2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[acbytesla]

*Head desk*

Seriously do you not get it?

Not only has "The Democrats are gonna take our guns" been the Republican scare tactic for as long as I've been alive the Democrats have been in defense "Oh noes we'd totally never does that" mode for just as long.

I don't want another paragraph long detailed explain of why you think it's a good idea. The point is in another star system from that.

The Democrats aren't campaigning to (g)you or me. We're already going to vote for them. We don't get double votes because we like Warren or Biden or Sanders or Betto twice as much. Once our needle is at 51% then, the moral thing to do is to ignore us and stop catering to our wants and needs.

We have a populist demagogue in office right now largely because a section of the population has variously decided/been tricked into thinking that the "Evil Liberal Takeover of Real Heartland America" was actually starting to happen and your big plan is to put someone up against him who's main talking point is "Step 1" on their paranoid delusion checklist? Are you insane?

5 years ago, hell 2 or 3 years ago let's be honest "The Dems are gonna come take our guns so they can shut down our churches to use the money to pay for prisoners to get sexual reassignment surgery" would have been such an over the top parody of Democratic Policy "strawman" would have stopped being screamed at it. Maybe, radical notion, when the deck is already stacked against us this much let's not put it on the banners in this one.

That Bill Maher video I tried to just allude to (and completely failed to stop the discussion from becoming about) had one fact that I wish every person currently running for President had carved into their forehead backwards so they had to read it every time they look in the mirror; that only 46% of Democrats identify as liberal.

I'm not sure of how that concept gets across the Democrat's Twitterverse and rabid fanbase. It means there are more people out there who want to vote for a Democrat because they support their political and social/political policies (as every goddamn piece of data suggests most Americans do) but aren't part of this "culture war" that the Democrats are thinking this election is what they are fighting.

You could pick any vaguely presentable looking person off the street, give him/her a suit with an American flag lapel pin on and teach them to read a few notebook card long soundbites about the big dozen issues from the Democratic Party's point of view; Sane gun laws, gay rights, access to abortion, paths to citizenship, and that person would beat Donald Trump in a landslide.

Why I am still afraid the Democrats who are actually running won't do that? Because of this. They can't just go "Oh yes I support Democratic Party Position A" they have to go "I yes I support Democratic Party Position A MORE THEN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC WHO'S EVER DEMOCRATICED BEFORE!"

Basic, broad political and societal level Democratic policies are, almost across the board, more popular then their Republican counterparts. Outside of, I think, the Death Penalty (which was last time I checked support for had been falling steadily but was still polling at around 50/50) the American public wants what they Democratic Party's position on the issues are almost completely. By the numbers the Democrats literally shouldn't be able to lose an election.

So what happens? This. This always happens. The Democrats can't get any amount of power or any whiff of potential power without jerking off their fringe pet projects.

Maher is right, Beto would be crushed in a general election because "Tax the churches" isn't going to go over too well with Black Evangelicals who are a huge part of the Democratic Base and I will sit hear and argue against tax exemption for churches longer then anyone on this board and I still understand that's a politically suicidal-y stupid issue to try and raise now.

Nobody cares about whether the "safe space" you set up in inner cities for heroin users is vape free or not. Nobody cares if Billy Bob Joe Frank can buy a soda over 20 ounces. And even if they do care it's not biggest issue for them.

People want to vote for the Democrats on a level I don't think we truly appreciate. They just don't want to do it when it feels like voting for a new Mommy that's gonna decide they know how to run your life better then you do the moment they move into the house.

I understand your point. And I agree it plays into Republican talking points.

But again, these are loser points. The vast majority of Americans support common sense restrictions on guns.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But again, these are loser points. The vast majority of Americans support common sense restrictions on guns.

1. Let's not forget that right now (g)we are the losers. We're the ones fighting the uphill battle.

2. The vast majority of Americans support common sense versions of pretty much every Democratic stance on the issue. Problem is anything that sounds even vaguely like "Take all the guns" or "Tax the churches" is not common sense in America.

We need to focus on the general voting populaces version of "common sense" not the Elizabeth Warren's 200 loudest Twitter followers version of "common sense."

 

[acbytesla]

1. Let's not forget that right now (g)we are the losers. We're the ones fighting the uphill battle.

2. The vast majority of Americans support common sense versions of pretty much every Democratic stance on the issue. Problem is anything that sounds even vaguely like "Take all the guns" or "Tax the churches" is not common sense in America.

We need to focus on the general voting populaces version of "common sense" not the Elizabeth Warren's 200 loudest Twitter followers version of "common sense."

But it's not take all the guns.And as much actual sense of tax the churches,I wouldn't fight that battle. But I believe you can sell lets end the mass murders and take military assault weapons.

 

[shemp]

Joe is right. You don't have any opportunity to get what you want if you don't win.

If you want a turkey leg, you need to sit at the adult table.

 

[Delvo]

Joe is right.

About the "take all the guns" thing (which just got trotted out by the same desperate going-nowhere fringe campaign that also thought it would be totally tubular to have him ride a skateboard across the stage before he even learned how to steer it, stop it, or dismount from it)? Probably. But about that somehow spearheading or representing or even having anything at all to do with the entirety of all of the candidates' platforms? Not even anywhere near reality. Just standard Republican propaganda.

 

[Minoosh]

The people turning in guns are probably not going to be the same people who are stockpiling them for mass murder, eh? Sorry if that sounds like a conservative talking point. Actually I think the NRA would *love* to amplify Beto's message; my understanding is that Trump has been bad for gun sales; nothing makes folks want to stock up on firearms more than some candidate calling for bans. BTW I have absolutely no idea how to stop mass shootings given current U.S. firepower levels except to hope that the trend just sort of organically peaks and it becomes something that even the most hateful haters just don't want to do anymore. I would be pushing for broader-based background checks before doing almost anything else more ambitious. I agree the candidates should stop trying to out-Bernie Bernie. But then I know nothing of proper political strategy. I just intuitively feel that anything that can actually ever get passed in Congress is going to be so moderate it's boring. Maybe that's not the best way to fire up the base but right now I want boring Democrats. I would almost happily vote for the most boring Democrat out there. Especially if they have friendly relationships with even more-boring Republicans. Yes, Mitt, that means YOU, you rebel!!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just standard Republican propaganda.

Oh good I'm a Republican again. Somebody let me knows when I swing back to "Beta Cuck SJW" for radically suggesting feeding school kids or teaching evolution in school instead of "Goddit" or whatever gets the other fanbase mad at me.

"Focus on your already popular and established core Party principles which are objectively and provably popular with the voters" is suuuuuuuuch an extremist position to take.

 

[kellyb]

Oh good I'm a Republican again.

You don't have to be a Republican to spout rightwing propaganda and talking points.

"Focus on your already popular and established core Party principles which are objectively and provably popular with the voters" is suuuuuuuuch an extremist position to take.

Like...gun control?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

One of the key problems with Maher's analysis is the "only X% of Democrats identify as Liberal" bit. It really has no bearing on the popularity of specific policies, just about certain political labels. People who identify as "moderate" tend to be more liberal in policy positions because of this.

As for appealing to the "common sense" of the general/mainstream/moderate/center, I often find it to be the case that people assume that their own leanings are the "common sense" silent majority position. As 538 showed previously, it is difficult to say there even is such a thing, let alone what it might be. People can point to polls, but they are often self-contradictory. And as Trump has demonstrated, especially with trade, people often follow their side's leaders rather than policy in particular.

And as Buttigieg himself has pointed out, it doesn't matter if Democrats run Sanders or Biden. Whoever it is will be called a degenerate, Communist, abortionist, coastal elitist, etc. Republicans have been doing it at least since the 90s. Obamacare was a nightmare scenario of Socialized Medicine, instituted by a Muslim Communist Terrorist.

 

[angrysoba]

I also think the Maher-Morgue analysis is lacking in a number of ways.

First of all, I think three of the four cherry-picked examples that are being pointed to as cuhhhh-razy loony lefty self-parodies are hardly the candidates' signature issues. In fact, three of them came from the LGBT forum, as far as I can see, and they weren't exactly out-of-place ideas.

Besides, if you were asked, "Do you believe churches should be taxed?" what would you answer? You would answer "yes!"

I think it is about time Democrats stood by their convictions and didn't cower from the electorate fearing it is too right-wing to elect them unless they lie to get elected.

Bill Maher showed clips of Trump being as right-wing as he feels like and saying, "I don't care. You're going to vote me whether you like me or not!"

As Elizabeth Warren says, why can't Democrats feel more comfortable rolling out their real views and policies and just saying "Here's what I stand for. Vote for me if you prefer that to what Trump is offering!"

But, no. One minute people are accusing the Democrats of having authentic views and complaining they won't play well. The next minute the same people are complaining that they are focus-grouping their views to death and looking like shameless panderers (Buttigieg is now the prime example).

What is it you want?!?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes, I specifically recall Maher himself complaining that Democrats are afraid of the polls and Republicans successfully stick to their guns.

 

[Brainster]

One of the key problems with Maher's analysis is the "only X% of Democrats identify as Liberal" bit. It really has no bearing on the popularity of specific policies, just about certain political labels. People who identify as "moderate" tend to be more liberal in policy positions because of this.

As for appealing to the "common sense" of the general/mainstream/moderate/center, I often find it to be the case that people assume that their own leanings are the "common sense" silent majority position. As 538 showed previously, it is difficult to say there even is such a thing, let alone what it might be. People can point to polls, but they are often self-contradictory. And as Trump has demonstrated, especially with trade, people often follow their side's leaders rather than policy in particular.

And as Buttigieg himself has pointed out, it doesn't matter if Democrats run Sanders or Biden. Whoever it is will be called a degenerate, Communist, abortionist, coastal elitist, etc. Republicans have been doing it at least since the 90s. Obamacare was a nightmare scenario of Socialized Medicine, instituted by a Muslim Communist Terrorist.

