DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
Smedley said:
Blame the media, yawn.
I hear Bernie call for a revolution with my own ears, unfiltered by the media, and it turns me off, because I don’t want a revolution. I’m sure I’m not the only non-Trump supporting voter out there who feels the same way.
If he was actually for a revolution he would not be seeking the nomination of one of the two establishment political parties. He probably wouldn't be involved in electoral politics.
I guess most here are two young to remember the 60s but I do and I do not recall Huey Newton or Mark Rudd running for public office.
Of course some of you may have first heard the word "revolution" when they heard right-wingers speak of the "Reagan Revolution".
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/141393-a-revolution-is-not-a-dinner-party-or-writing-an
Smedley said:
Good point. I don’t know how Bernie can call for a revolution and not be far left. Is he only calling for a limited or partial revolution?
How far left was Ron Paul’s revolution?
jamie said:
Is there a rundown where the candidates stand on eliminating the national debt?
Nobody is going to eliminate the national debt (or likely even the deficit ... for those who know the difference, and sadly there are many that don't.) And they shouldn't compare to households because national/government budgeting is a different animal. But for those who insist on doing so anyway, do their households have NO debt AND do they think that it is wrong that most households DO have mortage debt at least and often auto and other loan obligations?
LOST said:
Obama/Trump voters cannot be described or understood on a left-center-right axis. They are not swayed by ideology. As ml1 posted they vote based on "gut". Or to be charitable they vote "for the man, not the Party" or the policies.
There were Trump supporters who told pollsters that Bernie was there second choice.
there were a pretty fair number of them. About 10% of Bernie primary voters in 2016 self-identified as conservatives.
People who get too hung up on a left/right dichotomy risk getting US politics very wrong. There is no far left to speak of in the U.S. and the right has morphed into something of a white identity movement. "Left" and "right" don't tell us much of meaning when there are only two parties and one is centrist and the other is nationalist.
sac said:
jamie said:Nobody is going to eliminate the national debt (or likely even the deficit ... for those who know the difference, and sadly there are many that don't.) And they shouldn't compare to households because national/government budgeting is a different animal. But for those who insist on doing so anyway, do their households have NO debt AND do they think that it is wrong that most households DO have mortage debt at least and often auto and other loan obligations?
Is there a rundown where the candidates stand on eliminating the national debt?
Is there anything that says eliminating the national debt is actually a positive good? What would we achieve?
And sac, comparing household finances to the government's is a useless endeavor. There is not even the slightest basis for any comparison, other than that some form of money is involved. That people still think it's a legitimate comparison (among both politicians and the general population) is one of the biggest reasons we can't get anything done in this country.
nan said:
And, despite what I said about the media smearing him, people surprisingly still have a favorable view, although you know I am skeptical about polls, even ones that favor my candidates. Here is an article about a recent Gallop poll that found Sanders' had the most favorability of all 2020 candidates.
'This Man Can Beat Trump': Sanders Viewed Most Favorably of 2020 Democratic Candidates
New Gallup poll shows Sen. Bernie Sanders has better image than Joe Biden in eyes of Democratic voters
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/20/man-can-beat-trump-sanders-viewed-most-favorably-2020-democratic-candidates
Two things about that Gallup poll, for which you should read the results reported by the polling company and not just what the Commondreams.org article says about it.
First, Sanders and Biden do have the highest favorables among Democrats, but Gallup points out:
The 10 candidates rated in the July 1-12 Gallup survey coincidentally align neatly into pairs, according to their images among rank-and-file Democrats.
Sanders and Biden are at the top, with 72% and 69% favorable ratings, respectively.
Behind them, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have favorable ratings in the 50s.
Further down, Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg are in the mid-40s.
Beto O'Rourke and Julian Castro are in the mid-30s.
Amy Klobuchar and Bill de Blasio are tied at 31%.
The wide range of favorable ratings is explained almost entirely by an equally wide range of "no opinion" responses, ranging from 11% for Sanders to 57% for Klobuchar.
For the three after Sanders, Biden had 14% "no opinion", Warren 29% "no opinion", and Harris 34% "no opinion".
The second thing about the Gallup poll is their chart with just Trump, Biden, and Sanders. Based on all US adults, their favorables are 45, 42 and 41 percent respectively. Of the three, only Biden is in positive "favorable vs. unfavorable", as the picture of the chart from the Gallup article shows.
I have no particular conclusions, other than to suggest that if using a poll, look at what they actually say.
Bruni’s Column in the NYT, which correctly points out that the House was won in ‘18 by moderate Democrats. None of the progressives flipped seats, they just unseated or replaced other Democrats.
a centrist Democrat will not beat Trump. Full stop.
The Democratic strategy should not be about appealing to the districts where moderates won in 2018. They need to win states, which means piling up big majorities in cities and inner ring suburbs.
No one is paying attention to me but the key to 2020 is big turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison and every similar city in so-called purple states. Joe Biden or Mayor Pete aren't going to do that.
ml1 said:
No one is paying attention to me but the key to 2020 is big turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison and every similar city in so-called purple states. Joe Biden or Mayor Pete aren't going to do that.
I know a little about Philly and its politics, from Rizzocrats to John Street and Johnny Doc. Tell me more about how voters there will turn out more for a progressive than for Biden. I’m paying attention.
(For what it’s worth, Philadelphia in the 2016 Democratic primary: Clinton 63%, Sanders 37%.)
ml1 said:
this is why the Democrats are in trouble. Liberal voters are trying to figure out who to support in the primary based on who they think will appeal to Trump leaning Midwest voters. Just support the person you think is the best candidate. I'm not going to try and figure out who can get Joe Lunchbox in Wisconsin to switch back to the Democrats from Trump. Because I don't know how to rationally figure out how to appeal to people who are making decisions based on gut.
Wrong. The ONLY consideration of the Dem candidates should be who can beat Trump. It’s the only thing that matters. I’ll vote for whichever one has the best chance of doing that even if I can’t stand that candidate.
Smedley said:
Blame the media, yawn.
I hear Bernie call for a revolution with my own ears, unfiltered by the media, and it turns me off, because I don’t want a revolution. I’m sure I’m not the only non-Trump supporting voter out there who feels the same way.
Replacing our current healthcare with Medicare for All will be nothing short of revolutionary. It will take a revolution to get change for things like Medicare for All and Green New Deal. People will need to protest and demand, along with a president who is on the side of the people and not the oligarchs. Sanders is just being honest, and other candidates who promise these things as through they are easily doable are not. If you don't care about those things, than I can understand your disinterest. There are many people living paycheck to paycheck while working 2+ jobs and launching GoFundMes to pay for dire health emergencies--and to them revolution sounds great.
drummerboy said:
Do you suppose your post somehow disproves nan's contention?
This is the article I posted about Sydney Embers. Everyone should be angry at this, because even if you don't like Sanders, media such as the Times should have some journalistic ethics. Next time it might be a candidate you like or a war you oppose.
The New York Times Has It in for Bernie Sanders
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-new-york-times-has-it-in-for-bernie-sanders/
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:I know a little about Philly and its politics, from Rizzocrats to John Street and Johnny Doc. Tell me more about how voters there will turn out more for a progressive than for Biden. I’m paying attention.
No one is paying attention to me but the key to 2020 is big turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison and every similar city in so-called purple states. Joe Biden or Mayor Pete aren't going to do that.
(For what it’s worth, Philadelphia in the 2016 Democratic primary: Clinton 63%, Sanders 37%.)
Too many cheese steaks and running up and down the Museum steps will do that.
ridski said:
Smedley said:How far left was Ron Paul’s revolution?
Good point. I don’t know how Bernie can call for a revolution and not be far left. Is he only calling for a limited or partial revolution?
IDK, I always considered that guy a fringe crackpot
ml1 said:
a centrist Democrat will not beat Trump. Full stop.
Sounds like a prediction with insufficient data support, procured from an area where the sun don’t shine.
nan said:
Smedley said:There are many people living paycheck to paycheck while working 2+ jobs and launching GoFundMes to pay for dire health emergencies--and to them revolution sounds great.
Blame the media, yawn.
I hear Bernie call for a revolution with my own ears, unfiltered by the media, and it turns me off, because I don’t want a revolution. I’m sure I’m not the only non-Trump supporting voter out there who feels the same way.
And there are many more people — struggling, doing okay, and doing well - who associate revolution with an early 1970s Woody Allen movie and say hard pass on that, next candidate please.
nan said:
Smedley said:Replacing our current healthcare with Medicare for All will be nothing short of revolutionary. It will take a revolution to get change for things like Medicare for All and Green New Deal. People will need to protest and demand, along with a president who is on the side of the people and not the oligarchs. Sanders is just being honest, and other candidates who promise these things as through they are easily doable are not. If you don't care about those things, than I can understand your disinterest. There are many people living paycheck to paycheck while working 2+ jobs and launching GoFundMes to pay for dire health emergencies--and to them revolution sounds great.
Blame the media, yawn.
I hear Bernie call for a revolution with my own ears, unfiltered by the media, and it turns me off, because I don’t want a revolution. I’m sure I’m not the only non-Trump supporting voter out there who feels the same way.
They way you have a successful revolution is to convince everyone that it's actually just an improvement and extension and not a revolution at all. Then work to make sure the changes really are done in a way that extends and improves things instead of breaking everything. Then after the fact, historians go "whoah, that was actually a pretty revolutionary change."
Actual revolutions, otoh, generally only look good thanks to survivorship bias.
Smedley said:
Sounds like a prediction with insufficient data support, procured from an area where the sun don’t shine.
it's actually not. It's based on my observation of which groups of voters stayed home in '16.
I may be completely wrong. But not because I didn't look at data.
conandrob240 said:
Wrong. The ONLY consideration of the Dem candidates should be who can beat Trump. It’s the only thing that matters. I’ll vote for whichever one has the best chance of doing that even if I can’t stand that candidate.
that wasn't my point. I'll vote for a canned ham if that's the Democratic nominee.
DaveSchmidt said:
I know a little about Philly and its politics, from Rizzocrats to John Street and Johnny Doc. Tell me more about how voters there will turn out more for a progressive than for Biden. I’m paying attention.
(For what it’s worth, Philadelphia in the 2016 Democratic primary: Clinton 63%, Sanders 37%.)
primary voters are a subset who virtually all come out to vote in the general.
Is it your contention that Clinton lost PA because she wasn't centrist enough?
drummerboy said:
read my thread on Modern Monetary Theory and get some edumacation.
What do you think the threat of the deficit is? Be specific.
The threat of the increasing deficit is that we will have to spend an increasing amount of our revenue on paying interest against our debt, so we have less (or no) money left for anything else.
PVW said:
They way you have a successful revolution is to convince everyone that it's actually just an improvement and extension and not a revolution at all. Then work to make sure the changes really are done in a way that extends and improves things instead of breaking everything. Then after the fact, historians go "whoah, that was actually a pretty revolutionary change."
Actual revolutions, otoh, generally only look good thanks to survivorship bias.
I don't think there is consensus on how you have a "successful revolution" and here we are not talking about overthrowing a government. This is a presidential candidate who wants to take on the oligarchs and transform our dysfunctional healthcare system to single-payer. It is factually an improvement to what we have now. The system we have now is so broken that talking about breaking it is laughable. Everyone will survive because everyone will be covered and it will be cheaper than what we have now. People will be able to keep their doctors and hospitals--the idea that there are individual losers is propaganda.
The big problem is getting there because the people who run insurance companies have unlimited wealth and power--perhaps even more than the government, and they must be overthrown. This is the reality and I'm glad at least one candidate understands what is at stake and is willing to be honest with us about what needs to be done.
Ditto Green New Deal and free college.
ml1 said:
primary voters are a subset who virtually all come out to vote in the general.
Is it your contention that Clinton lost PA because she wasn't centrist enough?
I don’t have a contention. You made one, and I asked about it: Why would a progressive drive greater Democratic turnout in Philadelphia in the general election than Biden?
Smedley said:
And there are many more people — struggling, doing okay, and doing well - who associate revolution with an early 1970s Woody Allen movie and say hard pass on that, next candidate please.
There are more people living paycheck to paycheck and struggling than people doing OK who can say hard pass on single-payer, GND or free college. Who associates revolution with Woody Allen anyway? I think of him mostly a humorous intellectual elitist with a fetish for young girls. Retrograde, not revolutionary.
DaveSchmidt said:
I don’t have a contention. It’s yours I asked about: Why would a progressive drive greater Democratic turnout in Philadelphia in the general election than Biden?
Again, Biden was a champion of NAFTA and TPP. Trump will hammer this home in the rust belt. Biden is a Democratic poison pill.
nan said:
PVW said:I don't think there is consensus on how you have a "successful revolution" and here we are not talking about overthrowing a government. This is a presidential candidate who wants to take on the oligarchs and transform our dysfunctional healthcare system to single-payer.
They way you have a successful revolution is to convince everyone that it's actually just an improvement and extension and not a revolution at all. Then work to make sure the changes really are done in a way that extends and improves things instead of breaking everything. Then after the fact, historians go "whoah, that was actually a pretty revolutionary change."
Actual revolutions, otoh, generally only look good thanks to survivorship bias.
Does tone matter? From your posts, you seem convinced that Sanders, who talks in terms of revolution, is more committed to his goals than Warren, who shares many of these goals but does not style herself a revolutionary.
If Sanders were to win the presidency, I believe it would play out in one of two ways: he would refuse any compromise, accomplish nothing, and be hailed as a hero by his supporters who was thwarted by the machinations of the oligarchs and their enablers. Or he would make compromises, accomplish things, and be denounced as a fake progressive and a sellout by his supporters.
Actually, it would likely end up both -- he'd compromise in an attempt to accomplish things, fall short, and end up being denounced by everybody for being simultaneously a sell out and an unrealistic ideologue.
conandrob240 said:
Wrong. The ONLY consideration of the Dem candidates should be who can beat Trump. It’s the only thing that matters. I’ll vote for whichever one has the best chance of doing that even if I can’t stand that candidate.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
In order to determine which type of candidate has the best chance we must first determine which strategy has the best chance.
A. Appealing to "swing voters" like the Obama/Trump voters.
B. Pulling out those who don't usually vote among natural constituencies.
C. Both of the above.
nan said:
Again, Biden was a champion of NAFTA and TPP. Trump will hammer this home in the rust belt. Biden is a Democratic poison pill.
Philadelphia isn’t the Rust Belt. Philadelphia is a Democratic machine city where Biden’s personal popularity blows any resentment about NAFTA or TPP out of the water. Why would a progressive drive greater turnout there?
Also, winning the presidency is straightforward. If you're the incumbent, have a strong economy. If you're the challenger, have a poor economy. If it's meh, flip a coin, though if you're a Republican you've got an electoral college advantage to add some padding.
Somewhere down the list of influential factors I suppose are the actual candidates. Personally, my vote is going to "short, sharp recession from Oct 1 through first Wednesday in November"
tl;dr -- vote for who you think will do the best job as president, worry less about "electability" as candidates have a lot less control over that than we'd like to think.
I've posted this before. The Overton Window in the U.S. has moved WAY right compared to the rest of the developed world. People in the U.S. don't even know to what degree they've been conned. People are absolutely brainwashed to believe that we CAN'T have what the rest of the western world has: health coverage, affordable college, decent retirement. It's a tragedy because our country has such immense wealth and working people are completely convinced that nothing can be done to make their lives a little less brutal.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html