2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Yeah, down with people who are willing to compromise!
Click to expand...

Ezra Klein recently gave the best case scenario for the compromise strategy. Biden wanted to do the tax Haven repatriation for an infrastructure bill. Obama economists hated it. Instead, we got repatriation for tax cuts.

Irons do not stay hot forever.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah, down with people who are willing to compromise!
Click to expand...

I mean, you already have murmurs from establishment dems that they won't support Bernie if he wins.

Party unity is only important the them when it means that the progressive wing capitulates to the centrists.
 
theprestige said:
What's the context of this?
Click to expand...

Corporate media types constantly trying to turn getting mocked on social media as some kind of fatal flaw of the Bernie campaign.

Trashing people like David Frum or Jennifer Rubin every time they publish some stupid think piece is not only acceptable, but highly desirable.

Mainstream media is very much unpopular and untrusted. They will do anything to not have to actually address the issues that Bernie is pushing for and that make him such a popular figure. Bernie's refusal to kowtow to these ghouls is a positive.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Corporate media types constantly trying to turn getting mocked on social media as some kind of fatal flaw of the Bernie campaign.

Trashing people like David Frum or Jennifer Rubin every time they publish some stupid think piece is not only acceptable, but highly desirable.

Mainstream media is very much unpopular and untrusted. They will do anything to not have to actually address the issues that Bernie is pushing for and that make him such a popular figure. Bernie's refusal to kowtow to these ghouls is a positive.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Let me see if I understand:

David Frum* is "a New York Times columnist who makes seven figures." Frum wrote a "stupid think piece" criticizing Sanders as a candidate. Sanders' supporters responded with an aggressive social media harassment campaign against Frum.

Following this, Frum published another stupid think piece, this time arguing that Sanders is a bad candidate for office because of how badly his supporters behave whenever he is criticized.

Jordan Uhl is a Sanders supporter and campaign worker. He is joking about telling people that they will not benefit from Sanders' proposals because Frum and his ilk are actively working to undermine his candidacy, because they can't handle a some online harassment (which they deserve).

Is that about right?

---
*For example.
 
theprestige said:
Interesting. Let me see if I understand:

David Frum* is "a New York Times columnist who makes seven figures." Frum wrote a "stupid think piece" criticizing Sanders as a candidate. Sanders' supporters responded with an aggressive social media harassment campaign against Frum.

Following this, Frum published another stupid think piece, this time arguing that Sanders is a bad candidate for office because of how badly his supporters behave whenever he is criticized.

Jordan Uhl is a Sanders supporter and campaign worker. He is joking about telling people that they will not benefit from Sanders' proposals because Frum and his ilk are actively working to undermine his candidacy, because they can't handle a some online harassment (which they deserve).

Is that about right?

---
*For example.
Click to expand...

Seems about right to me. Not sure what Jordan's relationship to Sander's campaign is. He's obviously a supporter, and he does political work, but not sure if he is actually employed or volunteering for Sanders in any meaningful role.

He has a history of covering media and is probably best known for leading the campaign to shame companies for advertising on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox.
 
Is there even the beginning of talk about anyone's preferred running mate?

What are the odds we see any of the major players currently on the field now as the VP on the ticket of whoever finally gets the nomination?

I mean let's not forget we are only 3 and a half years out from a Sanders/Warren ticket.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Fauxcahontas, the New York Times endorsed candidate for POTUS, wants to criminalize providing disinformation online to sway elections. I think this will lock up the fascist vote for her, although it may be too little too late to save her collapsing campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rmation-plan-criminalizing-free-speech-online
Click to expand...
This forum is ostensibly a place where skeptics debate topics based on critical thinking. Yes, even the politics section. It's not the Sean Hannity forum, where foisting abject rubbish is the norm.

My comment would be no less appropro had I posted this comment in reply to most any of your posts.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Is there even the beginning of talk about anyone's preferred running mate?

What are the odds we see any of the major players currently on the field now as the VP on the ticket of whoever finally gets the nomination?

I mean let's not forget we are only 3 and a half years out from a Sanders/Warren ticket.
Click to expand...
Depends upon who gets the top of the ticket.

If Sanders lands the top spot then the Democrats are proclaiming that we think the full left leaning push can get us the White House. In which case it makes little sense to pair him with a moderate running mate since his presence at the top will be so off-putting to the segments of undecided voters we might claim from a more moderate seeming candidate that we might as well write them off and try to find that "lost tribe" that is so often referenced here., and who knows?, going full left might do it, so how about Ocasio-Cortez.

If we get Biden (who has already indicated that he will likely only serve one term) I think a more progressive, energetic, and female running mate would appeal as a kind of "sleeper" candidate. Warren would make a good second for that ticket.

