*Eyeroll*
Once again we take election season political pandering and sound bites over actual voting record. Like Biden, Barack Obama is a lockstep mainstream Democrat. It is full reflected in his career voting record.
-
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
Once again we take election season political pandering and sound bites over actual voting record. Like Biden, Barack Obama is a lockstep mainstream Democrat. It is full reflected in his career voting record.
They are not mixed. He’s inline with where the Democratic Party was at each point in time. That’s exactly what I said in my argument. Joe Biden and Barack Obama are not centrists. They are mainstream Democrats. Should he win in 2020, Biden will be yet another mainstream Democrat in line with the majority of the party.
right, mainstream democrat ideology is centre right, hence why they all say America is a right-leaning country. if obama and biden are lockstep w democrats, then they are moderately conservative 'by definition'. it helps to be clear, because just because you're a democrat doesn't mean youre on the left. if you're a 'mainstream democrat' from 2008-2016, then of course you're an archetype of centrism. idk why that is so unpalatable for you to admit since I'm sure their right wing or centrist capitulations lend to these candidates' electability overall
Mainstream Democrat isn’t an ideology. The problem progressives have is a political savior complex. Politicians simply react to the constituents, not vice versa. Joe Biden in 2020 will run considerably to the left of Joe Biden in 2000. Ideology is not static. No offense, it’s delusional to think there is significant daylight between any of the candidates running in the primary. It’s also delusional to think a President Joe Biden / Barack Obama / mainstream Democrat will veto things like Medicare for All or Tuition Free College, so we should go abstain or vote for Trump. If a Democratic Congress can send them the bills, they will sign it.
neoliberalism is absolutely an ideology... and if it isn't static, it doesn't change fast enough or significantly enough to register on a 2 or 3 decade timescale.
sure, they'll sign medicare for all or tuition if dems can float them, that makes the neolibs different than trump maybe, but theyll also sign up for Israel, 'foreign interventions', and mass incarceration if those bills get to them, which makes them different from progressives which you dismiss as having a savior complex w.e that even means, while also claiming that progs are substantively no different than neolibs outside of this one weird complex they have that the neoliberals dont.
sure, they'll sign medicare for all or tuition if dems can float them, that makes the neolibs different than trump maybe, but theyll also sign up for Israel, 'foreign interventions', and mass incarceration if those bills get to them, which makes them different from progressives which you dismiss as having a savior complex w.e that even means, while also claiming that progs are substantively no different than neolibs outside of this one weird complex they have that the neoliberals dont.
I might post here more as I've been reading along. I both work in and currently study politics as well, albeit in the UK, so I'm following the primaries closely and have a good enough understanding of politics to have I think a valid opinion.
But in this respect my not being American is relevant. Neoliberalism and democratic socialism / anything left of neoliberalism are absolutely ideologically distinct, and if you disagree you lack a foundational knowledge of politics. Our left wing party in the UK has had both a neoliberal (Blair) and a left-of-neoliberalism-but-not-quite-democratic-socialist (Corbyn) heading it in the last 20 years, and the difference it makes not just to the party of which they are leader of but to the entire political discourse of the country is stark. In relation to the things you mentioned and that Biden would "do them anyway": sure, he would likely pass the issues that are being injected into the public eye during this primaries race. But would he sustain a progressive agenda beyond that? Simply put, no. That's why having a progressive candidate is important, and why arguing progressives have a "saviour complex" is nothing more than a strawman.
Bernie's electability holds a lot of empirical weight behind it following the precedent set by Labour in the UK; mass enfranchisement of voters who previously believed politics had abandoned them and shifted too far right occurred, and Corbyn won the leadership contest in Labour by a landslide. Considering the similarity of the UK and US societies, there have been countless examples of one country setting a precedent either politically or socially for the other to follow a few years down the line. Bernie winning the primary will just be another predictable instance of this.
My personal pick for vice is Tulsi Gabbard. War in general is a massive voter issue for me and I would like to see America set a precedent of a non-interventionist war policy to make it more salient once Labour follows suit. Plus, from listening to her speak, while a lot of what she says does seem to be rehearsed, when she speaks off-the-cuff her perspective seems to be in the right place. Beyond that, Elizabeth Warren should be kept in the inner circle because she has a talent for creating practical, humanist policy. The Democrats have a robust triumvirate here of politicians they could put at the top of their party, and I sincerely hope they do.
