Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-27-2020, 12:28 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
I'm in a Pennsylvania union, and have been a little shocked at the people I eventually find listening to Rush or otherwise living in a pro-Trump world.
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #202  
Old 02-27-2020, 12:33 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
I'm in a Pennsylvania union, and have been a little shocked at the people I eventually find listening to Rush or otherwise living in a pro-Trump world.
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #203  
Old 02-27-2020, 01:00 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I think that you think little of Black and Hispanic voters if you think their turnout is dependent on having someone of their identity as running mate.
You don't think there are Black and Hispanic low-engagement, low-information voters who need a reason to care?
Quote:
It wouldn't hurt but top of importance list? No. Abrams might be good but not just because of "woman" and "Black".
[QUOTE]Oh, I agree with that. I think she's one of the party's rising stars, and I'd bet on her ability to motivate voters over, say, Cory Booker's.

But yeah, 'woman' and 'black' matter. If they matter 2-3 points of turnout in November, that's big.
Quote:
A good VP running mate can complement (not "balance") the campaign style of the top of the ticket, can bring two or three points to their home state (which might be significant), and can signal importance of issues (here identity can be part of doing that, but record and accomplishments more so).
Most voters don't know jack shit about record and accomplishments. (ETA: And I'm definitely including whites here.)

And the 2-3 points to one's home state - definitely true back in the day when all candidates were white men.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-27-2020 at 01:03 PM.
  #204  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:45 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I am severely disappointed that nobody quoted this link. A beautiful song about a great American hero, sung by Joan Baez, one of the greatest American vocalists and an authentic heroine.

And the performance is live! At the 1969 Woodstock Concert. Imagine the enormous fidelity of this woman's voice to produce this rendition LIVE. (BTW, the David she refers to at the beginning of the clip is her husband David Harris.)

Giants walked the Earth, as recently as 1969. We've hardly seen their like since.
  #205  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:39 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Is Joe Hill really still alive?
Well, there is a guy who writes fictiony stuff under that name. It is actually his first and half of his middle name. He is the son of a guy some of us may have heard of.
  #206  
Old 02-27-2020, 11:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Look, there's no evidence that they won by winning over disaffected Trump voters.

How do you explain the fact that the Our Revolution and Justice Dems candidates failed to flip a single seat in the House, despite Bernie raising lots of online money for them and campaigning in their targeted districts? You lot never learn anything from dramatic and overwhelming failure. Same thing over in the UK with Labour and Jeremy Corbyn.
  #207  
Old 02-28-2020, 01:24 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
How do you explain the fact that the Our Revolution and Justice Dems candidates failed to flip a single seat in the House, despite Bernie raising lots of online money for them and campaigning in their targeted districts?
I'm not sure your point is completely fair. The U.S. is so polarized and the House so thoroughly gerrymandered that few Districts are even competitive to D vs R; those that are, require a moderate touch.

For comparison: The right-wing Tea Party has been grotesquely successful. But how many Teabagging Representatives defeated a Democrat incumbent? (I don't know, and may quickly be proved wrong.)
  #208  
Old 02-28-2020, 01:28 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,437
ICYMI, Obama did take some action – to demand that SC broadcasters cease and desist running an ad that misquotes him as accusing Biden of being a racist.

An ad being run by Republicans, who still view Joe Biden as the guy they will be facing in November. Master strategists, that lot.
  #209  
Old 02-28-2020, 02:39 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm not sure your point is completely fair. The U.S. is so polarized and the House so thoroughly gerrymandered that few Districts are even competitive to D vs R; those that are, require a moderate touch.

For comparison: The right-wing Tea Party has been grotesquely successful. But how many Teabagging Representatives defeated a Democrat incumbent? (I don't know, and may quickly be proved wrong.)

