2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
If you're happy with President Trump in 2020 because "You voted your heart and that's all that matters" so be it, nobody can stop you.
Click to expand...


Ideological purity at the expense of all else makes no more sense on the left then it does on the right.

And I think that "Nobody involved with law enforcement should be POTUS" is just about the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. Really.
And anybody who says that is living in another reality.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Fear mongering implies trying to push people's panic buttons over danger that isn't there. But in this case, the danger is real...

- The 2016 election was extremely tight, and the difference came down to only a few thousand votes in a couple of states.

- Trump is an extremely disgusting individual.

Like it or not, the U.S. is for the most part a 2 party state, and a failure to vote for one candidate helps the election changes of the other candidate. With that in mind, the ability of a candidate to win needs to be addressed.

If the republican candidate were (for example) Romney or McCain, it might be understandable for a democratic voter to pick someone based on lofty principles. After all, if your preferred democratic candidate ends up losing the general election, at least you still end up with a competent person as president (even if they don't share your principles). Trump changes everything. He needs to be removed, even if it means you end up picking a candidate you're not totally happy about just because he has a better chance at winning. Whatever 'lofty principles' you have should be second to the lofty principle of "Do I really want this country to go down the toilet".
Click to expand...

100% right, but we are dealing with a "If facts get in way of my political beliefs, facts must be disposed of" attitude.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Nice! Exactly. That is the fear/ fear mongering that I am talking about. The fear that boxes people into voting for mediocre politicians who perpetuate an injust and broken system, abandong any striving for the nations lofty founding ideals.
Click to expand...
My response is not aimed at you or Joe, just a general observation. There is a process for choosing a Democratic nominee. I'm content to watch it play out without a bunch of infighting that could hurt the party's chances in November. This Bernie debate seems pointless to me. I know this is largely just an intellectual exercise but these games do have a cumulative effect. The recent kerfuffle between Warren and Sanders is an example of what I don't want to see. But then that is also part of the process, so if I say "trust the process" I kind of have to accept it. Agreeing in principle to move forward with UHC seems more important to me than competing to see who has the most progressive version. I don't see Sanders' fiery rhetoric helping him win a general election but I could be wong. I also don't see how his idealism helps get policies passed if we ever get to the point of bipartisan deal-making to address the country's problems.

ETA I can't fix the embarrassed smiley. It was a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Nice! Exactly. That is the fear/ fear mongering that I am talking about. The fear that boxes people into voting for mediocre politicians who perpetuate an injust and broken system, abandong any striving for the nations lofty founding ideals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and what just happened in the UK shows what happens if you put political purity above all else.
 
dudalb said:
Yeah, and what just happened in the UK shows what happens if you put political purity above all else.
Click to expand...

“Political purity.” The hyperbolic reframing of other people’s statements never stops around here, does it.

Enlightenment ideals of truth, justice and liberty are dead. Lofty goals and principles are dead. The postmodern world is here.
 
dudalb said:
Ideological purity at the expense of all else makes no more sense on the left then it does on the right.

And I think that "Nobody involved with law enforcement should be POTUS" is just about the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. Really.
And anybody who says that is living in another reality.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a good thing I'm not the dictator of the Democratic party. I am happy to see that DA's are suffering political consequences for their reckless administration of justice. Maybe they'll think twice before they railroad someone into a life sentence.
 
Minoosh said:
My response is not aimed at you or Joe, just a general observation. There is a process for choosing a Democratic nominee. I'm content to watch it play out without a bunch of infighting that could hurt the party's chances in November. This Bernie debate seems pointless to me. I know this is largely just an intellectual exercise but these games do have a cumulative effect. The recent kerfuffle between Warren and Sanders is an example of what I don't want to see. But then that is also part of the process, so if I say "trust the process" I kind of have to accept it. Agreeing in principle to move forward with UHC seems more important to me than competing to see who has the most progressive version. I don't see Sanders' fiery rhetoric helping him win a general election but I could be wong. I also don't see how his idealism helps get policies passed if we ever get to the point of bipartisan deal-making to address the country's problems.

ETA I can't fix the embarrassed smiley. It was a mistake.
Click to expand...

“Sanders firery rhetic” is just another on of these vague framing of perception that I am rallying against here. It’s a personal aesthetic view of how he presents. Its frustrating that on a board like this that this is how we are judging him.

Lets hope Americans dump this bunch of crooks in the Senate so Sanders can deliver on universal healthcare, student debt relief, liveable wages and winding back the obscene wealth gap between workers and the people who they work for.
 
Sideroxylon said:
“Sanders firery rhetic” is just another on of these vague framing of perception that I am rallying against here. It’s a personal aesthetic view of how he presents. Its frustrating that on a board like this that this is how we are judging him.

Lets hope Americans dump this bunch of crooks in the Senate so Sanders can deliver on universal healthcare, student debt relief, liveable wages and winding back the obscene wealth gap between workers and the people who they work for.
Click to expand...

You just don't get that most people in the US are not as left wing as you and Sanders are?
 
Segnosaur said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. I think perhaps you misunderstand my comment: I am not dismissing your evidence about how the opposition might use Sanders' trip to Russia, or the other one, about a protest where they were chanting "Death to America" or something like that (I don't have it in front of me so this is from memory). I simply didn't comment about that at all because I honestly have no idea what sort of dynamic it may play. Yes, it could hurt Sanders (see, I'm not dismissing it), but in my opinion I don't think it will hurt him that much. There's quite a level of outrage against the corpocracy establishment: I think a lot of voters can (indeed, already have) overlook many things in order to stick it to the establishment.

No, what I specifically dismissed is your claim that the Trump team seems to prefer Sanders because they (according to you) think he is the weaker opponent. Yes, I absolutely did and continue to dismiss that, for many reasons, some of which I've already mentioned in the previous post: For example, surely you've heard of bluffing before. Also, even if Team Trump truly does consider Sanders the weaker candidate: So? That doesn't mean they are objectively correct--Campaign Teams make mistakes. Indeed, it was reported in 2016 that Team Clinton preferred going against Trump (and I was told even pulled some strings to help him in the primary) because they thought he was the weaker candidate--Enough said about that, I should think.

Yes, I 100% stand by my claim that anyone's perception of who Team Trump thinks is the weaker candidate is entirely, 100% dismissable.


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.
Click to expand...



All of which I consider dismissable, as previously stated.
 
Never underestimate the Democratic party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Purity tests gave us Trump 1.0 and I won't be the least bit surprised to see them deliver Trump 2.0.

I wonder if a better strategy is to dilute the Trump vote by offering a feel-good, pro-life, non-Trump, legitimate Republican alternative. Is that Joe Walsh? It'd have to be a candidate to siphon away the Trump vote but not votes for the Democratic nominee.
 
Segnosaur said:
- Academic studies (i.e. not just 'pundits saying stuff') that suggests moderate candidates have more electoral success than extremists
Click to expand...


I don't really want to begin an endless back and forth of being For or Against Sanders with anyone, but I did want to question this particular bit of evidence you bring up:

Honestly, I know nothing more about your referenced academic studies than what you just posted. I have a question: What is the nature of the data that was used in these studies? I am assuming it is primarily past elections. In that case, I submit that the applicability of those studies to the 2020 election is very debatable: We are at a time of a general "Pissed Off-Ness" at the establishment, that suggests to me that moderate/extremist is not so much in play as is establishment/antiestablishment. The 2016 election itself is evidence of this.
 
The Shrike said:
Never underestimate the Democratic party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Purity tests gave us Trump 1.0 and I won't be the least bit surprised to see them deliver Trump 2.0.

I wonder if a better strategy is to dilute the Trump vote by offering a feel-good, pro-life, non-Trump, legitimate Republican alternative. Is that Joe Walsh? It'd have to be a candidate to siphon away the Trump vote but not votes for the Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...

What gets to me is wejust saw what Purity 1.0 gives you in the UK election.....
 
Segnosaur said:
Fear mongering implies trying to push people's panic buttons over danger that isn't there. But in this case, the danger is real...

- The 2016 election was extremely tight, and the difference came down to only a few thousand votes in a couple of states.

- Trump is an extremely disgusting individual.

Like it or not, the U.S. is for the most part a 2 party state, and a failure to vote for one candidate helps the election changes of the other candidate. With that in mind, the ability of a candidate to win needs to be addressed.

If the republican candidate were (for example) Romney or McCain, it might be understandable for a democratic voter to pick someone based on lofty principles. After all, if your preferred democratic candidate ends up losing the general election, at least you still end up with a competent person as president (even if they don't share your principles). Trump changes everything. He needs to be removed, even if it means you end up picking a candidate you're not totally happy about just because he has a better chance at winning. Whatever 'lofty principles' you have should be second to the lofty principle of "Do I really want this country to go down the toilet".
Click to expand...

His being unelectable is an opinion about a complex system (elections). It is too convenient an opinion for Bernies opponents to wield. It is an opinion here being presented as fact. You think you have it worked out? Put the house on it with your favourite betting agent.

The lofty principles are those of your founding fathers and the Enlightenment thinkers they were influenced by. The country is already in the toilet for many people and Biden’s mediocrity and pandering to his billionaire donors won’t be doing anything to fix it. This is not the American dream for all.
 
dudalb said:
What gets to me is wejust saw what Purity 1.0 gives you in the UK election.....
Click to expand...

Are Sanders policies all about purity? How about engaging with them instead of this dumb arse lazy reframing. These forums should be better than that.
 
dudalb said:
You just don't get that most people in the US are not as left wing as you and Sanders are?
Click to expand...

Him being “left wing” is more lazy dumb arse labeling/perception framing.

What do most people think about healthcare, crippling student debt, liveable wages, obscene wealth buying policy, the Walton family worth $140,000,000,000 while Walmart workers survive on food stamps? Sanders has plans to make America better for ordinary working Americans. But lets not have that discussion. Lets put him in a box labeled “extreme left, socialist, communist or Marxist.” Dumb politics is dumb. Who does this lack of engagement serve?
 
Sideroxylon said:
“Sanders firery rhetic” is just another on of these vague framing of perception that I am rallying against here. It’s a personal aesthetic view of how he presents. Its frustrating that on a board like this that this is how we are judging him.

Lets hope Americans dump this bunch of crooks in the Senate so Sanders can deliver on universal healthcare, student debt relief, liveable wages and winding back the obscene wealth gap between workers and the people who they work for.
Click to expand...
I like his rhetoric OK. On health care, I think his call to end private insurance might drive people away.

Sanders alone can't deliver what you propose. Does he have experience hammering out legislation and rounding up the votes to pass it?
 
Minoosh said:
I like his rhetoric OK. On health care, I think his call to end private insurance might drive people away.

Sanders alone can't deliver what you propose. Does he have experience hammering out legislation and rounding up the votes to pass it?
Click to expand...

He's going to make use of the bully pulpit like nothing we've ever seen.

Obama could not get a very moderate healthcare plan passed without several concessions to Republicans.

It's only going to get worse before it gets any better as long as Republicans control the Senate. Might as well step on the gas as President and pour on the pressure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom