Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[OldM8]

The government is not the workers.

Under a conservative, right-wing government, it sure as hell isn't. They are diametrically opposed to the well being of workers and this is put on display every time they hold office. They invariably push for tax cuts (which always benefits the wealthy and indirectly hurts everyone else), austerity measures (AKA cutting funding to important public services), deregulation (AKA giving more and more power to the elite capitalist class which already rules the country) and weakening union powers, just to name a few. Under a democratically elected socialist government however, the government would actually be representative of the interests of the working class, which is what we desperately need.

People want to keep their individual wealth without it being taxed to living shit on subsidized and inefficient programs.

First off, literally every socialist believes in a highly progressive tax system. Under a socialist regime, the working class wouldn't pay any more than they do now in taxes. "They're gonna tax the shit out of you" is just a lame scare tactic employed by capitalists to get the working class to vote against their own interests. The reality is that under socialism, things would be drastically better for almost everyone, because the government would use revenue generated from increased taxes on the wealthy to provide things like affordable public housing, medicare for all, public transport, welfare, and other services that actually give people autonomy, power and dignity.

It's also nothing but a pro-capitalist talking point to suggest that public programs are inefficient. The exact opposite is true. I quote from the European Public Service Union website on a report from the Public Service International Research Unit:

"A major review of hundreds of academic studies reveals that there is no empirical evidence that the private sector is intrinsically more efficient than the public sector."

"The report examines evidence from nine sectors - electricity, health, waste management and water, prisons, buses, ports and airports, railways and telecom. The results consistently undermine the case for privatisation and outsourcing."

"The PSIRU research also looks at the improvements and efficiency gains made when services are brought back under public sector ownership and management, citing the the remunicipalisation of water in Paris and the termination of the massive London Underground PPP. Both of these led to cost savings and greater efficiency resulting in a range of different measures including improved coordination, less sub-contracting, cutting profits to shareholders and more accountability."

This shows that conservatives consistently ignore and deny facts and evidence to perpetuate their world view.

The funniest thing about conservatives is that they claim they are staunch advocates of equality of opportunity, while at the same time supporting systems which deny people basic human needs such as medicare, housing, and a livable income, all of which are obvious prerequisites for equality of opportunity.

 

[tcr]

Look man my heart does go out to you, I'm going into the teaching profession myself, and I know it likely won't make me a lot of money. I'm doing it for the heart of it because I know what I can try to do to make kids lives a little better. That aside though, I have serious issues with your arguments.

I'll preface this by saying that I appreciate you linking sources to your claims, I think that including sources should be the standard for arguments in this thread and the forum.

Firstly, you believe the government is going to make that situation better? I don't think putting a gun to employer's throats and tell them to pay their employees this much and work them this often is going to help. They have to make their money in order to give additional benefits to employees, and that happens when the company on the whole is doing well.

I think you're a little misled here. Let's take two companies that are have without a doubt come into their prime in the past few years: Fedex and Amazon. Both of these companies offer health insurance through the company, discounts on merchandise (in FedEx's case there is an employee store that you can purchase things for discounts), tuition reimbursement (up to 12,000 / four years for Amazon, 1,500 / year at FedEx), PTO (10 days of vacation for Amazon workers).

Now let's talk about the reality of these. Amazon and Fedex primarily hire seasonal workers, specifically during peak seasons such as the winter / Christmas holidays. For the vast majority of workers (re: the part time employees who work ~20hr/week) most of the benefits do not apply as they move on from the company. These benefits are a carrot for the majority of workers. I worked at FedEx for 8 months, working from 3am-7am. During the time I was there I was unable to qualify for any of the benefits offered. I was not a full time employee and so did not qualify for health insurance or dental, never mind that the company is incentivized, like any insurance broker, to keep the amount of money paid out to the bare minimum. I did not qualify for tuition reimbursement (not that it would have helped, as it would pay for literally only 1 singular class I was taking at a low-tier college), as I started the semester prior to entering the company and when the next semester hit I had quit before the end of the semester (so I went through 2 semesters without being able to be reimbursed for anything). Never mind that you still have to pay out of pocket for everything, so the tuition reimbursement would not help struggling families who are unable to pay the affordance of tuition to begin with, as it requires a receipt to get money back, rather than FedEx directly paying for the tuition. Employees only gain access to PTO after 90 days of work (which is stretched to be as long as possible with your employer cutting the days you work). It is also contingent on you having an excess amount of hours to bank into your PTO time, which again, is shafted by your employer telling you they don't need you for the sort and you can just go home. These problems are common specifically in the packaging industry, Amazon, FedEx, UPS.

Now these companies do have GOOD benefits for those who are seeking a permanent position at one of these companies. They are an ideal secondary job for a lot of people as the hours you work are often odd, so you can go to a day job, take a nap, then be ready for your "night job" at the pre-sort at 3am. When I worked there almost everyone I talked to either worked double shifts at FedEx or worked a secondary job, and FedEx was simply their side hustle. However they are NOT good for the vast majority of middle class workers, those who are pursuing secondary education. These companies make the most money of any other company and yet they still cannot meet basic privileges afforded to workers. From the ground up are false premises, benefits offered at interview that are then tied to strings. When the company is doing well they do not invest it back into the workers at an equitable rate, rather they cap salaries and buy back their own stocks (a practice similar to the US military just dumping their hardware into the ocean so their budget doesn't get cut every year).

interesting effect going on with the minimum wage laws passing in states, for example Target, even though it is paying more, is now working many of their employees, even long time ones less, as a means to offset the costs. It's having negative effects. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...y-proves-the-case-against-the-15-minimum-wage Where opposed to Taco Bell, as I mentioned, many of the new and incredible benefits its passing to its employees are from the fact that Taco Bell as a business is incredibly successful right now. This is all without the policies y'all have been proposing in this thread, and Taco Bell employees are getting those benefits y'all have been pushing for the government to force, including sick days.

