2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[xjx388]

No, it's not the same as just competing.

Of course it is. Sanders has been in the Senate forever and hasn't been able to get any of his ideas through Congress. Why do you think that is? Because voters have put other people in Congress who have competing intrests. Like McConnell. Like all the other congresscritters (notably, his friends in the Democratic Party) who don't support Sanders' ideas. Voters throughout the nation have not put enough other people who agree with Sanders in Congress. He may not be completely alone but he doesn't have anywhere near enough support to get much of anything done.

There are instances of Republicans withdrawing support from their own bills they introduced (once Obama supported them). That's not competing, that's just hyperpartisan-I-refuse-to-compromise-with-anyone obstruction.

Which has nothing to do with Bernie and bills he has introduced. He can't even get the Dem establishment to pass them out of comittee.

And I would argue that it is competing. You may not like the tactics, but it's still competing interests vying for dominance.

Competing is when both parties engage in good faith efforts to legislate for the betterment of the country. That is not what today's GOP is about, at all.

Ha! Good one!

That's not what USA Politics is about and it hasn't been for a very long time.

For your first part, please note your own goal post move: Your original comment was:

If Sanders had been successful at builing a nationwide coalition of voters who want the same things he wants, there would be no Mitch McConnell to contend with.

I continue to claim he has.

Yes, you do; but, I think you are wrong. If Sanders had built a coalition of voters throughout the nation who elected like-minded congresscritters, he would have an easier time contending with Mitch McConnell's competing interests.

You have now shifted to:

Therefore, Bernie has not been successful, in his long career as a politician, in advancing his agenda.

That's not a shift, it's the direct consequence.

Bernie hasn't inspired the country to elect congresspeople like him; therefore, he hasn't been able to get anything done.

 

[dudalb]

No, it's a sign that he's been running for Senate for about 40 years and his speech is on autopilot. See - I can mind-read and remote diagnose too!

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[dudalb]

Of course it is. Sanders has been in the Senate forever and hasn't been able to get any of his ideas through Congress. Why do you think that is? Because voters have put other people in Congress who have competing intrests. Like McConnell. Like all the other congresscritters (notably, his friends in the Democratic Party) who don't support Sanders' ideas. Voters throughout the nation have not put enough other people who agree with Sanders in Congress. He may not be completely alone but he doesn't have anywhere near enough support to get much of anything done. Which has nothing to do with Bernie and bills he has introduced. He can't even get the Dem establishment to pass them out of comittee.

And I would argue that it is competing. You may not like the tactics, but it's still competing interests vying for dominance.

Ha! Good one!

That's not what USA Politics is about and it hasn't been for a very long time.

Yes. If Sanders had built a coalition of voters throughout the nation who elected like-minded congresscritters, he would have an easier time contending with Mitch McConnell's competing interests.


That's not a shift, it's the direct consequence.

Bernie hasn't inspired the country to elect congresspeople like him; therefore, he hasn't been able to get anything done.

I think some of the Bernie Bros are having problems dealint with the reality that the progressive/left wing vote was not nearly as big as they though it was.
Surprise. Thw Lost Tribe theory of politics does not work again.

 

[Cabbage]

Just more proof you never really understood American Politics and American voters.
Hint: They were nowhere near as far to the left as you thought.

I don't think your hint is justified based on this. Other factors, such as media bias, absolutely play a role. It's not the simple left/right issue your hint makes it out to be.

 

[Cabbage]

Of course it is.

Sorry, but nope. It's not. I think it's an abuse of the system. We've got several years of Mitch McConnell refusing to allow things through just to keep Obama from having a legislative victory, at the expense of the country. That's not competition, that's corruption.

Sanders has been in the Senate forever and hasn't been able to get any of his ideas through Congress. Why do you think that is? Because voters have put other people in Congress who have competing intrests. Like McConnell....

....and his abuse of the system, yes.

Like all the other congresscritters (notably, his friends in the Democratic Party) who don't support Sanders' ideas. Voters throughout the nation have not put enough other people who agree with Sanders in Congress. He may not be completely alone but he doesn't have anywhere near enough support to get much of anything done. Which has nothing to do with Bernie and bills he has introduced. He can't even get the Dem establishment to pass them out of comittee.

And I would argue that it is competing. You may not like the tactics, but it's still competing interests vying for dominance.

And I claim you are wrong.

Ha! Good one!

That's not what USA Politics is about and it hasn't been for a very long time.

Not to the extremes of the GOP. Find me a prior example of the leader of the Senate refusing a hearing to a Supreme Court Justice nominee, for example. No, it's not what it's been about for a very long time. This is new, and you're in denial over it.

Yes, you do; but, I think you are wrong. If Sanders had built a coalition of voters throughout the nation who elected like-minded congresscritters, he would have an easier time contending with Mitch McConnell's competing interests.

No, you are wrong. You're ignoring the national coalition based on Fox News and right wing propaganda/Lies. In your argument you simply dismiss that as if it is a nonfactor. It quite obviously is not. What you are arguing is analogous to stealing the gasoline from a man's car and then mocking him because he has to walk to work every morning. It's not Sander's fault if he hasn't been able to break through that wall of ignorance; a lot in that coalition simply refuse to listen to anyone other than right wing propaganda approved sources.

That's not a shift, it's the direct consequence.

No, it's a shift. You can build a national coalition and still have your agenda blocked by other national coalitions. You're confusing two very different things here.

Bernie hasn't inspired the country to elect congresspeople like him; therefore, he hasn't been able to get anything done.

...and that's not Bernie's fault.

QED.

 

[Cabbage]

I think some of the Bernie Bros are having problems dealint with the reality that the progressive/left wing vote was not nearly as big as they though it was.
Surprise. Thw Lost Tribe theory of politics does not work again.

That has nothing to do with the argument. I think you're having problems with your own hyperbias.

 

[dudalb]

Let's blame everybody but Bernie for what happened last night.
That Bernie flubbed it when it came to appealing to people outside his progressive base is simply unthinkable..

 

[Sideroxylon]

Just more proof you never really understood American Politics and American voters.
Hint: They were nowhere near as far to the left as you thought.

As stupid and selfish among the boomers as I thought though. Will laugh mercilessly if you re-elect Trump.

 

[xjx388]

Sorry, but nope. It's not. I think it's an abuse of the system. We've got several years of Mitch McConnell refusing to allow things through just to keep Obama from having a legislative victory, at the expense of the country. That's not competition, that's corruption.

Did Mitch do anything illegal? No? You mean he used the rules of institution to block legislation? Oh, so it was competition after all.

Oh well, you see your way and I see it mine. And we both see it slipping away . . .

...and his abuse of the system, yes.

That implies he cheated or something. Did he? No? Your hyperbole is easily dismissed. Do we really need to rehash American political history to show all the instances of various politicians blocking legislation?

What about all that legislation Bernie couldn't even get his friends in the Democratic Party to seriously consider? Is that Mitch's fault too? Oh no . . . that's Fox News' and ignorant voters' fault somehow . . .

And I claim you are wrong.

And that's ok. We aren't likely to agree on this.

Not to the extremes of the GOP. Find me a prior example of the leader of the Senate refusing a hearing to a Supreme Court Justice nominee, for example. No, it's not what it's been about for a very long time. This is new, and you're in denial over it.

Oh sure, nominations have never ever been blocked before in history. So new.

No, you are wrong. You're ignoring the national coalition based on Fox News and right wing propaganda/Lies.

And that's different from the "competing interests" idea . . . how, exactly?

In your argument you simply dismiss that as if it is a nonfactor. It quite obviously is not. What you are arguing is analogous to stealing the gasoline from a man's car and then mocking him because he has to walk to work every morning.

Bad analogy.

It's not Sander's fault if he hasn't been able to break through that wall of ignorance; a lot in that coalition simply refuse to listen to anyone other than right wing propaganda approved sources.

Of course, it's never Sanders' fault! It's all the stupid people who won't listen to him! We would all have free healthcare, college, ponies and 3 chickens in our pots if only everyone else wasn't so damned ignorant.

No, it's a shift. You can build a national coalition and still have your agenda blocked by other national coalitions. You're confusing two very different things here.

I don't think I'm the one confusing anything. You are saying exactly what I'm saying: Bernie has not been able to build a national coalition representing progressive interests that is strong enough to outcompete other interests. Agreed?

...and that's not Bernie's fault.

QED.

It's not Bernie's fault that other people don't agree with him. This is true. But it's also not other people's fault that they don't agree with him. They simply have different interests.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn’t in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day Pocahontas won’t go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time great SPOILER!

He's of course exactly right, and I have been baffled for quite some time that "progressives" bought her shtick, with her complete fake history. I called it a long time ago that the "Pocahontas" nickname actually finished her.

Each day she will refuse to step aside will be testimony to how fake she is.

 

[Robin]

OK, so he said "“My name is Joe Biden, I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate”.

That is the kind of verbal slip up I have been making all my life, even at a time that I was getting distinctions and high distinctions in a university maths course.

So what?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Just a bit earlier:

So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn’t!

 

[xjx388]

OK, so he said "“My name is Joe Biden, I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate”.

That is the kind of verbal slip up I have been making all my life, even at a time that I was getting distinctions and high distinctions in a university maths course.

So what?

Well, yeah. But in some politicians, this is a sign of dangerous mental illness. In others it's nothing to worry about.

 

[Distracted1]

Let's blame everybody but Bernie for what happened last night.
That Bernie flubbed it when it came to appealing to people outside his progressive base is simply unthinkable..

I think you are making a similar mistake to that which you are accusing others.

A good deal of Sanders' loss Yesterday was because he is seen as having less of a chance of defeating Trump than Biden has. It was not entirely because his overall politics don't enjoy broad popular support.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Let's blame everybody but Bernie for what happened last night.
That Bernie flubbed it when it came to appealing to people outside his progressive base is simply unthinkable..

You make it sound like it was a resounding defeat for Bernie.

This is very much a close, contested race.

 

[tyr_13]

Damn it. My state's primary is next Tuesday. I wanted to get a chance to vote for a candidate I actually like at least once!

Oof, same. Except my state's is in April I think.

I've never had a candidate I actually agreed with both policy and temperament wise as her. It was great to be able to actually see not only what policies she supported, but why, and what it would take for her to change. On top of that, she was willing to be pragmatic. Her answer on if she would have signed the ACA if it were her choice at the time seriously impressed me.

 

[xjx388]

I think you are making a similar mistake to that which you are accusing others.

A good deal of Sanders' loss Yesterday was because he is seen as having less of a chance of defeating Trump than Biden has not because his overall politics don't enjoy broad popular support.

I guess it would depend on how you define "broad popular support." It's obviously not been broad and popular enough to get people all over the country to elect congressmembers who agree with his politics. There aren't even viable candidates in most parts of the country who run on a platflorm similar to his.

And why exactly is he viewed as having less of a chance of defeating Trump? Probably because of his politics.

 

[Robin]

He's of course exactly right, and I have been baffled for quite some time that "progressives" bought her shtick, with her complete fake history. I called it a long time ago that the "Pocahontas" nickname actually finished her.

Sure.

If you are a guy you can sleep with a prostitute while your wife is heavily pregnant with your child, try to buy the prostitute off, get into live televised arguments with people about the size of your penis, make remarks about how being powerful allows you to commit sexual abuse and you are super-duper Presidential material.

If you are a woman and you remark that you have some native American blood - you are finished.

 

[tyr_13]

No, it's a sign that he's been running for Senate for about 40 years and his speech is on autopilot. See - I can mind-read and remote diagnose too!

He just needs to remember to take his covfefe on time to keep his windmill cancer from acting up, keeping him a very stable genius like the totally sane precedent.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You make it sound like it was a resounding defeat for Bernie.

This is very much a close, contested race.

It isn't anymore, and it should be obvious. Labeled by the most clownish of the shills, the fringe of the fringe predicted it before "Super Tuesday" and now we are there, in "Super Fake" territory.