But moderate Dems flipped 41 seats, a rather large number in historical terms. How is this more marginal than the presidential election coming down to a few thousand votes in a few Rust Belt states?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #210  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:16 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
How do you explain the fact that the Our Revolution and Justice Dems candidates failed to flip a single seat in the House, despite Bernie raising lots of online money for them and campaigning in their targeted districts? You lot never learn anything from dramatic and overwhelming failure.
I haven't seen enough facts to learn anything. Which districts are we talking about, and what are their Cook PVIs?
  #211  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
In my understanding, Justice Democrats deliberately targeted long-shot seats that weren't getting much attention from other Democratic organizations. Sure, they could stick to easy wins -- but that would be easy, and wouldn't actually accomplish anything aside from getting to say they backed winners.

It's good to go after long-shot seats. Most of the time they'll lose, but with time, those seats and districts may change, and the work they put in will be quite useful to the party.
  #212  
Old 02-28-2020, 08:02 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,110
Your understanding sounds like flushing money down the toilet. Where did you hear that?
  #213  
Old 02-28-2020, 08:03 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,290
Anyway, four days to go. Help me, Obama, you're my only hope!
  #214  
Old 02-28-2020, 08:18 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Your understanding sounds like flushing money down the toilet. Where did you hear that?
I didn't "hear" it -- I looked at the list of seats and candidates they supported, and a very significant portion appeared like long shots to me.

I don't see it as a waste -- some of those districts are changing and will continue to change. Investing now can have dividends in the future (and sometimes there are surprises). It doesn't mean that we should only target long shot seats -- it just means that, IMO, we shouldn't ignore them.
  #215  
Old 02-28-2020, 05:22 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In my understanding, Justice Democrats deliberately targeted long-shot seats that weren't getting much attention from other Democratic organizations. Sure, they could stick to easy wins -- but that would be easy, and wouldn't actually accomplish anything aside from getting to say they backed winners.

It's good to go after long-shot seats. Most of the time they'll lose, but with time, those seats and districts may change, and the work they put in will be quite useful to the party.

This sounds like a highly dubious rationalization/retcon. You're telling me that they could have had dozens more seats added to their caucus, and been able to point to their having been the force that gave Pelosi the gavel...but they chose to just let the moderates have those seats instead?!? That's preposterous, and might actually be a worse commentary on their efficacy as a political force if it were true!
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #216  
Old 02-28-2020, 06:38 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This sounds like a highly dubious rationalization/retcon. You're telling me that they could have had dozens more seats added to their caucus, and been able to point to their having been the force that gave Pelosi the gavel...but they chose to just let the moderates have those seats instead?!? That's preposterous, and might actually be a worse commentary on their efficacy as a political force if it were true!
I can't make enough sense of this criticism to rebut it.
  #217  
Old 02-28-2020, 09:54 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
That’s on you then. What I wrote should be perfectly clear to anyone who is following along.
  #218  
Old 02-28-2020, 11:16 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Anyway, four days to go. Help me, Obama, you're my only hope!
There it is, Rufus: South Carolina. You'll never see a more wretched hi—

Last edited by eschereal; 02-28-2020 at 11:17 PM.
  #219  
Old 02-28-2020, 11:30 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,902
There's really only one thing I can add to this discussion (FWIW). I was SO angry with the Democrats in 2008. I thought: "Oh great! You guys are considering nominating a black man. Yeah, the USA will elect a black president... in about 50 years! IDIOTS! What were you smoking?"

OK, who else you got? A woman? Named Clinton? What the hell is this suicide-fest, geez!?

Yup. Sure enough, the morons nominated the wet-behind-the-big-ears black dude. Now, the guy seemed pretty damn smart and impressive to me but I wasn't the sort of voter they had to reach. The nomination was just so tragically stoopid!








Turns out the black dude named Hussein won. Blew my mind. I've tended to keep a bit quieter about supposed "long-shot candidates" since then.

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 02-28-2020 at 11:34 PM.
  #220  
Old 02-29-2020, 12:11 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
Political scientists have provided evidence (convincing to me) that a generic Democratic white dude would have won an absolute blowout in that cycle, instead of the merely comfortable win he had. Obama is my favorite president, so I'm obviously glad it worked out; but it was definitely a risk.

Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS Newshour tonight are singing my tune:

Quote:
DAVID BROOKS: I would make a call to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I think Bernie Sanders represents a challenge to their style of Democratic Party. And the only two people who can create unity in an anti-Sanders wing are Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
And if they came in said, we're going to organize, so we don't divide the vote five or six ways, then they could be the only ones to do that. They're probably not going to do it. They're going to sit on the sidelines. But I do think, if they want to defend the Democratic Party as they understand it, this is the week.
This is the moment when they say, it's going to be Biden, and we're all going to work together, or it's going to be X, and we're all going to work together. I do think there has to be some leadership. Otherwise, it looks extremely likely to me that Bernie Sanders just walks away with it.
Quote:
MARK SHIELDS: I mean, I will wait for that duo to emerge arm in arm and say, we're here selflessly to save the Democratic Party.
I mean, it would be welcome, but don't sit up waiting for it.

DAVID BROOKS: No, I understand that.
And just FWIW, because there seems to be some confusion based on some of the responses here: I was never predicting this would happen. I was hoping it would happen, just like they are--but also just like them, not exactly holding my breath.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #221  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:18 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In my understanding, Justice Democrats deliberately targeted long-shot seats that weren't getting much attention from other Democratic organizations. Sure, they could stick to easy wins -- but that would be easy, and wouldn't actually accomplish anything aside from getting to say they backed winners.

It's good to go after long-shot seats. Most of the time they'll lose, but with time, those seats and districts may change, and the work they put in will be quite useful to the party.
Politics isn't about having good positions and sending messages. Politics is about getting elected and then enacting programs and laws.

I'm worried that a lot of Sanders supporters are more concerned about making a point than they are about winning.
  #222  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:43 AM
Lantern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,134
I would distinguish between Obama and Bill Clinton. Obama seems to be staying above the fray so that he can unite the party around whoever wins. And that is indeed a hugely important role that no one else can play. Bill is not quite in the same position these days and he has more freedom to rally around Biden and make sure he gets the money and endorsements he needs to make the most of a likely SC win.
  #223  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:49 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm worried that a lot of Sanders supporters are more concerned about making a point than they are about winning.
Interesting. I have the same concern about the never-Sanders crowd.
  #224  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:49 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Political scientists have provided evidence (convincing to me) that a generic Democratic white dude would have won an absolute blowout in that cycle, instead of the merely comfortable win he had. Obama is my favorite president, so I'm obviously glad it worked out; but it was definitely a risk.

Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS Newshour tonight are singing my tune:
I've previously linked to scholarly research that shows a huge (3% or thereabouts?) handicap for a black Presidential candidate, based on correlating 2004-Kerry and 2008-Obama results in districts with high objective racism scores. Obama won in 2008 only because the Ds were heading for a landslide anyway.

And yes, I'm afraid the Shields-Brooks-Slacker tune may be the "correct" tune. The Ds have worked hard to achieve Ineffable Tragedy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Politics isn't about having good positions and sending messages. Politics is about getting elected and then enacting programs and laws.

I'm worried that a lot of Sanders supporters are more concerned about making a point than they are about winning.
I strongly endorse Little Nemo's message.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On an off-topic matter:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
How do you do that? Whenever I try this, I'm rebuked with a "This is a duplicate post" message and not allowed to proceed.
  #225  
Old 02-29-2020, 06:45 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Politics isn't about having good positions and sending messages. Politics is about getting elected and then enacting programs and laws.



I'm worried that a lot of Sanders supporters are more concerned about making a point than they are about winning.
This doesn't conflict with my understanding of the Justice Democrats. If I'm right, then this work will pay off with wins in some of those districts in the future, and attention they paid to those districts early will be a big part of why those districts flipped.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #226  
Old 02-29-2020, 07:05 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
... If I'm right, then this work will pay off with wins in some of those districts in the future, ...
Future? Are we speaking of the 2030's, or as early as 2026? Are you sure U.S.A. will still have a recognizable form of democracy then?

Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
  #227  
Old 02-29-2020, 12:42 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
How do you do that? Whenever I try this, I'm rebuked with a "This is a duplicate post" message and not allowed to proceed.
I think it's due to the software problems the board is experiencing. I double posted yesterday.
  #228  
Old 02-29-2020, 12:51 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This doesn't conflict with my understanding of the Justice Democrats. If I'm right, then this work will pay off with wins in some of those districts in the future, and attention they paid to those districts early will be a big part of why those districts flipped.
Do you have any reason to think that future pay-off will ever occur? The Republicans are working on setting up a one-party system. Every year they stay in power consolidates their grip. By the time your plans reach maturity, they won't matter. Conservatives will be able to ignore any opposition to their rule.

We need to get the Republicans out of power now and stop the bleeding. Once we've restored democracy, we can start making plans for where we want to go in the future.
  #229  
Old 02-29-2020, 12:54 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Interesting. I have the same concern about the never-Sanders crowd.
No, the never-Sanders crowd are the people who refuse to vote for a socialist. They're not making a point; they're just voting.
  #230  
Old 02-29-2020, 01:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Do you have any reason to think that future pay-off will ever occur? The Republicans are working on setting up a one-party system. Every year they stay in power consolidates their grip. By the time your plans reach maturity, they won't matter. Conservatives will be able to ignore any opposition to their rule.



We need to get the Republicans out of power now and stop the bleeding. Once we've restored democracy, we can start making plans for where we want to go in the future.
Sounds good! I think we can do both things - fight the Republicans now and try to set the stage to change solid red seats in the future. We'll see.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #231  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:11 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
You still have provided no evidence that they weren’t targeting swing seats or that it would make any sense for them not to target them (unless they actually understand their brand of politics only appeals to dark blue districts which I have seen no evidence of either). Everything I read suggests that they did target those seats but they utterly failed to flip any of them.
  #232  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You still have provided no evidence that they weren’t targeting swing seats or that it would make any sense for them not to target them (unless they actually understand their brand of politics only appeals to dark blue districts which I have seen no evidence of either). Everything I read suggests that they did target those seats but they utterly failed to flip any of them.
Their endorsements are public. I went through the list - as you are free to do as well, if you're interested. I didn't see any vulnerable swing district Democrats targeted, but maybe you can find them and prove me wrong.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #233  
Old 02-29-2020, 04:59 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Future? Are we speaking of the 2030's, or as early as 2026? Are you sure U.S.A. will still have a recognizable form of democracy then?

Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Not really sure that the USofA currently has a recognizable form of democracy. Has kind of a rank, oniony smell to it.
  #234  
Old 03-01-2020, 01:59 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,518
I'm not a news junkie, and wondered if Mr. Slacker were exaggerating.

But Get a load of "Bernie Sanders’ Rise Prompts Media Meltdown, Establishment Panic: A Closer Look"

"End of days." "Fall of France in 1940." "Cheering ... executions in Central Park."

And anyway, to paraphrase Chuck Todd — does that oaf need his own Pit thread? — the "centrists" (51%) do "much better" than the "progressives" (47%). What's the criterion for becoming "Political Director for NBC News"?
Quote:
Todd attended George Washington University from 1990 to 1994. He declared a major in political science and a minor in music, but did not earn a degree.
When NBC replaces Todd, will they look for a high-school dropout?

Anyway, Obama had his chance and didn't Save the Union. @ Mods - Close this thread.

I may not be a top-notch political pundit, but I know the rules of baseball. In the bottom of the ninth, with your worst batter up, you don't throw in the towel. You cheer and root for a home run! Come together, Democrats!
  #235  
Old 03-01-2020, 04:06 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
Actually, we’re only six (or 6.5) days into the 9 days described, which are up on Tuesday. But Jim Clyburn may have done the job Obama was too faint of heart to tackle.
  #236  
Old 03-01-2020, 06:19 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Come together, Democrats!
And each of the remaining candidates chimes in:

Right now, over me!


Last edited by RTFirefly; 03-01-2020 at 06:21 AM.
  #237  
Old 03-01-2020, 08:02 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Interesting. I have the same concern about the never-Sanders crowd.
Here’s some interesting (though imperfect) data on the relative size of that crowd:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ly-do-mean-it/

You’re right, it’s pretty big, perhaps bigger than the “Bernie or bust” folks.
  #238  
Old 03-01-2020, 10:38 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sounds good! I think we can do both things - fight the Republicans now and try to set the stage to change solid red seats in the future. We'll see.
You and I are not saying the same thing. I said our priority should be getting Trump and the people who support him out of power. If you think we can and should be doing "both things" then you're saying it isn't a priority.

And I'd like a firmer plan than "We'll see." As I wrote in another post, we won't be able to redo the election if it turns out Sanders can't beat Trump. We have one shot to get Trump out of power and I think we need to make it the one that has the best chance of working.

I think a lot of Sanders supporters see the priority as getting Sanders the nomination. Sure, they may lose the general election but by getting the nomination they will have raised their ideology to a new level. These people see advancing the cause of their ideology as more important than stopping Trump. For them, Sanders losing the nomination would be a bigger defeat than Sanders losing the election.
  #239  
Old 03-01-2020, 10:58 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You and I are not saying the same thing. I said our priority should be getting Trump and the people who support him out of power. If you think we can and should be doing "both things" then you're saying it isn't a priority.



And I'd like a firmer plan than "We'll see." As I wrote in another post, we won't be able to redo the election if it turns out Sanders can't beat Trump. We have one shot to get Trump out of power and I think we need to make it the one that has the best chance of working.



I think a lot of Sanders supporters see the priority as getting Sanders the nomination. Sure, they may lose the general election but by getting the nomination they will have raised their ideology to a new level. These people see advancing the cause of their ideology as more important than stopping Trump. For them, Sanders losing the nomination would be a bigger defeat than Sanders losing the election.
I agree that our priority should be (and is) getting Trump and Republicans out of power. I think the actions of Bernie and AOC are entirely consistent with that goal, and especially when it comes to Bernie, critical to that goal. If I didn't think that Bernie was our best chance to beat Trump, I wouldn't support him. He has weaknesses, but I think the weaknesses of the other candidates are far more of a risk.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-01-2020 at 10:58 AM.
  #240  
Old 03-01-2020, 01:52 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I agree that our priority should be (and is) getting Trump and Republicans out of power. I think the actions of Bernie and AOC are entirely consistent with that goal, and especially when it comes to Bernie, critical to that goal. If I didn't think that Bernie was our best chance to beat Trump, I wouldn't support him. He has weaknesses, but I think the weaknesses of the other candidates are far more of a risk.
You don't think having a documented history as a Socialist is a weakness in American politics?
  #241  
Old 03-01-2020, 02:39 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,061
I saw an ad that just said Obama did not endorse Biden. guess it was from a GOP super PAC?
  #242  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You don't think having a documented history as a Socialist is a weakness in American politics?
Of course it's a weakness. I think the weaknesses of the other candidates are greater.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-01-2020 at 03:02 PM.
  #243  
Old 03-01-2020, 05:31 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Of course it's a weakness. I think the weaknesses of the other candidates are greater.
I disagree. I feel it's a much larger weakness than almost any other candidate has. The only exception would be Buttigieg because I think there are unfortunately still a lot of people who wouldn't vote for a gay candidate. (And as I'm writing this post, I see that Buttigieg is no longer a candidate.)

But what weaknesses do you feel candidates like Biden, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, and Warren have that are bigger than being a Socialist?
  #244  
Old 03-01-2020, 05:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But what weaknesses do you feel candidates like Biden, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, and Warren have that are bigger than being a Socialist?
Not going to spend any effort on Gabbard or Klobuchar, who have no chance left. The following are my best guesses about the weakness of the other candidates:

Warren: I think she'd be the best president of the bunch, but she hasn't run a good campaign IMO, isn't great at raising money, frequently uses nuance to the point that she's very easy to accuse of being a flip-flopper, and doesn't generate a significant amount of excitement or enthusiasm. She's still my 2nd choice after Bernie, but I think all these weaknesses add up to more significant than the socialist line of attack on Bernie.

Bloomberg: Just terrible, awful on the stump and in debates, absolutely no excitement and enthusiasm, pisses off lots of Democrats who would then be less likely to vote at all. Last choice for me.

Biden: I think he's losing it (i.e. he's frequently incoherent). Not very good at raising money; just not that great at campaigning in general IMO, no enthusiasm/excitement. Has all the weakness of the Hillary campaign (except that the hate campaign against him hasn't been nearly as long as the decades-long hate campaign against her), plus he lacks Hillary's sharp mind and debate prowess and is a lot worse at raising money, AFAICT.

And it sucks that this is a weakness, but all of these candidates will likely lead to a significant portion of Bernie voters staying home. That's really a weakness, even though it sucks that those voters might stay home. They should come out and vote for whomever the party nominates, but lots of them probably won't, and that's a big reason why we should nominate Bernie.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I think Bernie has the best chance, despite his weaknesses. Bernie's the best at raising money, has the simplest and easiest-to-explain message, is the best at staying on message and keeping it simple, is the steadiest debater (except for maybe Warren), has lots of enthusiasm and excitement, has "outsider cred" (like Trump did, and thus may attract a chunk of those quixotic voters who just vote against the system) and has a big chunk of voters who probably won't support any other Democrat.
  #245  
Old 03-01-2020, 10:25 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,681
Joker voice: "So, a candidate is totally gay, no big deal. Guy's a fucking socialist, everybody loses their mind!" /JV
  #246  
Old 03-01-2020, 11:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
I can't believe Gabbard's name is still coming up, other than in terms of concern that she will mount a Putin-sponsored third party bid.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #247  
Old 03-01-2020, 11:38 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And it sucks that this is a weakness, but all of these candidates will likely lead to a significant portion of Bernie voters staying home. That's really a weakness, even though it sucks that those voters might stay home. They should come out and vote for whomever the party nominates, but lots of them probably won't, and that's a big reason why we should nominate Bernie.
This is the reason I think Sanders is the worst candidate. Sure there are people who will refuse to vote for any other candidate if it isn't Sanders. But there are a hundred times as many people who would have voted for any other Democrat but will refuse to vote for Sanders.

As I've pointed out before, sixty-three million people voted Republican in 2016 (and that was for Trump!) while only ninety-one thousand people voted Socialist. Choosing a Socialist as a nominee is insane.

And this is all before we even start on all the other issues. It says everything about how vulnerable Sanders is that he's a 78 year old who had a heart attack four months ago and his health will only be fourth on the list of things the Republicans will attack him with.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 03-01-2020 at 11:38 PM.
  #248  
Old 03-01-2020, 11:43 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
Right? If we weren't going insane as a country, "78 and had a heart attack literally on the campaign trail" would IMMEDIATELY disqualify someone from the race. Regardless of what their persona or ideology was all about.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #249  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
This is the reason I think Sanders is the worst candidate. Sure there are people who will refuse to vote for any other candidate if it isn't Sanders. But there are a hundred times as many people who would have voted for any other Democrat but will refuse to vote for Sanders.



As I've pointed out before, sixty-three million people voted Republican in 2016 (and that was for Trump!) while only ninety-one thousand people voted Socialist. Choosing a Socialist as a nominee is insane.



And this is all before we even start on all the other issues. It says everything about how vulnerable Sanders is that he's a 78 year old who had a heart attack four months ago and his health will only be fourth on the list of things the Republicans will attack him with.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I think it's a perfectly valid one, even as I disagree. We'll see who's right over the next several months.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #250  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:50 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Future? Are we speaking of the 2030's, or as early as 2026? Are you sure U.S.A. will still have a recognizable form of democracy then?

Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Repent, Harlequin!



FTR, I never thought Ellison was much of a writer in units longer than a tiitle, but his titles can't be beat.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017