SpaceXQueen
Banned deucer.
Then we must find a way to make Sanders seem moderate so that he can win.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
“Bro” Bernie Sanders support in the Democratic Party is factional and included all anti-Clinton votes in 2016. Hence, why he’s polling 20% below what he was last cycle.
“The left” is not young white liberal men. It’s people of color (especially older black voters), suburban / college educated women, and wealthy cosmopolitans.
“Working class” consists more of people of color and women than disgruntled white male factory workers.
These demographics are less ideological, less favorable to big structural change, and not advocates of socialism. The “moderates” are a far more palatable proposition than a Bernie Sanders.
I literally did not say this. Don't respond to my posts if you aren't actually going to read them.
Alright.
Alright.
Alright. Yes, the "working class" per my definition will vote for a "moderate" New York City Billionaire who's pet issue (gun control) actually affects their lives.
SpaceXQueen
Banned deucer.
It is hard for me to discuss American politics, as I am not a native speaker. Perhaps you could dumb this down for me into plain, simple English?
"per my definition" is a good phrase to use when u define things however you want ignoring the reality which is usually opposed to what you're arguing, I'll give you that!
What makes you think that Sanders, above other candidates, is more susceptible to attack ads?
Warren
I'm going to be 100% honest. I do not think that the biggest fight right now is to just "simply get President Cheeto out of office" or whatever the Dems want to push to get voter turnout. I do think that the biggest issue in politics right now is self-evident, a form of class warfare amongst the rich. I think a great many people, the "moderates" you keep going on about, see the elections as a "who gives a shit" style of Reps and Dems changing hands with the main financiers never really changing. I don't think that there is a possibility of Trump cancelling elections or whatever fearmongering is going on in NYT and Wapo. I do think he is an abhorrent man and top 5 worst presidents of all time (my list goes Jackson, Reagan, Trump, Nixon, Van Buren), but I also think that his eclectic personality is what the left is currently trying to use to turn out the vote.
I think Bernie is the ONLY candidate who meets my criteria of what I want to see in a president (combatting class warfare from the people's side), with Warren being a moderately distant second. I think that Warren being a Republican during the Reagan years almost disqualifies her from being a current progressive (as I doubt someone would make that radical of a switch), and I also think that she would be ineffectual against Trump in the presidential election. I think any other candidate is either some establishment candidate riding on the legacy of others (Biden), is individually corrupt with a poor justice record (Bloomberg), or is backed by dark money forces (Pete).
This is for sure going to be contentious but I also don't agree with the whole "vote blue no matter who" "vote for the lesser evil" ideology. No one is entitled to my vote, if a candidate is unable to motivate me to go out to vote they are not entitled to getting it simply because they aren't Trump. A candidate should get support based on their policies and if a candidate cannot motivate people to vote then that sends a signal to get more progressive (as we have seen with a massive Overton shift to the left from 2016 liberal policies to 2020 liberal policies with Bernie leading the charge). The presidential seat is more symbolic than functional, the structural foundation of the US will not just radically 180 from Jan 1 2021 if a Dem is elected and I think people are fooling themselves if they think that is what is going to happen.
Warren
- Woman, so misogynist ads are a guarantee
- "Native American" attack ads
- The near identical "socialist" attack ads that you think will swing conservative voters en masse to vote (Since you take the stance that there are minuscule differences between all the Dem candidates then the criticisms of socialism apply at the very least to Warren)
- Old as shit
- VP of Barack "Hussein" Obama
- Dementia attack ads
- Pedophilic attack ads (many accusations in the past year, kissing granddaughter on the lips - not a sin but especially fucking weird)
- Gay, so attack ads for gay marriage and extended LGBTQ rights
- Ineffectiveness and inexperience
- "Deep State" operative, endorsed by Barack Obama, in deep in pockets of corporations, suspected rigging of various caucuses (Iowa and now suspected Nevada)
- Gun Policy will be the number 1 thing that would sink his campaign from the right as that's like, his whole platform
- All Trump has to do is point out how hes trying to buy the election prompting more "Deep State" propaganda similar to Pete
I'm going to be 100% honest. I do not think that the biggest fight right now is to just "simply get President Cheeto out of office" or whatever the Dems want to push to get voter turnout. I do think that the biggest issue in politics right now is self-evident, a form of class warfare amongst the rich. I think a great many people, the "moderates" you keep going on about, see the elections as a "who gives a shit" style of Reps and Dems changing hands with the main financiers never really changing. I don't think that there is a possibility of Trump cancelling elections or whatever fearmongering is going on in NYT and Wapo. I do think he is an abhorrent man and top 5 worst presidents of all time (my list goes Jackson, Reagan, Trump, Nixon, Van Buren), but I also think that his eclectic personality is what the left is currently trying to use to turn out the vote.