But in this respect my not being American is relevant. Neoliberalism and democratic socialism / anything left of neoliberalism are absolutely ideologically distinct, and if you disagree you lack a foundational knowledge of politics. Our left wing party in the UK has had both a neoliberal (Blair) and a left-of-neoliberalism-but-not-quite-democratic-socialist (Corbyn) heading it in the last 20 years, and the difference it makes not just to the party of which they are leader of but to the entire political discourse of the country is stark. In relation to the things you mentioned and that Biden would "do them anyway": sure, he would likely pass the issues that are being injected into the public eye during this primaries race. But would he sustain a progressive agenda beyond that? Simply put, no. That's why having a progressive candidate is important, and why arguing progressives have a "saviour complex" is nothing more than a strawman.
Bernie's electability holds a lot of empirical weight behind it following the precedent set by Labour in the UK; mass enfranchisement of voters who previously believed politics had abandoned them and shifted too far right occurred, and Corbyn won the leadership contest in Labour by a landslide. Considering the similarity of the UK and US societies, there have been countless examples of one country setting a precedent either politically or socially for the other to follow a few years down the line. Bernie winning the primary will just be another predictable instance of this.
My personal pick for vice is Tulsi Gabbard. War in general is a massive voter issue for me and I would like to see America set a precedent of a non-interventionist war policy to make it more salient once Labour follows suit. Plus, from listening to her speak, while a lot of what she says does seem to be rehearsed, when she speaks off-the-cuff her perspective seems to be in the right place. Beyond that, Elizabeth Warren should be kept in the inner circle because she has a talent for creating practical, humanist policy. The Democrats have a robust triumvirate here of politicians they could put at the top of their party, and I sincerely hope they do.
The point which you miss is there are degrees of “neoliberalism.” You also sprinkled in convenient straw man about mass incarceration. No mainstream Democrat favors these kind of issues as policy positions. The crime bill progressives continuously harp on was wanted by the majority of Democrats including black voters during that time in the 90s. So were back to circular purity arguments without taking into context the positions of the party voters during the time.
So I’ll reiterate, Joe Biden is simply a mainstream Democrat and will ultimately reflect the majority of Democratic Party voters should he win the nomination.
Can’t get any more arrogant than this. This is a compelling message to all the swing voters (I.e. suburban mothers) that voted for Democrats in 2018 simply because they don’t like Trump, not because they long for a laundry list of progressive policy. The data on this is pretty clear; even in *blue* states , the majority of voters identify as moderate or conservative, not progressive. To win, you need moderates.
The primaries are forcing Americans to have exposure to left-wing ideals (as opposed to the centre-right ideals they're used to from the Democrats) and the next step beyond that is demythologisation of the ideology and deconstruction of the meta-narrative about the left wing formed by the mainstream press. Once demythologisation occurs throughout a sufficient amount of the population, the left wing regains its status as a valid political voice, and it starts changing the minds of people who previously didn't give it credit. If you don't look at the precedent that's been set you're in for a rough time when minds start changing, because the primaries are a colour-by-number of the Labour leadership election a few years ago where Corbyn won with a landslide, and that exact process happened. The left has already gained far more widespread perceived validity throughout America, and the snowball's on a downhill trajectory.
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
Interesting
I guess the media is trying to manufacture consent against Bernie again like they tried to in 2016. And you will also notice how they randomly included Pete in there when he is 6th place, even below Amy Klobuchar which nobody has heard of lmao
Awesome post man.
I just want to ask, what makes you say that Corbyn is not a democratic socialist? I believe he calls himself one, and some of the proposals he's putting forth would definitely be gaming changing in a great way.
I also ask in part because what you hear on the left in America is also very interesting on the topic of whether Bernie is or isn't a Democratic Socialist.
There are social democrats that claim "he's actually one of us, he just says it wrong but look all his policies are Social Democrat."
There are democratic socialists that claim "Bernie's a revolutionary, he's definitely one of us."