I'll start by stating that I proposed no policies in my post. Rather I posted criticisms to what I interpreted your view as using my own anecdotal evidence (in large part because I was on phone). For the first part, this is my point. Companies, like Target, are hiring more individuals (thus lowering the unemployment rate) while simultaneously cutting hours for their part time workers. This makes a traditional entry level job impossible to live off of. Personally I believe a minimum wage increase, by itself, would do very little for businesses except to increase the unemployment rate. Basic econ 101, as the price floor appears quantity of labor decreases, scarcity increases. I, for one, have not argued for a minimum wage increase.

My policy positions are as such:

• Stricter tax laws and tightening of loopholes
  • I think that this is of the utmost urgency. I find it absurd that companies can pay less tax money than I do through the usage of offshore accounts or stock buybacks, or tax breaks (as in the case of the gas and energy, film and video game industries)
  • This tax rebracketing would apply only to the most extreme of individuals. Those who do not make over 8 figures anually would not be affected.
• A decrease in federal buyouts / stimulus packages for select companies
  • Specifically companies that pay poverty level wages, outsource their technology manufacturing or other jobs overseas, deny good benefits, or companies that have extreme disparity (in essence monopoly busting).
• A 4 day work week
  • The psychology behind worker motivation and morale improvement is something that fascinates me in my undergrad studies and something I am motivated to get a doctorate in. This has been done in several countries. In New Zealand a company reported a 20% increase in worker productivity and a 45% increase in work-life balance. Microsoft Japan reports a 40% increase in worker productivity and notes other reduced costs to help the company, in the form of lowered electricity bills, less wasteful meetings (which workers report as the number 1 waste of time in a company). These productivity increases are backed by several other psychological studies, such as this one.
• A reinvestment in public education
  • raising teachers minimum wages and require the school to provide funding for materials. This would create a surplus of teachers making the market much more competitive. Because of this the education quality should rise from k-12. This would also allow teachers to not pay out of pocket for needed materials, like books, pens, paper, ink, etc, a hidden cost that deeply cuts into teacher profits.
  • elimination of the ties between a static property tax and school district funding
    • School districts are tied to property taxes of the district, making many schools inequitable. The "bad side" of town gets doubly screwed over when their properties don't make any money, often through no fault of their own, and it reflects upon their children in schools. I think making a progressive percentage based taxed would be a much more equitable solution to easing the wealth gap between school districts.
  • eliminating the standardized testing in public schools
    • I don't think it's any secret that teachers get boned having to teach frustrating material with grades dependent on how well they can teach to a test that they are not aware of what the material will be on. Eliminating standardized testing and encouraging an investment in learning and supplementing one's education would help promote critical thinking skills and an enthusiasm for neutrality in regards to education

I have many other policies that I think is vitally important to implement but these are the ones most pertinent to me. I think these changes from the ground up, starting with higher taxes on extreme wealthy individuals and tightening of loopholes, would allow those individuals to pay their fair share back into their host country. The money would get invested back into school districts for states, medical care, and labor care. Framing it as "the government consolidating more power" I think is an absurd viewpoint, as it is a reallocation of resources that already exist within the current power structure.

Not to mention, how good is all that going to be when y'all are pushing for the government to hike taxes for universal healthcare? How about the fact that the government is bankrupting Social Security, already considering you can make way more money putting that cash away into bonds for example for them to accrue interest as opposed to the government forcefully taking it? https://fee.org/articles/social-sec...SesdabSNHX-jsbjjhYKyiN8VSygRS0NFpbRLhh3mHelbY You're just asking the government to take more of your money that you worked hard for. It doesn't help either that the reason cost of living is so high is because of many of these programs. Ya'lls solutions are contributing to the problem you're screaming about, too high of a cost of living. That's why it's way more expensive to live in New York than say North Carolina. You're hypocrites in all sincerity.

Read up above, where I outline how the policies these individuals are fighting for in this thread would impact literally zero individuals in the thread, yourself included. A restructuring of the tax brackets is not the same thing as raising taxes all across the board. It's way more expensive to live in New York than say North Carolina because of basic supply and demand. There are more opportunities in New York due to the environment of the big city. There's a reason that blue states tend to support the federal funding of red states. Because properties are more in demand the prices rise to meet that, which is also why you tend to see a much higher percentage of homeless people (as obviously not everyone can get a high demand property). I'm not sure how Social Security plays into the higher property prices or the housing market at all, maybe you can explain it more indepth for me.

Additionally, yes, you can move to find better work. You asked where. How about the now revived Manufacturing industry in the North East and in the Great Lakes? How about the Military? What about the shit ton of blue collar jobs that have been neglected that make just as much more as other jobs that require 4-year degrees if not more? The jobs report has been exceeding expectations just about every quarter right now, I see nothing wrong with relocating as a means to provide. The government can't magically make you get up and get a good job. That's on the individual. As a guy I follow named Larry Elder says, you cannot control the outcome, but you certainly can control the effort you put in to it. However sometimes, you just can't fix stupid (and before you virtuously yell at me that I'm calling all poor people stupid, I'm not at all. There are people that are genuinely unlucky, and my heart goes out to them and I hope they can get what they need through charities, family, religious circles, new jobs, what have you and pick themselves back up. Some people are born into and that ain't their fault either, and I am not calling that lot such. I will however point out that many people are poor are because they were godawful with their money, that is a real consideration to bear in mind as an objective thinker https://www.thebalance.com/habits-of-perpetually-broke-people-4066985)

The minimum wage is targeted to make every worker not have to deal with "a nonliving wage." The minimum wage in Virginia is currently 7.25$/hr. Working forty hours a week for 4 weeks (a standard, non overtime work week) would net you 1160$ per month, before taxes. Not factoring in taxes, the average rent in Virginia 1,200$, with three roommates that goes to 300$ per month in rent, putting you at 860$. Factor in a car payment to transport to work, considering the average individual commutes 26 miles to and from work, and you're hovering at 660$ per month. Utilities are another 100 for water, we'll say 100 for energy (though that is a HUGE underselling), and let's say you don't even have internet. This puts you at 460 / month. Now I don't know about other people but I tend to spend ~80-100$ per two weeks on groceries and cook my own meals and meal prep. This puts you at 260 / month in your pocket. Factor in gas for your vehicle and that's another 20$/week which puts you at 160$ (40$/week to invest, 1600$/year to save up)

None of the above factors in taxes taken out of your income or paid to the US government. None of the above factors in childcare needs. All of the above assumes no labor burnout, no sick leave, no vacation / time off, a stable job with full time hours. None of the above assumes other external payments needed, such as education, car expenses, medical expenses, overdraft fees, credit card payments (a necessary evil in today's credit fueled world). The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage currently is not a livable wage, and you're kidding yourself if you think just pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is the necessary, ethical solution. I won't even entertain enlisting into the military as a viable solution. You may as well tell me to sell one of my kidneys so I can pay for tuition and whatnot.

As for your last paragraphs, I'm truly sorry if you don't like my rhetoric, but it's fair to mention that these solutions to the problems you're yelling at me about are awful solutions (and telling me the problems without providing solutions period doesn't make your case any more virtuous either), and have been doing much more harm than good. It's naive and that sadly isn't how the world works. My heart goes out to those that have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, my family also practically lives paycheck to paycheck, that's why I have a savings account set up and I'll be making some investments so I can end up more financially independent for my future. That includes wanting to keep as much of my hard-earned money as possible.

I never once prior to this post gave any solutions, so any 'solutions' you were interpreting were a mistake on your part.

 

[The Amazonian Rainforest]

More relevant to the title of this thread are we gonna talk about CNN's questions?

 

[orch]

I'm very disappointed that #yang gang isn't working out. At least, bribing voters is a mainstream idea now.

 

[dk]

More relevant to the title of this thread are we gonna talk about CNN's questions?

Disingenuous and massively right-wing (I suppose the latter always comes paired with the former, but the former can be present independently) framing is unfortunately par for the course for debates hosted by corporate media outlets. They're not going to skip out on a prime opportunity to attempt to make candidates that threaten their interests look bad regardless of how blatantly biased/dishonest the questions doled out are. I know the spotlight is on the Warren/Sanders friction, but this was a similarly bullshit moment (you don't really need to watch the whole video for commentary on the moment; it should be pretty obvious what Wolf Blitzer is trying to setup up there---but I guess the vid's pretty short so eh) from the debate. Corporate media loves war; war is a massive, long-winded spectacle that will capture the attention of more watchers; more watchers means more ad revenue; more ad revenue is the entire business aim. It's pretty goddamn dystopian that these outlets---trusted to host events meant to inform the voting public of the policy positions of potential holders of the single most powerful office in the world---are this brazen in their willingness to prioritize their own bottom line above honest and impartial dissemination of something this important, but it's kinda like expecting a snapping turtle to never bite. It's foundationally built into the institution's nature. I personally have had an immensely hard time not getting tilted watching debates (I've caught all of them for this primary cycle so far) due to this.

There's a myth (definitely moreso in conservative circles) that most media outlets have a "liberal" bias---save for Fox, obviously. The obvious, actual truth is that corporate media will be ok-ish and decently left/libertarian on social issues, like LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, etc, but they are IMMENSELY pro-neo-liberalism/right-wing the second anything about economics enters the building. You may think that the former social angle is merely a concession, but it actually serves a pretty obvious business function, I feel: marginalized communities are potential viewers/customers too---if you avoid alienating them, they may be willing to feed you revenue. This is why you see enormous companies like Google and the like actively behave like they actually give a shit, when the reality is that they only care so long as the group they claim to support can fluff up their profit margins in some capacity (or to avoid losing support from allies of marginalized groups). The individuals within the institution may largely be pro-LGBTQ+ or what have you, but the corporation is a separate entity---management makes calculated decisions about what is thrown out into public view to represent the brand, and management will always act in predictable deference to the coveted bottom line. I additionally want to note that Fox (the biggest outlet by a decent margin) likely absorbed the ultra-socially conservative market so much that other outlets don't want to try to compete for the viewership of that demographic---which would serve as an explanation as to why most other outlets are not anywhere near as brazen about bigotry etc.

I'm sure most people are aware of this, but if something from this post made at least one person reevaluate previous thoughts then I'd consider that a win.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I'm very disappointed that #yang gang isn't working out. At least, bribing voters is a mainstream idea now.

You got to bribe them with other people’s (rich people’s) money. If you bribe them with money they already have they won’t go for it.

alternative phrasing: You’ve got to offer to take back money stolen by rich people

 

[RaikouLover]

Most of my irl pals know that Bernie is the only way to vote in this primary. You can have your opinions with Bernie being too radical to win the election but there's no other option in the eyes of me and my peers. Biden is basically just a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. And as much as I would love the idea of a first female president, Warren being a "capitalist to my bones" is not going to help the working class. I hope with all of my heart that there are enough #NeverTrump people that he won't get reelected no matter what, but if people want an actual change in the political system then Bernie is the only real option.

PS this is my first ever cong post so please don't roast me too terribly

Biden being “basically a Republican” is 100% demonstrably false. You Bernie folks really need to chill with that.

 

[Bass]

Biden being “basically a Republican” is 100% demonstrably false. You Bernie folks really need to chill with that.

And this is coming from the guy I am sure most people would consider to be to the left of Biden.

 

[Bughouse]

Lol this is so out of context and dishonest.

The context is literally in the youtube video's description...

