2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Started a bank" is supposed to be something a progressive would do? "I've bred a new parasite, it's young so it'll only bleed the victim a little!"

I would expect actual progressives to know what a credit union is and why it's preferable to a bank.

I haven't heard much about Steyer until now. I'll observe him better when he's a fine layer of dust coating Warren's chariot wheels.

Way to draw false conclusions on no evidence.

 

[Cabbage]

Because usually, when I just ask, people find ways to avoid providing quotes. I'm glad my specific wording brought about the expected result.



However, the quote is not equivalent in any way to what you claimed. Dudalb is saying Bernie would lose. He said nothing about his popularity among progressives. I think you're just adding connections and implications where none exist.

Oh really? You think he has some other reason to believe Sanders would lose?

No matter, he makes his reasoning clear in other posts. For example:

I forgot.
Which makes it important who the Dems nominate. They c annot afford to mess up the way Labor in the UK did.

I think some people here really want to read everybody out of the Democratic party who is not a "Progressive".
Sort of a Bizarro version of the Tea Party.

Honestly, if you don't see that I'm right it's because you haven't been paying attention to dudalb.


ETA: And here's another one:

I know I am going to get hell for saying this but..the behavior of some..not all...of the Bernie Bros is pretty similar to that of the Trump supporters: a incredible ability to live in their own reality.

 

[Cabbage]

Isn't Biden also?

Yes. How is that relevant to whether Sanders can beat Trump or not?

Hint: It's not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may shock you to learn that progressives are not interested in libertarian, free-market solutions to the problems of extreme poverty.

Progressives believe that the conditions that lead to people being so poor that the agree to absurdly predatory loan terms should not exist in a wealthy society. They further believe that people enriching themselves on the backs of desperate impoverished people are parasites.

Great. You and Belz too.

Shows how easy it is for corporations to make a threat like Steyer look bad.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Way to draw false conclusions on no evidence.

Having a negative opinion of banks isn't "drawing a conclusion". Rolleyes, rolleyes, rolleyes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed. It really seems like the race is going to come down to Bernie vs the corporate democrats, and the corporate democrats are splitting their votes among several candidates.

Bernie's voting base is rock solid. It's hard to imagine large numbers of his supporters defecting to another candidate. Meanwhile, the corporate field is split among several candidates, and supporters move from one to another as their star rises and falls.

This is where the DNC rat-**** may come into play. I could easily see Bernie coming into the convention with a large plurality, but still get brokered out of the nomination.

So you put Warren in the same category as Biden?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having a negative opinion of banks isn't "drawing a conclusion". Rolleyes, rolleyes, rolleyes.

Yeah it is. I'll get back to this when I catch up on the thread.

 

[Belz...]

Oh really? You think he has some other reason to believe Sanders would lose?

Yes. He's stated the reasons already, and I've already made that clear in posts prior to this one. "Bernie will lose because he's too far to the left and will alienate moderate voters", regardless of truth value, is not the same as "Bernie will lose because he's popular with progressive voters." In fact, the two are barely related.

No matter, he makes his reasoning clear in other posts. For example:

Same comment. In fact the last quote of your post is so completely unrelated to your claim that I fail to see how you could possibly think it would support it.

Honestly, if you don't see that I'm right it's because you haven't been paying attention to dudalb.

No, it's because you're wrong. I've already explained to you why and every post you quote from dudalb just reinforces what I said.

Yes. How is that relevant to whether Sanders can beat Trump or not?

Hint: It's not.

I was just asking for information. No need to take everything as a ******* challenge to your ego.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bernie had better be careful if he goes to Montana.

Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot

Shows you how effective demonizing Sanders is working.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah it is. I'll get back to this when I catch up on the thread.

Don't bother, I'm not interested in trying to convert the corporatist shill wing of the Democratic Party.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Speaking of people not being real Democrats.

Mike Bloomberg spent two terms in as the Republican mayor of NYC. He hosted the RNC conference in the city and spoke in favor of Bush and the disastrous war.

In 2016 Bloomberg gave nearly 12 million to incumbent Republican Senator Pat Toomey, one of the largest contributions to a senate race in history. Toomey won a narrow victory over the Democratic challenger and likely owes his success to Bloomberg.

Recall that McConnell holds a majority in the senate by 3 seats, one of which can practically be directly credited to Bloomberg. Toomey voted to confirm Kavanaugh, tilting the SCOTUS to the right for a generation. Toomey also voted no to calling more witnesses in the impeachment trial.

The DNC is bending over backwards to allow Bloomberg to participate in the debates.

 

[Belz...]

Great. You and Belz too.

Shows how easy it is for corporations to make a threat look bad.

Why the hell are you dragging me into this?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Absolutely insane. Should be removed from office.

We're trying unsuccessfully to get the white supremacist evangelical out of office in Eastern WA. He's been kicked out of the GOP caucus, that's how bad he is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Speaking of people not being real Democrats.

Mike Bloomberg spent two terms in as the Republican mayor of NYC. He hosted the RNC conference in the city and spoke in favor of Bush and the disastrous war.

In 2016 Bloomberg gave nearly 12 million to incumbent Republican Senator Pat Toomey, one of the largest contributions to a senate race in history. Toomey won a narrow victory over the Democratic challenger and likely owes his success to Bloomberg.

Recall that McConnell holds a majority in the senate by 3 seats, one of which can practically be directly credited to Bloomberg. Toomey voted to confirm Kavanaugh, tilting the SCOTUS to the right for a generation. Toomey also voted no to calling more witnesses in the impeachment trial.

The DNC is bending over backwards to allow Bloomberg to participate in the debates.

Jesus goddamn Christ then start your party.

Don't demand the DNC genuflect for being corrupt in the same breathe you're demanding your candidate get a ride on its coat tails.

How about this. Do you think Bernie can beat Trump running as independent? No? Didn't think so.

Maybe they are more open to Bloomberg then Bernie because Bloomberg and his supporters don't whine all the time about how corrupt they are.

"Jeez you corrupt Dems, why are you giving my guy a chance to be in your club?"

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So you put Warren in the same category as Biden?

I see Warren as trying to straddle the line between the progressive and centrist wings of the party, to very poor success. She's a mixed bag of ideology that doesn't really seem to be anyone's first choice, and her sagging support seems to show it.

 

[varwoche]

What does any of this have to do with electability? My point is that I suspect these attacks of being unelectable are bad faith. These centrists just don't like Bernie and oppose his politics. That's fine, but dressing that up as "unelectable" is disingenuous.

While I don't self-identify as a centrist (nor anything else for that matter), and while I can't speak for others of course, this is flat out false in my case.

That said, he impresses me as a rigid ideologue. I'm not a fan of that, even when I agree with the policy positions.

 

[Cabbage]

Yes. He's stated the reasons already, and I've already made that clear in posts prior to this one. "Bernie will lose because he's too far to the left and will alienate moderate voters", regardless of truth value, is not the same as "Bernie will lose because he's popular with progressive voters." In fact, the two are barely related.

They are the same when people like dudalb think progressive voters are supporting someone so far left that they will alienate moderate voters.

Which he clearly does think.

I was just asking for information. No need to take everything as a ******* challenge to your ego.

And I was simply pointing out it was irrelevant. Sorry if pointing that out hurt your feelings.

 

[Belz...]

I see Warren as trying to straddle the line between the progressive and centrist wings of the party, to very poor success. She's a mixed bag of ideology that doesn't really seem to be anyone's first choice, and her sagging support seems to show it.

That's unfortunate. I rather like her and her political history.

It really looks like it's going to be either Biden or Sanders. I'd prefer Sanders to Biden, but I'm not sure he'd be a great president, as opposed to a good congresscritter. Hell, I'm not even sure he can win.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Jesus goddamn Christ then start your party.

Don't demand the DNC genuflect for being corrupt in the same breathe you're demanding your candidate get a ride on its coat tails.

How about this. Do you think Bernie can beat Trump running as independent? No? Didn't think so.

Maybe they are more open to Bloomberg then Bernie because Bloomberg and his supporters don't whine all the time about how corrupt they are.

"Jeez you corrupt Dems, why are you giving my guy a chance to be in your club?"

Nobody wants Bernie to run third party. Well, Trump would, because it would practically guarantee re-election. Bernie has support independent of Democratic machine, and that drives them crazy. But they can't get rid of him without alienating a large portion of their electorate.

 

[Belz...]

They are the same when people like dudalb think progressive voters are supporting someone so far left that they will alienate moderate voters.

Which he clearly does think.

Even allowing for that, he still never said or implied what you claimed. You're drawing an inference that one leads to the other, but your accusation has not been substantiated. If you had said that dudalb's argument is effectively equivalent to this, I would not have challenged. But you said that he has said this, when he has not.

And I was simply pointing out it was irrelevant. Sorry if pointing that out hurt your feelings.

No feelings hurt. I just don't understand why you seem to view every question as some sort of challenge to a duel.