My personal opinion is that Bernie's policies are definitely Social Democrat, BUT the candidate himself is definitely a Democratic Socialist.
It really strikes me as strange when leftist political commenters of my generation call Bernie Sanders a social democrat because his policies are social democrat, and say something like "I don't know why he calls himself a Democratic Socialist-- Bernie used that phrase wrong and now we and the people are confused and we just have to live with it."
Acting as if Bernie didn't understand the difference and was making a mistake. I don't think they're accurately following the plot here-- this is a man from the Liberty Union party who was calling Noam Chomsky to do Town Halls in Burlington when we were in diapers if we were around at all. While old Bernie is pushing social democrat policies and ground his explanation of socialism in them, a cursory glance at what young Bernie was saying and doing will immediately make it obvious that he definitely is deeply versed in the history of socialism and of socialism in America-- and the message he has crafted is not a message of error or inaccuracy, but instead the message designed by a long-time socialist veteran for the American people.
And besides, the difference doesn't even really matter imo. Often people say that the safety net and regulation policies of the Norwegian countries and western European countries and things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Min Wage are not socialist but Socially Democratic and exist in a capitalist system. Okay those things are true, but it's also true that ALL of those things are historically victories that were won with leadership by Socialists and Marxists of different strains-- and Richard Wolff will tell you that Social Democracy itself is an invention by socialists of yesteryear. Yes they were reforms on capitalist systems that left capitalism in place, but also saying that "those policies are not socialist," also seems to me to miss the ball.
Likewise calling a socialist who says he is a socialist not a socialist because his policies are Social Democratic also lead you to miss the ball. When I look at Bernie, at what he's trying to achieve and where the man has been and what he's thought about-- I definitely see him as the read deal holy field, a revolutionary, a Democratic Socialist.
In our country, even the act of calling himself that is revolutionary. xD
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
First of all, this looks like fake news ?
Interesting
I guess the media is trying to manufacture consent against Bernie again like they tried to in 2016. And you will also notice how they randomly included Pete in there when he is 6th place, even below Amy Klobuchar which nobody has heard of lmao
Even if the first screenshot was real, how do you look at either of these and see "against Bernie"? Even in the one showing Biden winning... how is that anti-bernie? At best, it's an honest error. At worst, it's an attempt to boost biden.
In the first one, they accurately reported Bernie's numbers, so where are you seeing an attack? If anything, electing to show Pete instead of Kamala's 11% would be an attempt to undermine Kamala, not Bernie (unrelated sidenote: Kamala and Pete are the only 2 candidates who have seen an increase in overall net approval from January to now!)
The Bernard victim complex is so irritating, especially considering he's no longer an underdog.
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
If you make it look like someone is winning, then the people who might have voted for them wont because they think the other person has it in the bag.
Which is why if you pump up a candidate with 500 superdelegates before the populace has their say you make it look hopeless to even try to vote for them because their lead is so apparently big.
Which is why if you pump up a candidate with 500 superdelegates before the populace has their say you make it look hopeless to even try to vote for them because their lead is so apparently big.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
None of those words were "Bernie Sanders". My question was:
Following your logic, the media is manufacturing an anti-everyone narrative. Like I said, neglecting to include Kamala, Booker, and Beto is major hit to their name recognition and association with POC support. Meanwhile, Bernie has his face next to a box saying he has 27% of the non-white vote while the presumed 3rd place (because why else would they be showing him?) Pete Buttgieg only has 2%. Wait, I forgot! They tweaked Biden's numbers so that Bernie only has 27% of the non-white vote instead of... 27% of the non-white vote. How will his campaign survive such a blow?
If you think about it, this checks all the boxes for a standard 2019 bernie/trump conspiracy:
- "The mainstream media is trying to push their favorite milque-toast corporate establishment pick: Pete Buttgieg!"
- "The DNC is cheating to help Biden!"
- "The establishment wants everyone to think POC hate him!"
I don’t understand the conspiracy theory that Democrats are out to get Bernie Sanders. He had a significant influence on the party platform and many voters like myself who prefer other candidates still like him. Why can’t I be supportive of both Bernie and Biden? I like Bernie and Warren on policy, but think Biden is the strongest candidate to defeat Trump in 2020. It’s a view held by many primary voters.
Stratos
Banned deucer.
I'm baffled by the sentiment that Biden would be the most electable candidate. How is the vice president of the administration that betrayed the rust belt (which won Trump the election) supposed to win them back?
I don't want to sound misanthropic here, but most centrist Americans are not centrist because of their rock-solid belief in centrist policies. They are centrist because policy is not that important to them. Voting is simple: if they think the current guy has been doing pretty well by them, they vote for the same party. If they feel neglected and think the opposition cares about them more, they vote for change. This is how both Obama and Trump were able to carry the working poor that got fucked by the recession: they were light on policy, but their campaigns both carried the message "I know you are hurting, and I want to fix it." I think that the American people would sooner vote for charismatic, personable, caring versions of Adam Smith and Karl Marx in back-to-back succession than vote for an out of touch, rich centrist.
I once heard this expressed as, "People are willing to vote for candidates they don't like. But they are not willing to vote for candidates who don't like them." Do you think Biden can even manufacture a fake air that he cares about working poor voters? I don't think he can. I mean sure, maybe he cares about the prepubescent daughters of working poor voters lmao. Biden may be the least electable candidate of the entire democratic field.
I don't want to sound misanthropic here, but most centrist Americans are not centrist because of their rock-solid belief in centrist policies. They are centrist because policy is not that important to them. Voting is simple: if they think the current guy has been doing pretty well by them, they vote for the same party. If they feel neglected and think the opposition cares about them more, they vote for change. This is how both Obama and Trump were able to carry the working poor that got fucked by the recession: they were light on policy, but their campaigns both carried the message "I know you are hurting, and I want to fix it." I think that the American people would sooner vote for charismatic, personable, caring versions of Adam Smith and Karl Marx in back-to-back succession than vote for an out of touch, rich centrist.
I once heard this expressed as, "People are willing to vote for candidates they don't like. But they are not willing to vote for candidates who don't like them." Do you think Biden can even manufacture a fake air that he cares about working poor voters? I don't think he can. I mean sure, maybe he cares about the prepubescent daughters of working poor voters lmao. Biden may be the least electable candidate of the entire democratic field.
^^^^^ that’s based on the assumption that American voters care about policy. (Hint: they don’t. They never have and never will.)
Biden has the best leadership attributes of the current crop of Democratic candidates... especially the men. Biden is the only Democratic male candidate that can out-alpha male Trump. That’s the true reason he polls so much better than the other Democrats.
Biden has the best leadership attributes of the current crop of Democratic candidates... especially the men. Biden is the only Democratic male candidate that can out-alpha male Trump. That’s the true reason he polls so much better than the other Democrats.
Success?????????????????
thesecondbest
Just Kidding I'm First
but he's not running to win he said he would drop out after the debates and endorse the candidate he's closest to
still, would love to see him there to bitch slap losers like cloud boot jar and booty judge.
still, would love to see him there to bitch slap losers like cloud boot jar and booty judge.
I don’t know how serious they are but they declared that they’re running to win now.
xDD
Also— you watch Secular Talk too bro?
And slap around Bet-on-my-Stork and Handsy Uncle Joseph while he’s at it.
hmm yeah maybe time to start in on that self reflection rather than calling ppl that actually make arguments russians: this idea that alpha males will protect us from each other is the basis of authoritarianism across history. I won't go into how your post evidences the internalization of this idea because it is evident. Some extensions of this ideology lies in incelism, school shooterisms, and just general patriarchal male behavior where men are obsessed with this fantasy leading to its becoming reality: as men cannot fathom that women can win or even deserve a place, in a competition that is supposed to be about the triumphing of alpha males. Stop trying to be the hero, or find heros for others, stop trying to save other people, and focus on yourself, and even saving yourself isn't worth so much energy if you're just giving yourself up to another fate.
it's time for ppl to grow up and stop looking for octogenarian 'alpha males' to save them, particularly men who grew up on the internet
Last edited:
3 out of 4 Americans loathed bernie Saunders plan to allow prison inmates to vote. Welp that's gonna cost him some reputation.
That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?
No. I don't think so.
That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?
No. I don't think so.