 

[Bass]

The point I was trying to make was that the democratic party has moved considerably further to the right since the 1980's. Whether or not some context is missing, I view this video as a Freudian slip by then president Obama who had won an election with historic voter turnout by campaigning as a progressive champion but later failed to deliver on many of his big promises in office in spite of having a filibuster proof majority. Rather than being a single payer system like many of us hoped, the ACA turned out to be modeled heavily after a healthcare plan advocated for by Republicans (Romneycare) which was designed to keep the for-profit insurance industry intact.

But this was about Joe Biden, right? Surely you know that he has been caught numerous times stating a willingness to cut social security and medicare, voted for the Iraq war (and went as far as to state Democrats should not run as anti-ware candidates), and he repeatedly uses right-wing healthcare industry talking points to argue against single payer systems like Medicare For All. He uses the "gateway drug" argument against marijuana legalization. I could go on, but these are all known to be historically longstanding positions of the Republican party. However I should mention that Biden is far from alone in these stances. Other candidates in the field, most notably Buttigieg and Klobuchar, have also taken the same stances on at least some of these issues. And that goes for other known "moderate" democrats too like Clinton in 2016. The other thing they have in common (in contrast to Sanders) is that they are willing to fund their campaign with corporate money, which explains why they have taken these positions as that's preicsely what their donors are paying them to do.

If that isn't enough for you at least acknowledge that the democratic party's current base is very different now compared to 40 years ago, as now affluent professionals make up a larger proportion than they did before having switched from the Republican party, whereas by contrast working class voters have trended towards either the Republican party or have increasingly considered themselves to be independents (and non-voters). Thomas Frank outlines this brilliantly.

 

[UncleSam]

The point I was trying to make was that the democratic party has moved considerably further to the right since the 1980's. Whether or not some context is missing, I view this video as a Freudian slip by then president Obama who had won an election with historic voter turnout by campaigning as a progressive champion but later failed to deliver on many of his big promises in office in spite of having a filibuster proof majority. Rather than being a single payer system like many of us hoped, the ACA turned out to be modeled heavily after a healthcare plan advocated for by Republicans (Romneycare) which was designed to keep the for-profit insurance industry intact.

But this was about Joe Biden, right? Surely you know that he has been caught numerous times stating a willingness to cut social security and medicare, voted for the Iraq war (and went as far as to state Democrats should not run as anti-ware candidates), and he repeatedly uses right-wing healthcare industry talking points to argue against single payer systems like Medicare For All. He uses the "gateway drug" argument against marijuana legalization. I could go on, but these are all known to be historically longstanding positions of the Republican party. However I should mention that Biden is far from alone in these stances. Other candidates in the field, most notably Buttigieg and Klobuchar, have also taken the same stances on at least some of these issues. And that goes for other known "moderate" democrats too like Clinton in 2016. The other thing they have in common (in contrast to Sanders) is that they are willing to fund their campaign with corporate money, which explains why they have taken these positions as that's preicsely what their donors are paying them to do.

If that isn't enough for you at least acknowledge that the democratic party's current base is very different now compared to 40 years ago, as now affluent professionals make up a larger proportion than they did before having switched from the Republican party, whereas by contrast working class voters have trended towards either the Republican party or have increasingly considered themselves to be independents (and non-voters). Thomas Frank outlines this brilliantly.

The Democratic Party of the 1980s was most certainly not to the left of where it is today. You’re telling me that you believe Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale were to the left of any of the current candidates or Obama? They got primaried by the left of the party back then for being insufficiently pure.

No, the only way to say the Democrats have moved right is to compare the left wing of the party then to the right wing of the party now. The branch of the party that has actually won elections has always been either the right wing of the party or the main stream of it. There’s never been a progressive wing candidate nominated who didn’t get slaughtered by the Republicans (I’m talking modern political era here btw, the parties didn’t line up in a meaningful way to current political paradigms before 1960 or so) because the fact is that independents don’t want someone who is going to upend the existing political structure.

Democrats can win with right wingers like Clinton but tend to do best when they nominate candidates from the center of the party, like Obama. Someone like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Yang would probably do well in a general election, but none of them have a serious shot at the nomination.

The only candidates with a real shot at the nomination are Biden and Sanders. Biden would beat Trump but would likely underperform his current polling, lead to poor Dem performances in 2022 and 2024, and probably be an ineffectual president whose primary contribution would be enabling RBG to die in peace and not get replaced by Trump.

Bernie would get crucified in a general election because the reality is that the wealthy Democratic Party machine would abandon him. All the favorable news coverage on center left networks that Democrats tend to be able to take for granted would be gone. All the fundraising prowess of the Clinton and Obama machines would abandon him. Wealthy government employees in the Northern Virginia suburbs, Philadelphia suburbs, and Southeastern Michigan, among many other electorally influential areas, would abandon him.

You don’t have to believe me that the center of the party would rather let Bernie get massacred by Trump to keep control over the party and away from the left if you don’t want to - odds are Biden will win out, perform extremely mediocrely and the left can go back to talking about how Bernie would’ve won a thousand electoral votes against Trump and a host of other nonsense. But the only reason Bernie polls well for now is because he’s not seen as a serious threat by either political establishment or by independent voters, many of whom are extremely privileged white suburban voters who think its trendy to change political tunes with the times and who don’t actually have any strongly held beliefs at all.

If Bernie wins the nomination save this post because the race will be over by October and Trump will probably win the PV on top of a sizable EC win. He is too far left, too old, too white, and too male to pull enough people together to beat the Cheeto monster.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Reagan would never have been able to pass NAFTA
Reagan would never have been able to repeal Glass Steagall
Reagan would never have been able deregulate media to make journalism into a for-profit industry

...Clinton. And Biden was definitely pulling Bill to the right on most of this shit. Biden is most accurately described as a conservative

But what Reagan did show, along with the weakening of the labor movement, was that the power of TV and TV ads now gave immense power to moneyed interests.

But if neoliberals politics have lived by the sword of how TV transformed public opinion, evolving media and tech can also usher in political revolution.

The Bernie campaign would not be a thing without Act Blue online Donations, and Progressive Youtube, and Volunteer Slack channels, and the BERN app, and the Hear the Bern Podcast, and the absolute massive platform of his own social media.

And it wouldn’t be what it is if people hadn’t grown to distrust the Mainstream Media and hate both party establishments.

Now I’m a marketer by day job, and one thing I know is that genuinely widely engaged owned and earned media is way way way more powerful than paid— this just isn’t the landscape that Reagan won in, and that Bill has to triangulate you succeed in. In modern marketing brand engagement, peer-to-peer referrals, and passionate users themselves making content is indescribably valuable— much more than any millions you can pour into 30 sec ads. Consumer behavior is different— we don’t trust anything until we’ve yelped it.

If I had to pick one of these campaigns to run as a marketer just with the intention of winning in the market, I’d definitely choose to run Bernie’s campaign.

The others all feel antiquated, while Yang/Gabbard/Warren feel outgunned.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The Democratic Party of the 1980s was most certainly not to the left of where it is today. You’re telling me that you believe Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale were to the left of any of the current candidates or Obama? They got primaried by the left of the party back then for being insufficiently pure.

No, the only way to say the Democrats have moved right is to compare the left wing of the party then to the right wing of the party now. The branch of the party that has actually won elections has always been either the right wing of the party or the main stream of it. There’s never been a progressive wing candidate nominated who didn’t get slaughtered by the Republicans (I’m talking modern political era here btw, the parties didn’t line up in a meaningful way to current political paradigms before 1960 or so) because the fact is that independents don’t want someone who is going to upend the existing political structure.

Democrats can win with right wingers like Clinton but tend to do best when they nominate candidates from the center of the party, like Obama. Someone like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Yang would probably do well in a general election, but none of them have a serious shot at the nomination.

The only candidates with a real shot at the nomination are Biden and Sanders. Biden would beat Trump but would likely underperform his current polling, lead to poor Dem performances in 2022 and 2024, and probably be an ineffectual president whose primary contribution would be enabling RBG to die in peace and not get replaced by Trump.

Bernie would get crucified in a general election because the reality is that the wealthy Democratic Party machine would abandon him. All the favorable news coverage on center left networks that Democrats tend to be able to take for granted would be gone. All the fundraising prowess of the Clinton and Obama machines would abandon him. Wealthy government employees in the Northern Virginia suburbs, Philadelphia suburbs, and Southeastern Michigan, among many other electorally influential areas, would abandon him.

You don’t have to believe me that the center of the party would rather let Bernie get massacred by Trump to keep control over the party and away from the left if you don’t want to - odds are Biden will win out, perform extremely mediocrely and the left can go back to talking about how Bernie would’ve won a thousand electoral votes against Trump and a host of other nonsense. But the only reason Bernie polls well for now is because he’s not seen as a serious threat by either political establishment or by independent voters, many of whom are extremely privileged white suburban voters who think its trendy to change political tunes with the times and who don’t actually have any strongly held beliefs at all.

If Bernie wins the nomination save this post because the race will be over by October and Trump will probably win the PV on top of a sizable EC win. He is too far left, too old, too white, and too male to pull enough people together to beat the Cheeto monster.

This is an honest take I can appreciate. No party leader would ever say it because this is literally the disgusting sausage machine, but it’s an honest one with merit, I applaud.

I absolutely agree that the media and the Dem establishment will go silent or side with Trump if Bernie wins.

...and Dem voters will absolutely revile and turn on it because of how much they’ve been trained to hate Trump.

...and the majority of voters who don’t vote or hate both parties, will look at Bernie say “alright now that I’m party leader, we ain’t taking any PAC or billionaire money. Up and down the ladder, we’re done.”

...and that will be the real revolution, because the people will be on his side.

Like it or not— this shit is happening. The DNC is basically bankrupt, while Bernie is raking in the most $$ and AOC’s new PAC is out-raising the DCCC that she refuses to pay dues to.

The times, they are a changin’

 

[Bass]

The Democratic Party of the 1980s was most certainly not to the left of where it is today. You’re telling me that you believe Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale were to the left of any of the current candidates or Obama? They got primaried by the left of the party back then for being insufficiently pure.

You are making an apples to oranges comparison. I would argue that the party had started its rightward move at least since the death of JFK, but really accelerated in the 80's and 90's culminating into the election of Bill Clinton. Carter may have been to the right of his opponents but he would still be considered farther to the left of any other Democrat that has been president after him. If anything, Carter is among the best pieces of evidence of the party's rightward shift since this is the man who not only endorsed Sanders in 2016 but also refused to vote for Clinton in the general. It should be very telling that Carter spent his post presidential years advocating for human rights and teaching sunday school classes while "mainstream" democrats of today like Obama and Clinton have collected boatloads of cash from closed Wall Street speeches.

No, the only way to say the Democrats have moved right is to compare the left wing of the party then to the right wing of the party now. The branch of the party that has actually won elections has always been either the right wing of the party or the main stream of it. There’s never been a progressive wing candidate nominated who didn’t get slaughtered by the Republicans (I’m talking modern political era here btw, the parties didn’t line up in a meaningful way to current political paradigms before 1960 or so) because the fact is that independents don’t want someone who is going to upend the existing political structure.

Yet again you are being extremely disingenuous. The point I am making is that the "mainstream" of the party is what has shifted right, ie the policy positions of your average Democrat. Also, it's clear that you didn't read my previous post where I mentioned that Obama won with a record number of votes in 2008 when he ran as a progressive. It was not until after he was elected where he was exposed as being more in line with the "mainstream" of the party rather than progressives.

Your point about independents is also hilariously wrong. Speaking as an independent, I can tell you that Sanders does better with independents which the data overwhelmingly supports. That is precisely because independents (and a large chunk of people who historically don't vote) do want to upend the existing political structure as they understand that our two parties have allied themselves with the elites and professionals rather than the working class.

Democrats can win with right wingers like Clinton but tend to do best when they nominate candidates from the center of the party, like Obama. Someone like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, or Yang would probably do well in a general election, but none of them have a serious shot at the nomination.

Again, how can you make this argument when the only democratic presidential candidate of our lifetime who ran as a progressive won with both a record total number of votes and overall voter turnout? Back then, the pundits were saying that Americans were too racist and backwards to ever elect someone whose middle name is Hussein and the right-wing media relentlessly called him a socialist, yet they were all proven wrong. Obama's posturing to the center was not until after winning in 2008, and both his voter turnout and margin of victory was significantly lower in 2012. And in spite of the fact her opponent was heavily despised, Hillary Clinton got even less votes in 2016. She over-performed in the liberal elite coastal cities which are full of professionals but failed to win key states in the Midwest whose working class residents have been the most negatively impacted by the neoliberal economic policies of the modern Democratic party. I agree that Yang could do well in a general election since at least he offers something that energizes voters (ie UBI) but the other two you mentioned? I don't see why it wouldn't be a repeat of 2016.

If you look at the results of the midterm elections, my point should be even more obvious. In 2014 many Democrats ran further to the right of Obama but got absolutely destroyed as voter turnout was laughably low. This is the part where a naive person might argue that this result just confirms the neoliberal Democrat talking point that our voters have moved farther to the right, but the reality is that their voting race isn't going to be motivated to turn out and vote if their candidates aren't going to offer them anything to be excited about. Although turnout somewhat improved in 2018, Democrats still somehow failed to take back the Senate despite Trump's unpopularity even though Republicans were able to easily reclaim both chambers of Congress during Obama's presidency.

The only candidates with a real shot at the nomination are Biden and Sanders. Biden would beat Trump but would likely underperform his current polling, lead to poor Dem performances in 2022 and 2024, and probably be an ineffectual president whose primary contribution would be enabling RBG to die in peace and not get replaced by Trump.

This is probably the only portion of your post I somewhat agree with, but I am honestly not convinced that Biden is as electable as the pundits would like us to believe. I could see why some people might if they believe that Clinton lost in 2016 primarily because of her gender, James Comey, and the Russians, but if you ask me a Biden general election campaign (and Klobuchar or Buttigieg campaign) would just be a repeat of 2016 and fail to offer anything other than being the lesser of two evils, which is not a great position to be in knowing that Trump's approval ratings are actually higher now than they were in 2016.

Bernie would get crucified in a general election because the reality is that the wealthy Democratic Party machine would abandon him.

It seems you have forgotten that the entire point of the Sanders campaign is to win without the backing of the wealthy party machine. And he has managed to take a frontrunner position in early primary states while being the only candidate among the frontrunners to fully reject corporate PAC money.

All the favorable news coverage on center left networks that Democrats tend to be able to take for granted would be gone.

What news coverage are you watching? Because Sanders has mostly been ignored by the media throughout the campaign so far, and he has been covered far more negatively than the other leading candidates. And this article was written prior to the recent barrage of negative coverage the Sanders campaign has received over laughably false sexism allegations, whereas Warren's numbers have been trending downward in spite of very favorable media coverage. Maybe you ought to consider that voters, now more than ever, have less trust in the corporate media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, and Fox) than you seem to be giving them credit for? The data shows that this is in a longterm downward trend.

All the fundraising prowess of the Clinton and Obama machines would abandon him.

Again... Bernie's goal is to win without relying on their money anyway, because if he doesn't, how could he be held accountable to the promises that he makes? This seems to be a point that has been lost on so many and is something I wish the Sanders campaign said more often, but the fact that most of the other candidates are relying on corporate money to win is precisely why they are against policy positions that are mainstream in the rest of the developed world like single payer healthcare systems (eg. medicare for all).

But even if you disagreed, at least acknowledge that Trump beat Clinton anyway in spite of being outspent 2 to 1. And that the two billionaires in the race aren't polling that well in spite the amount of money they have spent.

Wealthy government employees in the Northern Virginia suburbs, Philadelphia suburbs, and Southeastern Michigan, among many other electorally influential areas, would abandon him.

You are trying to make this argument even though working class voters who greatly outnumber professionals in key battleground states who previously voted for Obama abandoned Clinton in 2016? If you are going to argue that these affluent voters are willing to either sit out or vote for Trump just because someone who is actually principled wins the nomination, then that is probably as big of an indictment of the modern democratic party as you can get, considering that these people (among many others) spent 4 years calling Trump the most immoral president in the history of our country.

You don’t have to believe me that the center of the party would rather let Bernie get massacred by Trump to keep control over the party and away from the left if you don’t want to

Oh I believe you alright, which is precisely why the media has already been overwhelmingly against him, and yet he is still making a comeback somehow.

odds are Biden will win out, perform extremely mediocrely

Indeed, I also think he is still the favorite in part because Sanders as well as the media have been far too easy on him (and all his opponents for that matter). Perhaps things might change though if Sanders is able to do well in New Hampshire and Iowa.

and the left can go back to talking about how Bernie would’ve won a thousand electoral votes against Trump and a host of other nonsense. But the only reason Bernie polls well for now is because he’s not seen as a serious threat by either political establishment or by independent voters, many of whom are extremely privileged white suburban voters who think its trendy to change political tunes with the times and who don’t actually have any strongly held beliefs at all.

And the data proves you wrong again on just about every single one of these points! (see page 114)! And plenty of other polls have shown that Sanders draws his support primarily from the working class. What irks me is that you somehow are unable to see that just maybe, some people who are not doing that well want more than superficial changes and platitudes?

If Bernie wins the nomination save this post because the race will be over by October and Trump will probably win the PV on top of a sizable EC win.

Based on what concrete evidence exactly?

He is too far left

Even though left-wing policies like medicare for all have majority support. That's why the biggest obstacle Sanders faces is well-to-do professionals who are stuck inside their urban bubbles where they think the rest of the country is too batshit insane and stupid to support commonsense policies that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world.

too old

Even though Trump is just a few years younger...

too white

Trump, Sanders, Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg are all white. What makes Sanders "too" white?

too male to pull enough people together to beat the Cheeto monster.

You know, maybe most voters actually care more about what the candidates actually stand for than the color of their skin or their gender?

 

[Dece1t]

Yall are idiots if you seriously believe your party today has gone more to the right of the Democratic Party of the 80s, 70s, and 60s. Medicare for all and the abolishment of private insurance, the revoking of the 2nd amendment, Abortion at any time for any reason, the Green New Deal and climate alarmism as a whole, among a slew of other issues I can unnecessarily list. If one of you seriously argues with me on this, I am going to shit myself.

 

[dk]

Probably making a mistake by going back on my earlier word of not directly responding to the troll, but again, if someone else can be convinced by my replies then it was worth the handful of minutes (the post isn't even that long so)

Medicare for all and the abolishment of private insurance,

There is nothing intrinsically bad about killing off private insurance unless you are a) morally bankrupt and work for these firms or b) simply opposed to any kind of change to the status quo on principle. People like you would non-facetiously argue against instituting public fire departments if the status quo permitted the operation of private ones simply because of your apparent partisan obsession with the private sector. Basic cost-benefit analysis shows Medicare for all coming up the victor against essentially every angle of attack possible:

It would cost much less.

A WHO study shows that the US ranks poorly in efficiency of administering healthcare, with the list of those outranking us being chock-full of universal system---be they single-payer or two-tier systems [link to study]:

click

France, Singapore, the Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Israel, Australia, and Denmark are two-tiered universal healthcare systems that outrank the US (a bit unsure on calling Germany two-tiered based on what I read, would appreciate clarification if anyone has some to offer), and Italy, Spain, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Finland, and Costa Rica are single-payer universal healthcare systems that outrank the US. The US gets monumentally clobbered in this metric by universal systems; it's not even close. There is no excuse for this for the country with the biggest GDP in the world.

Medicare for all doesn't even completely get rid of private insurance altogether. It permits non-duplicative supplemental insurance to exist (presumably for stuff like plastic surgery I guess?) [link to the bill's text]:

click

the revoking of the 2nd amendment,

Strawman. Universal background checks are a no-brainer that a massive majority of even gun owners support. The farthest anyone went on guns was Beto and his confiscation stuff, but he has been out of the race for awhile (after receiving little in the way of traction).

Abortion at any time for any reason,

I... I don't know what to make of this. Do women not have a right to bodily autonomy? If you were a woman (I don't think you gave away your gender in any of your posts but I am like 99% certain you're a dude based on your views), would you be cool with not having the right to an abortion? You realize having an abortion isn't like, fun, right? Abortions exist out of necessity, not for fun.

the Green New Deal and climate alarmism as a whole,

If you were around in Europe in 1350, you would refer to panic over the Black Death as "plague alarmism." Australia's recent massive wildfires are linked to the climate crisis. The inferno engulfing the Amazon was big news not too long ago. Landslides in Indonesia are linked to the climate crisis. 2019 was the second hottest year on record, and 2019's July was straight up the hottest month on record. This is an astronomically tiny snapshot of the total pile of corroborating bits we have, but those were some of the first ones that came to mind.

I'd also like to say how funny it is to say "if you argue with me I'll shit myself" like that's some kind of deterrent lmao I hope you've got some spare pants when you see this post

 

[Stratos]

im losing my fucking mind looking at this image

 

[Dece1t]

im losing my fucking mind looking at this image


View attachment 219621

Because your candidates are weak :/

Probably making a mistake by going back on my earlier word of not directly responding to the troll, but again, if someone else can be convinced by my replies then it was worth the handful of minutes (the post isn't even that long so)



There is nothing intrinsically bad about killing off private insurance unless you are a) morally bankrupt and work for these firms or b) simply opposed to any kind of change to the status quo on principle. People like you would non-facetiously argue against instituting public fire departments if the status quo permitted the operation of private ones simply because of your apparent partisan obsession with the private sector. Basic cost-benefit analysis shows Medicare for all coming up the victor against essentially every angle of attack possible:

It would cost much less.

A WHO study shows that the US ranks poorly in efficiency of administering healthcare, with the list of those outranking us being chock-full of universal system---be they single-payer or two-tier systems [link to study]:

click

France, Singapore, the Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Israel, Australia, and Denmark are two-tiered universal healthcare systems that outrank the US (a bit unsure on calling Germany two-tiered based on what I read, would appreciate clarification if anyone has some to offer), and Italy, Spain, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Finland, and Costa Rica are single-payer universal healthcare systems that outrank the US. The US gets monumentally clobbered in this metric by universal systems; it's not even close. There is no excuse for this for the country with the biggest GDP in the world.

Medicare for all doesn't even completely get rid of private insurance altogether. It permits non-duplicative supplemental insurance to exist (presumably for stuff like plastic surgery I guess?) [link to the bill's text]:

click

Strawman. Universal background checks are a no-brainer that a massive majority of even gun owners support. The farthest anyone went on guns was Beto and his confiscation stuff, but he has been out of the race for awhile (after receiving little in the way of traction).



I... I don't know what to make of this. Do women not have a right to bodily autonomy? If you were a woman (I don't think you gave away your gender in any of your posts but I am like 99% certain you're a dude based on your views), would you be cool with not having the right to an abortion? You realize having an abortion isn't like, fun, right? Abortions exist out of necessity, not for fun.