I think Bernie is the ONLY candidate who meets my criteria of what I want to see in a president (combatting class warfare from the people's side), with Warren being a moderately distant second. I think that Warren being a Republican during the Reagan years almost disqualifies her from being a current progressive (as I doubt someone would make that radical of a switch), and I also think that she would be ineffectual against Trump in the presidential election. I think any other candidate is either some establishment candidate riding on the legacy of others (Biden), is individually corrupt with a poor justice record (Bloomberg), or is backed by dark money forces (Pete).
This is for sure going to be contentious but I also don't agree with the whole "vote blue no matter who" "vote for the lesser evil" ideology. No one is entitled to my vote, if a candidate is unable to motivate me to go out to vote they are not entitled to getting it simply because they aren't Trump. A candidate should get support based on their policies and if a candidate cannot motivate people to vote then that sends a signal to get more progressive (as we have seen with a massive Overton shift to the left from 2016 liberal policies to 2020 liberal policies with Bernie leading the charge). The presidential seat is more symbolic than functional, the structural foundation of the US will not just radically 180 from Jan 1 2021 if a Dem is elected and I think people are fooling themselves if they think that is what is going to happen.
That’s a cute deflection. It does nothing to address the definition put forth. Do you not agree with that assessment of “working class?”
You brought up the working class of Wisconsin which I assure you is very white. Have you been to Wisconsin? Lol.
also I’m still pretty sure you missed the entire point of my post
also I’m still pretty sure you missed the entire point of my post
Last edited:
Anybody slightly left of center is a socialist according to Trump and his followers. It’s kind of dulled the impact of the word.
Turnout / voter suppression in Milwaukee got Trump over the hump. Or are we still going with the disgruntled white men story?
Against the other candidates, sure. It won’t stick. However, Bernie Sanders videos with him declaring himself a socialist will be used every day until the election.
idk how u can talk about deflection when I've been asking for evidence of unsubstantiated claims of yours which you pretend are fact for like... 4 posts now and you still haven't delivered
I said disaffected young white men are the swing votes for 2020 based on the polling I’ve seen (and provided a source). I also said it’s important that the candidate can win the support from the “left” in this case I mean voters who primarily back Sanders but also Warren, not generic democrats, I thought that was obvious based on context, I’m sorry if it was unclear. I stated Bloomberg is going to have trouble winning these people, because he is a billionaire who would have “bought” the election and has a history of fucking over democrats, liberal and moderate alike, because of his pet projects. As for the Wisconsin shit I explicitly stated that aiming for older white men is not the right strategy and that driving turnout in Madison and Milwaukee is the right strategy. Bernie is also more popular amount young white men than the moderates, this is also true for younger women and younger poc. Voter suppression was a factor but voter apathy was also a factor.
Last edited:
It doesn't have to last long. The point is that Super Tuesday is so sudden, with such a massive number of delegates, candidates won't have time to drop out.
If Bernie is the only candidate that consistently sits above 15% in all those states (which is possible), then he could easily walk away with well over half the delegates. His lead entering the rest of march could be extremely large.
For instance, the California primary poll today puts Sanders at 29, Warren at 16, Buttigieg at 14, Bloomberg at 13, and Biden at 11. That means only Bernie and Warren would be viable for the 144 statewide delegates, with Bernie getting ~95 or so; well over half. This effect is watered down via the congressional districts, but it's still a good position to be in.
In a 3-4 horse race, I'd agree Bernie's not in a solid spot.
But for as long as it remains a 6 horse race, I'll be quietly content.
But for as long as it remains a 6 horse race, I'll be quietly content.
It partially just depends how quickly or severely Biden collapses. He could plausibly be out before Super Tuesday. I think if he takes a big loss in NH and NV again he'd face calls to drop out, and he's expected to tank in NH and he's already down about 9 points in NV in the past month which may continue to fall based on NH results. He might choose to stick around under the theory that he wins in SC a week later to change the losing narrative. But I'm not sure he would. And heck after losing 3 straight states badly, I'm not even sure he would win SC anymore.
So for the CA example, even in a theoretical scenario where that poll is 100% accurate for today's standing, but Biden continues tanking or even drops out between now and Super Tuesday, then every candidate gets a boost (Bloomberg and Buttigieg perhaps the most), and then everyone is over 15%.
There's also the matter of that poll having many candidates clearly below the 15% threshold with no incentive to vote for them, if voters are informed about the 15% thresholds, I'd suspect a lot of people changing their votes tactically to still be counted for their second preference (can we please have nationwide ranked voting already...)
Like do those 5% Amy folks really want to vote for her on principle and risk their second choice, whether that's Pete or Warren, or whoever, not being viable? Of course the same could go for Gabbard supporters voting for Bernie. We'll see.
So for the CA example, even in a theoretical scenario where that poll is 100% accurate for today's standing, but Biden continues tanking or even drops out between now and Super Tuesday, then every candidate gets a boost (Bloomberg and Buttigieg perhaps the most), and then everyone is over 15%.
There's also the matter of that poll having many candidates clearly below the 15% threshold with no incentive to vote for them, if voters are informed about the 15% thresholds, I'd suspect a lot of people changing their votes tactically to still be counted for their second preference (can we please have nationwide ranked voting already...)
Like do those 5% Amy folks really want to vote for her on principle and risk their second choice, whether that's Pete or Warren, or whoever, not being viable? Of course the same could go for Gabbard supporters voting for Bernie. We'll see.
imo ppl fall into mistakes basing thinking in left and right, just because there is left and right wing ideas doesn't mean there are any swing voters in the centre. people who normally vote republican still vote for Bernie Sanders not because he is a crypto-fascist but because he speaks plainly and simply and isn't spineless like the typical democrats they've been exposed to election after election. Trump exploits the narratives that emerge from the historical fact that overall and especially at the federal level, for the last few decades the democrats haven't been much less of swindlers than the republicans. shoddy neoliberal policy allows Trump to attack his opponents from the left. We need a candidate like Warren or Sanders who will speak honestly to voters and show them there is nothing to hide, no secret corporate agenda: admit democratic socialism and do some socialist policies. People can understand that, small government isn't a religion. There are things governments must do in many historical moments to ensure the nations well-being. Undecided voters understand why health care access and regulations are important because when the health insurance system is broken hospitals go bankrupt and then you can't see a doctor unless you want to drive for 2 hours. Thats why the dems campaign on medicare for all, because thats an issue that matters to these undecided voters. What else matters to them you ask? Subsidies for childcare and more childcare access, rent controls, substance abuse treatment. So, imo, when the sum total of your message is "i wanna stop the devastation of trump" you don't speak to any of these people because they think/know it's gone on longer than that and a lot of them desperately wanted to believe that trump would disrupt the status quo.
Now it is in many cases also true that when they vote for Sanders they'll probably vote for republicans in Senate and local elections etc, but I think that it is unlikely that Biden or whoever on the ticket tips the senate races one way or another. The solution is to have progressive politicians run in those races too imo, but dont know the contexts so maybe it's unviable at that level. But in the presidential election I still feel like progressives have the best chance of getting republicans to cross over by channeling a critique of the Democratic Party's recent past spinelessness.
Now it is in many cases also true that when they vote for Sanders they'll probably vote for republicans in Senate and local elections etc, but I think that it is unlikely that Biden or whoever on the ticket tips the senate races one way or another. The solution is to have progressive politicians run in those races too imo, but dont know the contexts so maybe it's unviable at that level. But in the presidential election I still feel like progressives have the best chance of getting republicans to cross over by channeling a critique of the Democratic Party's recent past spinelessness.
This is a pipe dream. The country is better off with Generic Democrat narrowly losing the Presidency via electoral college but winning the popular vote by 5% (as current polls suggest), as such would be enough to flip the Senate. A Bernie Sanders Presidency with split ticket Republican voters as you suggest waters down urban and congressional votes, likely resulting in a Republican Senate. Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority will make any Democratic President impotent, thus resulting in a brutal 2022 election cycle.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
How are we still talking to this person who said Trump won because he appeared more Moderate than Hillary Clinton?
i wish i lived in the warped world where Mike "Stop n frisk all the minorities because they do crime" Bloomberg and Pete "Breath Easy" Buttigieg are more viable candidates than Sanders because uhmm... hes jewish and a socdem?
Hit me up with the dimension shift location please RaikouLover i gotta see it for myself.
Hit me up with the dimension shift location please RaikouLover i gotta see it for myself.
was reading this judith butler interview and since we appear to be discussing the relevance of electability i think this passage is relevant:
"Take the example of electability. If one takes the view that it is simply not realistic that a woman can be elected President, one speaks in a way that seems both practical and knowing. As a prediction, it may be true, or it may be shifting as we speak. But the claim that it is not realistic confirms that very idea of reality and gives it further power over our beliefs and expectations. If “that is just the way the world is,” even though we wish it were different, then we concede the intractability of that version of reality. We’ve said such “realistic” things about gay marriage before it became a reality. We said it years ago about a black President. We’ve said it about many things in this world, about tyrannical or authoritarian regimes we never thought would come down. To stay within the framework of Realpolitik is, I think, to accept a closing down of horizons, a way to seem “cool” and skeptical at the expense of radical hope and aspiration."
"Take the example of electability. If one takes the view that it is simply not realistic that a woman can be elected President, one speaks in a way that seems both practical and knowing. As a prediction, it may be true, or it may be shifting as we speak. But the claim that it is not realistic confirms that very idea of reality and gives it further power over our beliefs and expectations. If “that is just the way the world is,” even though we wish it were different, then we concede the intractability of that version of reality. We’ve said such “realistic” things about gay marriage before it became a reality. We said it years ago about a black President. We’ve said it about many things in this world, about tyrannical or authoritarian regimes we never thought would come down. To stay within the framework of Realpolitik is, I think, to accept a closing down of horizons, a way to seem “cool” and skeptical at the expense of radical hope and aspiration."
Last edited: