2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Bob001]

I'm not saying it's a good tactic. This is the second time Sanders has had to disown an action by his own staff.

I'm merely saying that Clinton not supporting Sanders is par for the course.

Clinton's not running (yet). It would be statesperson-like for Clinton not to support any particular Democrat in the primaries, and if she did it might even hurt her choice. But it is small-minded and petty for her to go out of her way to trash Sanders, who she apparently thinks deprived her of an easy ride to the nomination.

Paradoxically, if she had actually drawn some lessons from Sanders' unexpected success, instead of blaming him for not getting out of her way, she might have beaten Trump in the states where it mattered.

 

[angrysoba]

Problem with Bernie is he comes off as the eternal Sixities radical who can't move on.

So I have heard. Any examples?

 

[Venom]

So I have heard. Any examples?

And is that really true for most of the country?

 

[Bob001]

Problem with Bernie is he comes off as the eternal Sixities radical who can't move on.
As for the bros, I don't like personality cults, period. And it's hard to deny a lot of Sanders followers are in full personality cult mode.

Yet if you compare mainstream thinking now to the '60s, it's pretty clear that the society has moved a long way in his direction. He doesn't have to move on; the world is coming to him.

And I say it's hard to imagine Sanders inspiring a "cult." Again, other Democrats -- including Clinton in 2016 -- have moved in his direction on issues like universal health care and income/wealth inequality.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

PACs are a mechanism to collect and spend donations. He can spend his own money on anything, including ads supporting other candidates.

Never suggested otherwise. ETA: Although specifically he has to donate his money to a PAC (it can be one he controls, that's fine) and then spend it on political activity. Doesn't matter if you are directly supporting someone or doing the "issue advocacy" sideways dance, money spent on political influence is tracked and followed and published (this can still be obscured by controlling how it enters the regulatory ecosystem).

I am suggesting that constitutes a form of leverage. I thought we didn't like dark money and being able to buy party influence.

I was also speaking more specifically of any contributions made to his principal campaign committee (the part that has more controls on it). I poked around to see what his haul is for that so far but his FEC filings appear to have not been processed yet.

Anyone can feel however they want about it.

I think my main issue is he's making wielding a PAC sound like a magnanimous gesture. I don't see things that way, regardless of who it is. The real audience for his announcement is DNC officials. He would like them to know he is an interested buyer and he would like a menu of options, please.

 

[angrysoba]

Yet if you compare mainstream thinking now to the '60s, it's pretty clear that the society has moved a long way in his direction. He doesn't have to move on; the world is coming to him.

And I say it's hard to imagine Sanders inspiring a "cult." Again, other Democrats -- including Clinton in 2016 -- have moved in his direction on issues like universal health care and income/wealth inequality.

Yeah, a lot of Sixties "Radicalism" involved crazy notions about black people being allowed to go to schools with white people and not being turned away from voting because well, you see, unless your grandfather could vote, you cant! He was a slave, you say? Well **** out of luck then.

 

[angrysoba]

I mean, maybe he comes across as "radical" to some, but not me (not that that matters).

 

[Aridas]

I mean, maybe he comes across as "radical" to some, but not me (not that that matters).

It may be worth noting, again, that in many European countries, Bernie would be a fairly unremarkable center left politician.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It may be worth noting, again, that in many European countries, Bernie would be a fairly unremarkable center left politician.

True. Fits right in with traditional continental social democracy. Whose central idea - that capitalism has to be tamed, but not overcome like the socialists wanted -, may go back to the 60s, but that would be the 1860s. Nothing to do with sex and drugs and rock'n'roll or whatever the narrative managers are trying to associate poor Bernie with.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may be worth noting, again, that in many European countries, Bernie would be a fairly unremarkable center left politician.

I don't think Sanders is wrong. Other countries with universal health care do spend less for better care than we have here in the US. By that measure, Sanders is very level headed and not an extremist.

My issue with him is not recognizing you have to get from A to Z in steps. And he believes the way he's going to do it is by stirring up an army of voters. He imagines the social revolution a lot of us imagined in the 60s-70s. It's a pipe dream the way Sanders imagines it happening.

It can happen. But it will take steps and another generation of two of motivated young people getting old enough to vote. And with that, another generation or two of people like Mitch McConnell dying off.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think Sanders is wrong. Other countries with universal health care do spend less for better care than we have here in the US. By that measure, Sanders is very level headed and not an extremist.

My issue with him is not recognizing you have to get from A to Z in steps. And he believes the way he's going to do it is by stirring up an army of voters. He imagines the social revolution a lot of us imagined in the 60s-70s. It's a pipe dream the way Sanders imagines it happening.

It can happen. But it will take steps and another generation of two of motivated young people getting old enough to vote. And with that, another generation or two of people like Mitch McConnell dying off.

You make it sound like the activism of the 60's was a naive failure.

The CRA acts was a political triumph and only happened because activists refused to accept "it's just not reasonable" as an answer to their demands.

Efforts to end segregation were widely considered radical and the activists pushing for change were seen unfavorably by many. Centrists insisting on orderliness and unity aren't capable of achieving the things that these "pipe dreamers" can.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/21/martin-luther-king-jr-day-legacy-radical

 

[JoeMorgue]

You make it sound like the activism of the 60's was a naive failure.

Well... yeah. Because it was.

But again, and every time I bring this up people stare at me like I just tried to explain string theory to a dog, the reason major social programs work in other countries and not in America is that in other countries there isn't a sizable, demographically significant percentage of the population who doesn't want them to work.

The same force fighting the social program in America are the same ones that are going to make it sure it doesn't work when it happens.

"America is the only industrialized nation without so and so" as if this is some grand mystery when the answer is always "Because America is the only industrialized nation that doesn't want it."

 

[Belz...]

every time I bring this up people stare at me like I just tried to explain string theory to a dog

 

[Bob001]

It may be worth noting, again, that in many European countries, Bernie would be a fairly unremarkable center left politician.

Forget Europe. Sanders is a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. He only looks like a "socialist" because both parties have moved so far to the right. Public college used to be cheap, sometimes free. Universal health insurance has been discussed pretty much since Medicare was created; Nixon proposed a plan in 1973 that he couldn't get through Congress. When Nixon left office the top marginal tax rate was 70%; Reagan managed to cut it to 28%, which certainly contributed to our massive wealth and income inequality more than anything else. Far more people belonged to labor unions, which had stronger legal protections than today. Etc.

I don't know why Sanders insists on calling himself a socialist, except to separate himself from the right-wing corporatists that the Democratic Party has become. He would have been a middle-of-the-road D not long ago.

 

[Bob001]

.....
"America is the only industrialized nation without so and so" as if this is some grand mystery when the answer is always "Because America is the only industrialized nation that doesn't want it."

Who do you mean by "America?" Polls consistently show that a large majority of Americans support universal health insurance in one form or another, cheaper college, tougher gun laws, legal abortion, higher taxes on the wealthy, a higher minimum wage, etc., etc. The forces that oppose such policies promote their own interests very aggressively, but I don't see the NRA, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the Kochs etc. as "America."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Sit-ins at lunch counters were once signs of the apocalypse and the Freedom Riders the four horsemen.

On balance, I think the radicalism of the 60s won by a hefty margin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You make it sound like the activism of the 60's was a naive failure.

The CRA acts was a political triumph and only happened because activists refused to accept "it's just not reasonable" as an answer to their demands.

Efforts to end segregation were widely considered radical and the activists pushing for change were seen unfavorably by many. Centrists insisting on orderliness and unity aren't capable of achieving the things that these "pipe dreamers" can.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/21/martin-luther-king-jr-day-legacy-radical

You are using different criteria for Bernie's revolution than I am.

Yes, we got a lot of things with an incredible social upheaval.

What we did not get was an army of voters changing the country under a charismatic leader. The things we got took steps to get there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well... yeah. Because it was.

But again, and every time I bring this up people stare at me like I just tried to explain string theory to a dog, the reason major social programs work in other countries and not in America is that in other countries there isn't a sizable, demographically significant percentage of the population who doesn't want them to work. ...

That's crap. What is stopping the US getting universal health care are the big corporations and their lobbyists that don't want to give up huge profits.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sit-ins at lunch counters were once signs of the apocalypse and the Freedom Riders the four horsemen.

On balance, I think the radicalism of the 60s won by a hefty margin.

And yet we still have a government controlled by the wealthy and the gap between rich and poor has gone beyond tolerable.

 

[Mumbles]

Sit-ins at lunch counters were once signs of the apocalypse and the Freedom Riders the four horsemen.

On balance, I think the radicalism of the 60s won by a hefty margin.

Depends on which part. The Civil Rights movement was certainly a roaring success, in part because they specifically addressed and rejected the entire "You need to wait, you're going too fast!" argument. Other 60s movements...not so much.