If you were around in Europe in 1350, you would refer to panic over the Black Death as "plague alarmism." Australia's recent massive wildfires are linked to the climate crisis. The inferno engulfing the Amazon was big news not too long ago. Landslides in Indonesia are linked to the climate crisis. 2019 was the second hottest year on record, and 2019's July was straight up the hottest month on record. This is an astronomically tiny snapshot of the total pile of corroborating bits we have, but those were some of the first ones that came to mind.

I'd also like to say how funny it is to say "if you argue with me I'll shit myself" like that's some kind of deterrent lmao I hope you've got some spare pants when you see this post

You're only proving my point. I mean if you want to mischaracterize killing babies with bodily autonomy, its dishonest, but it's on you. My point is no sane Democrat believed in stuff like that to such a degree in the past. All you did was keep my point standing, and if anything you made it ring more true. You can at least be honest and own up to it as opposed to pushing AOC's idiotic and misinformed narrative that Dems are more conservative today. I'm sorry people are laughing their asses off when they hear that, not just me.

 

[EV]

if you want to mischaracterize killing babies with bodily autonomy

if you want to mischaracterize bodily autonomy with killing babies

Look I can do it, too!

the revoking of the 2nd amendment

Ah, the classic, "A well regulated Militia of Angry White Men, being necessary to the security of a free Ethno-European State, the right of the people to keep and bear Machine Guns, shall not be infringed," painstakingly scribbled into the constitution by good ol' Ben "AK-47" Franklin.

That's what the Virginians are protecting after all, right?

 

[pulsar512b]

I think it might be a good idea for all of us to take a breather and cool down.

 

[tcr]

Because your candidates are weak :/

the point of the above image was to capture how the corrupt corporate media is sidelining Sanders, the only candidate that threatens their profits. I don't think stratos is disgusted that klobuchar or any of them are polling at all but more so that the candidate easily in the top 2 popularity right now is not even up there. Maybe this is because Sanders is largely scandal free (requiring laughably fabricated attacks and smears like the Warren comments or Clinton's new expose (why is she even still relevant in the political sphere i will never know). I can't imagine a Sanders presidency being very newsworthy when compared to the others (Trump is self-explanatory for how much the news media loves his existence as their profits score high off of tons of fake news, Biden would be similar gaff-worthy, the others I assume are in the corporate pocket and would get similar stories to Obama as the "first gay president" or "first woman president").

I'll agree though that most of the candidates are very weak. I cannot imagine anyone aside from Warren Sanders Biden to have any shot whatsoever against Trump in the big election. And even then Sanders is, imo, clearly the frontrunner to gather grassroots voters as a morally stable counter to trump. Warren and Biden I cannot forsee putting on a very strong fight against Trump. Warren is basically Clinton-lite at this point but without the benghazi or email scandal (a 'progressive' candidate still very much in the pocket of corporate money) and Biden is equally as comedic as Trump only I cannot forsee his "play to the center" strategy doing much to mobilize his base.

 

[Dece1t]

the point of the above image was to capture how the corrupt corporate media is sidelining Sanders, the only candidate that threatens their profits. I don't think stratos is disgusted that klobuchar or any of them are polling at all but more so that the candidate easily in the top 2 popularity right now is not even up there. Maybe this is because Sanders is largely scandal free (requiring laughably fabricated attacks and smears like the Warren comments or Clinton's new expose (why is she even still relevant in the political sphere i will never know). I can't imagine a Sanders presidency being very newsworthy when compared to the others (Trump is self-explanatory for how much the news media loves his existence as their profits score high off of tons of fake news, Biden would be similar gaff-worthy, the others I assume are in the corporate pocket and would get similar stories to Obama as the "first gay president" or "first woman president").

I'll agree though that most of the candidates are very weak. I cannot imagine anyone aside from Warren Sanders Biden to have any shot whatsoever against Trump in the big election. And even then Sanders is, imo, clearly the frontrunner to gather grassroots voters as a morally stable counter to trump. Warren and Biden I cannot forsee putting on a very strong fight against Trump. Warren is basically Clinton-lite at this point but without the benghazi or email scandal (a 'progressive' candidate still very much in the pocket of corporate money) and Biden is equally as comedic as Trump only I cannot forsee his "play to the center" strategy doing much to mobilize his base.

Ill give Bernie that much, he's at least an honest candidate. I still think he's a lunatic commie, but I will not knock his genuine intent in his causes, unlike Warren imo.

 

[Lord Ninjax]

I've long been anti-warren on the grounds that she simply gives trump and the right-wing media way too much of a target to work with and the way things have gone with her recent actions I can't say that that's changed. the thing about buttigeg refusing to allow the press to his fundraisers was honestly a blow as well, although I'd support him as candidate if it came to that (although he's my third pick to biden whose 'incapacity' is overstated and is reliable enough to win and right the ship for four years. obviously a bernie / gabbard ticket is the dream). I think that overall at the core of it the rest of the primaries will ultimately be a referendum on whether the democratic base think that the current system is salvageable or not (as far as my personal beliefs I'm torn between my generally pro-institutional stance and the legitimate promise that the party's progressive wing holds for the future)

anyways not to be a downer but what do you guys think the odds are that we get a presidential election at all this year, as opposed to a new 'national emergency' or some sort of filibuster to keep trump in office illegitimately? as extreme as that sounds consider that how far the republican party have gone for trump already, as well as the fact that the majority of them probably can be implicated in his crimes, and they could decide they can't risk a loss that could bring their house of cards crashing down. the news coming out of virginia sounds very disturbing especially on that note.

 

[faint]

man it drives me nuts when you guys talk tickets and fail to realize the running mate doesn't need to be a current primary challenger.

 

[pulsar512b]

man it drives me nuts when you guys talk tickets and fail to realize the running mate doesn't need to be a current primary challenger.

man it drives me nuts when everyone is screaming at each other and throwing insults

can we all just please calm down.