Yes, but if the nominee is Sanders especially or Warren the label is going to stick.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I also think the Maher-Morgue analysis is lacking in a number of ways.

First of all, I think three of the four cherry-picked examples that are being pointed to as cuhhhh-razy loony lefty self-parodies are hardly the candidates' signature issues. In fact, three of them came from the LGBT forum, as far as I can see, and they weren't exactly out-of-place ideas.

No, but they do represent how easily these candidates positions can be turned into fear mongering talking points.

As Elizabeth Warren says, why can't Democrats feel more comfortable rolling out their real views and policies and just saying "Here's what I stand for. Vote for me if you prefer that to what Trump is offering!"

Meaning they could easily counter the talking points.

But, no. One minute people are accusing the Democrats of having authentic views and complaining they won't play well. The next minute the same people are complaining that they are focus-grouping their views to death and looking like shameless panderers (Buttigieg is now the prime example). ...

But if history is anything to go by, they will end up here. ^

 

[kellyb]

Yes, but if the nominee is Sanders especially or Warren the label is going to stick.

I suspect you personally just don't like the idea of taxing the super-rich.

 

[Brainster]

I suspect you personally just don't like the idea of taxing the super-rich.

Isn't it more a question of how do we accomplish society's goal of providing necessary services to everybody while having a reasonable and fair tax system to do so, than finding some way of taxing the super-rich?

 

[kellyb]

Isn't it more a question of how do we accomplish society's goal of providing necessary services to everybody while having a reasonable and fair tax system to do so, than finding some way of taxing the super-rich?

There's no way to meet the goal of providing necessary services to everybody without taxing the super-rich.

Honestly, even if there were (there's not) we should still tax them to prevent/reverse oligarchy. You can have this degree of inequality, or you can have democracy, but you can't have both.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Republicans want to spend billions on a wall even though it won't help much with illegal immigration. They never said where the money was coming from before demanding that the wall be built.

 

[angrysoba]

Republicans want to spend billions on a wall even though it won't help much with illegal immigration. They never said where the money was coming from before demanding that the wall be built.

Isn’t that why Trump reintroduced Space Command, so that he could redirect funds?

 

[Minoosh]

Republicans want to spend billions on a wall even though it won't help much with illegal immigration. They never said where the money was coming from before demanding that the wall be built.

Well, Trump did ... from Mexico.

It seems the less familiar people are with the border, the more they believe a wall will help.

 

[Aridas]

You don't have to be a Republican to spout rightwing propaganda and talking points.

You don't even have to know that they're Republican talking points, for that matter. The MSM is far too often complicit in spreading GOP lies or framing as it seeks to increase its profits.

Like...gun control?

Honestly, gun safety and gun responsibility are probably better terms for what nearly everyone across the spectrum actually agrees on wanting, even within the Democratic Party. Gun control is a bit more contentious after so many years of generally false, but fear-inducing claims being used for political advantage by the far right.

Isn't it more a question of how do we accomplish society's goal of providing necessary services to everybody while having a reasonable and fair tax system to do so, than finding some way of taxing the super-rich?

While that may sound nice, it falls into the trap of assuming some agreement about what necessary services are. When a libertarian cousin of mine was trying to tell me that the government should only really be in the business of protecting the country from outside military threats, for example, there's no such agreement. This is particularly poignant, of course, given that a small group of extremely rich libertarians have been engaging in a sustained and decentralized campaign to corrupt and control both major political parties - currently with much, much more success with the Republican party, but hardly without effect on the Democrats, for the past half-century, and thus, the government.

Going further, given your phrasing, we likely have a value difference between us. For myself, what I want is for us to be part of the healthiest (in many ways) and happiest society possible. This requires balancing individual freedoms with societal concerns, while also paying attention to various factors that undermine such. Extreme disparities between the rich and the poor, like the US has right now, undermine the health and happiness of society in a myriad of ways while not actually providing virtually any benefit at all even to the extremely rich after a certain point - a point that happens to be very far below where proposals like Warren's and AOC's would even start to kick in, by the look of it.

To delve a little deeper on the subject of taxing the super rich, it's quite correct to acknowledge that we are all standing on the shoulders of metaphorical giants - especially the extremely rich. Seriously taxing those who have been profiting immensely by taking advantage of that which the government and the public created, and reinvesting that money to make things even better for future generations to work with is a much more positive and sustainable model than what far too many of the absurdly rich people have given into the temptation to do with their extra money - spend it on interfering with the government for the sake of paying ever less and less compared the the benefits that they're gaining and pushing financial responsibility for any harmful actions that they commit onto those who neither caused the underlying problems or are in a position where they can reasonably handle such financial responsibility.

More could be said, but... that's enough for now.

Republicans want to spend billions on a wall even though it won't help much with illegal immigration. They never said where the money was coming from before demanding that the wall be built.

Well... Given that it's currently the party of Trump - Mexico. Trump even wrote (aka probably had someone write for him) that a single lump sum would be a fine way for Mexico to pay - and then when he was later called on it, his defense was that he didn't ask for a check, ergo fake news.