Steyer, or Bloomberg, at the top and we could use someone with some military credibility to balance out their billionaire-hood. I am partial to Joe Sestak, coming from Pennsylvania.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think the whole "electability" conversation gives way too much credence to the predictions of these dip-**** pundits that so effectively demonstrated their worthlessness in 2016.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the idea that a centrist has a better chance at winning isn't just because "This is what the pundits say". There have been studies done that show that moderate candidates do better than extremists at elections. (This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, and even a 'far left' candidate line Sanders does have a chance at defeating Trump... it would just mean Sanders would be bucking statistical trends.)

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty

Now, I assume a lot of people are thinking "Trump was a right-wing extremist, and he won in 2016". But the thing is, that is actually wrong.

Now, I am not saying Trump was a good candidate. He is a liar, a con-man, and a racist. But, consider what he was campaigning on: He claimed he was against Iraq and Libyan military actions. (It was a lie, but that's still what he claimed). He said he would protect gay rights (even holding up an LGBTQ rainbow flag at a public event). He said because he was rich he knew tax loopholes and would be able to close them. (Which sounds a little like "get the rich to pay more".) He was going to bring in 'better health care' (even though he didn't actually have a plan for it). And he wasn't going to touch social security. Again, much of it was lies, but to a gullible person, he sounded pretty moderate.

Compare him to other republican politicians at the time, folks like: Paul "privatize social securty" Ryan, or Rick "homosexuality is like beastiality" Santorum, or Ted "I'm voting against hurricane aid" Cruz. I would put Trump to the 'left' of the Republican party (according to his 2016 policies).
He can attack Trump's support because his policies speak directly and forcefully to the grievances of the stagnating working classes.
Click to expand...
Except of course some of his policies seem to be rejected by that same working class.

Its all well and could to claim how those "working classes" will benefit under Sanders, but if those same people are rejecting your message right off the bat, you've certainly dug yourself into a hole early on.
Bernie has no "Wall Street speaking fees" scandal. He has no "my kid has do-nothing jobs related to industries I regulate" scandals. He has no "my criminal family is monetizing public service" scandal.
Click to expand...
You're right, he doesn't have any of those scandals.

Instead, he has the "I stole from my neighbors" scandal. And the "I'll ship radioactive waste through minority communities" scandal (or, as the republicans will probably label it, "environmental racism".) And the "women enjoy rape don't they?" scandal (which, admittedly does have a reasonable explanation, but it will still be fodder for the republicans). And the "I went to a 'death-to-america rally' and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" scandal. And the "I honey-mooned in Moscow" scandal. And the "I called MYSELF a socialist" scandal.

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/
 
When ever we talk "electability" I think we tend to assume people put a lot more thought into who they are going to vote for then they do.

People vote for who "feels" right more then they site down and intellectually ways the pros and cons of candidates.

You can't remove the "sell" from politics or villify the people who want it to be a factor.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Not accepting donations from billionaires and being beholden to their benefit over ordinary working people is a big deal.
Click to expand...
And it sounds really good too...

Until of course you're in the middle of an election campaign, and the Republicans are spending hundreds of millions to prop up Trump and the rest of the republicans through TV ads, targeted research, etc., and Sanders is trying to beg for couch change to put fuel in the Sanders campaign bus.

Yes, it would be wonderful if money were removed from elections. Yes, it would be great if SuperPACS were no longer a big thing in elections. But until that happens, candidates do have to worry about funding.
 
Problem is, while 100% true, that leaves us forever at the "We have to fix the elections... but not this time because the elections are too important to lose" repeated forever stage.
 
Cabbage said:
Something you might want to consider: The republicans are very effective at winning elections (more so than the Democrats). Even as their main voter base shrinks, they still manage to pull off election victories. Now, in 2016 the republicans were largely silent on Sanders during the primaries, saving most of their attacks for Clinton. (Yes, she was the frontrunner, but Sanders was still competitive). In the 2020 elections, again the republicans seem to be treating Sanders with kid gloves. (After all, it was Biden that Trump tried to smear via Ukraine.) Why do you think that is? Do you think the republicans are somehow being generous? Or, do you think its more likely that they too see Sanders as more vulnerable and are hoping he becomes the candidate?
Click to expand...
I don't find any of that particularly meaningful.
Click to expand...
I see... so you're taking all the evidence I collected, all the references I provided, and you're just dismissing it with a mighty hand wave.

Nice.
I will just repeat what I said previously:
Just a few days ago this came out:

'The Only One I Didn't Want Her to Pick': In Secret Recording, Trump Admits Fear of Clinton Picking Sanders as VP in 2016
Click to expand...
The dynamics of a Clinton/Sanders ticket in 2016 would have been completely different than a Sanders/(whomever) ticket. Being concerned about Sanders in a VP position doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred him to be the presidental candidate.

Yes, Trump may have had more trouble against Clinton/Sanders than Clinton/Kaine, but that probably had more to do with the Democrats providing a more unified front. The Democrats wouldn't have had the same split that they did, yet Sander's policies would not have been front-and-center.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom