• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, at least you're honest about wanting a dishonest nominee.
I can't deny that. All I can offer as an explanation, flimsy though it may be, is that I feel deeply disaffected ever since the Garland fiasco. I feel as if my government violated an unspoken contract, and whatever respect I had for "the system" was lost.
 
I can't deny that. All I can offer as an explanation, flimsy though it may be, is that I feel deeply disaffected ever since the Garland fiasco. I feel as if my government violated an unspoken contract, and whatever respect I had for "the system" was lost.

"What if I told you that stealth progressives are the system?"

- Morpheus, probably
 
Seems like going to the center would be less polarizing and divisive.

It would also probably be more effective at finding real solutions to real problems.

Of course, this depends on what we mean by "center". "Center" between Republicans and Democrats? Between American left and right? Or using a more international standard? Hmmm...
 
When you define your politics as being outraged by stuff around you, solving this stuff isn't part of your agenda.

That's a lot, perhaps even most of it.

There's also the the fact with a dedicated "Enemy" on the field you aren't expected to accomplish as much. How much of politics is basically "Oh we'd be living in Utopia if only the other side wasn't holding us back."

I don't think either side fully wants to risk being in charge and having to explain why everything isn't suddenly perfect.

But even broader then that is the vague, unspoken but near universally accepted idea that the only standard in politics is "better than the other side." Which, given how political discourse these days operates, has "least common denominatored" down to "Just slightly better then any strawman version of the worst example of 'the other side' I can find that I can get my followers to swallow."
 
Last edited:
I don't think either side fully wants to risk being in charge and having to explain why everything isn't suddenly perfect.

I think the 2017-2018 government illustrated this quite well.

As logger loved to tell us, the GOP had all the power, and yet they managed to do dick all with it, except a tax cut.
 
It would also probably be more effective at finding real solutions to real problems.
I guess it depends what you mean by "real", "solutions", and "problems". The way I see it, there's never going to be broad consensus on these things. I'd be happy with a society that was more inclined to disagree about these things without coming to blows over them.

Of course, this depends on what we mean by "center". "Center" between Republicans and Democrats? Between American left and right? Or using a more international standard? Hmmm...
I don't think there's really any question here.
 
It would also probably be more effective at finding real solutions to real problems.

Of course, this depends on what we mean by "center". "Center" between Republicans and Democrats? Between American left and right? Or using a more international standard? Hmmm...

The American "left" is the "moderate center" by international standards, and the policies we promote have broad appeal with the average voter. So...
 
I think Travis' point is perception is reality. Many voters don't take the time to look at all of that, particularly the progressives who want Trump gone but are often bogged down by mischaracterizations of leading Democratic candidates in social media.

What is your basis for this claim?
 
But even broader then that is the vague, unspoken but near universally accepted idea that the only standard in politics is "better than the other side." Which, given how political discourse these days operates, has "least common denominatored" down to "Just slightly better then any strawman version of the worst example of 'the other side' I can find that I can get my followers to swallow."

In a first-past-the-post election system basically "better than the other side" is the only realistic choice you have. Sure, you can vote some useless 3rd party candidate and you'll feel good until the "not better than the other side" takes power.

I'm not saying I like it because I don't. I wish we had ranked choice voting like Maine.
 
Last edited:
Change in priority this election:

The poll from Monmouth University found that an unusually large number of Democratic voters are prioritizing "electability" over values as they begin to think about whom to support in their 2020 presidential primary.

"In prior elections, voters from both parties consistently prioritized shared values over electability when selecting a nominee," said Patrick Murray, the director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. "It looks like Democrats may be willing to flip that equation in 2020 because of their desire to defeat Trump. This is something to pay close attention to when primary voters really start tuning into the campaign."

In the survey, 56 percent of potential Democratic voters nationally said they preferred someone who would be a stronger candidate against Trump, even if they don't agree with that candidate on all issues. Meanwhile, 33 percent said they would prefer someone who aligns better with their beliefs, but who might have a harder time beating Trump.

...

A month before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal asked potential Democratic voters what was more important to them. Just 16 percent chose "a candidate with the best chance to defeat the Republican candidate," while 46 percent opted for "a candidate who comes closest to your views on issues" and another 38 percent said "the right personal style and strong leadership qualities."

This year, though, the "electability problem" seems to have filtered down to Democratic voters, especially in early primary and caucus states, who have already voiced worries that candidates they otherwise like couldn't beat Trump.

Linky.
 
I think the 2017-2018 government illustrated this quite well.

As logger loved to tell us, the GOP had all the power, and yet they managed to do dick all with it, except a tax cut.

Do you really think they wanted anything more? If so, it would have just been more tax cuts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom