, of course you’d miss that reality.

You know who else is "actually doing things"? Politicians who, unlike Bernie, have effected meaningful change through legislation.

But if Bernie is your first and only political interest, of course you'd miss that reality.

 

[atomicllamas]

MikeDawg the video you posted saying Bernie only passed 7 laws and three were post office names is based on an (incorrect and misleading) meme made up by a republican candidate for New York Governor who infamously stated he’d like to see Michelle Obama, “return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla”. Especially ironic given the context of the video you linked. Based on percentages Bernie is slightly less effective at turning his bills into law than the 4% average. But that’s not necessarily surprising given he’s the farthest left Senator by voting record. I think discussion itt would be better served if we didn’t just repeat right wing memes. They are almost always false or misleading, and quite literally always vapid.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democratic-senators-pass-bills-rate/

 

[MikeDawg]

MikeDawg the video you posted saying Bernie only passed 7 laws and three were post office names is based on an (incorrect and misleading) meme made up by a republican candidate for New York Governor who infamously stated he’d like to see Michelle Obama, “return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla”. Especially ironic given the context of the video you linked. Based on percentages Bernie is slightly less effective at turning his bills into law than the 4% average. But that’s not necessarily surprising given he’s the farthest left Senator by voting record. I think discussion itt would be better served if we didn’t just repeat right wing memes. They are almost always false or misleading, and quite literally always vapid.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democratic-senators-pass-bills-rate/

I don't know where you heard that, but that fact absolutely did not originate from a conservative meme, it originated from the very public Congress records that show he's sponsored 7 bills total that have been passed into law. In his time in the Senate, he's passed 3 bills, 2 of which were renaming post offices. Facts are facts.

That (true) narrative has been in circulation since 2015. I'm disappointed that you're trying to pass it off as a new right-wing phenomenon, because I'm absolutely certain you know better.

Even irt the article you linked, it lists the bills each of those 4 senators have passed. Only Kamala has fewer than Bernie's non-post office bills (4), but she's been in Congress for 1/15 of the time Bernie has. The other have been similarly more successful.

I'd love a source on that "farthest left senator by voting record" claim as well, because all progressive Congress vote trackers disagree That's a dishonest argument in the first place considering he votes with Dems the vast majority of the time. It's not as if there's a substantial difference between him and other progressive or semi-progressive congress members by vote, and certainly not with his votes for the Crime Bill, Iraq regime change, the AUMF, and the Afghanistan war.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...tors_as_far_left_as_bernie_sanders_96158.html

 

[Shrug]

for any iowans who havent decided yet: sanders. hope against hope, believe against all rational expectations, in a better future that we can make together.

 

[atomicllamas]

I don't know where you heard that, but that fact absolutely did not originate from a conservative meme, it originated from the very public Congress records that show he's sponsored 7 bills total that have been passed into law. In his time in the Senate, he's passed 3 bills, 2 of which were renaming post offices. Facts are facts.

That (true) narrative has been in circulation since 2015. I'm disappointed that you're trying to pass it off as a new right-wing phenomenon, because I'm absolutely certain you know better.

Even irt the article you linked, it lists the bills each of those 4 senators have passed. Only Kamala has fewer than Bernie's non-post office bills (4), but she's been in Congress for 1/15 of the time Bernie has. The other have been similarly more successful.

I'd love a source on that "farthest left senator by voting record" claim as well, because all progressive Congress vote trackers disagree That's a dishonest argument in the first place considering he votes with Dems the vast majority of the time. It's not as if there's a substantial difference between him and other progressive or semi-progressive congress members by vote, and certainly not with his votes for the Crime Bill, Iraq regime change, the AUMF, and the Afghanistan war.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...tors_as_far_left_as_bernie_sanders_96158.html

Yes if you ignore all of the bills he co-sponsored that’s true (as the republican governor candidate chose to do). But the vast majority of bills are co-sponsored. I don’t know if you’re intentionally being obtuse or if you think co-sponsorship doesn’t count towards law making but either way it’s not a good look.

 

[MikeDawg]

Yes if you ignore all of the bills he co-sponsored that’s true (as the republican governor candidate chose to do). But the vast majority of bills are co-sponsored. I don’t know if you’re intentionally being obtuse or if you think co-sponsorship doesn’t count towards law making but either way it’s not a good look.

He is in the bottom echelon in nearly all metrics. Literally 0th percentile in many cases.

For example, in the 115th Congress, he earned the following titles:

Got their bills out of committee the least often compared to All Senators

Got bipartisan cosponsors on the fewest bills compared to Serving 10+ Years (tied with 1 other)

Ranked the 2nd bottom/follower compared to Serving 10+ Years

Got influential cosponsors the 3rd least often compared to Serving 10+ Years

Got the 6th fewest cosponsors on their bills compared to Serving 10+ Years

Introduced the 10th fewest bills compared to Serving 10+ Years (tied with 3 others)

Introduced 0 bills that became law

Held a leadership position on 1 committee and 1 subcommitee (37th percentile compared to serving 10+ years


And he was only in the 54th percentile for all cosponsored bills (not just those enacted into law). Doesn't make up at all for his hilariously atrocious record in every other area. His competitors all do better. In fact, Liz cosponsored the 2nd most bills, nearly twice as many as Bernie.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2018


Besides, if you think his only claim to fame is how well he can cosponsor other people's ideas... why is he running for president? VP or Freshman Congressman seem like much more fitting roles.

He's going up against competitors like Amy Klobuchar, who was literally the most effective senator (the first time that title was given to a member of the minority party since 2002). He is grossly incompetent compared to his peers, which is absolutely disqualifying for anyone who values actual progress over empty platitudes.

 

[Shrug]

mike your posts have the highest words types : words needed to rebut ratios oat. here:

most senators want to pass dogshit bills. sanders wants to pass good ones.

if you, as a democrat legislator, pass a bunch of bills with republicans, that means republicans agree on them. i dont want my senator to be in ideological agreement with the death cult psychopaths on major ideological issues. it's a point of strength that sanders will not sign bipartisan bills that he disagrees with (grand bargain being perhaps chief among them).

 

[atomicllamas]

Besides, if you think his only claim to fame is how well he can cosponsor other people's ideas... why is he running for president? VP or Freshman Congressman seem like much more fitting roles.

The legislature writes the laws and the president signs them or does not. The presidents job is quite literally co-sponsoring other people’s bills. You would know that if your first foray into politics wasn’t shit posting on a Pokémon forum off topic message board.