Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

[Deleted member 48434]

I tell you, American politics really is quite entertaining.

Will Buttigegs dropping out hurt Bernie?
I really want Bernie to win, I think his proposals will inspire other countries to do similar.

 

[alexiswrite]

What is this "more clearly defined theory and plan of putting progressive policies into action?" Because judging by her rhetoric, it's simply "aim lower." Take her M4A plan for example. When her polling numbers went into the toilet, she released her M4A plan, wherein she says she would start by trying to pass a public option, and then, 3 years into her first term (a very conspicuous timeframe), try passing actual M4A.

1. How does complicating rollout and doubling the amount of congressional effort needed by requiring the passage of 2 bills make the process easier? Establishing the infrastructure needed to administer a public option within current framework and then passing another bill to dismantle it just 3 years later makes no sense.
2. Why does she think she will have better success with M4A 3 years later, when the inevitable electoral clap-back almost guarantees a Republican-controlled House? [Trick question. She doesn't, because she's not an absolute moron. This plan of hers is a declaration to donors and party establishment that she is abandoning M4A, but dressed up in the hopes that she could still retain progressive supporters who firmly believe in M4A.]

It's not more pragmatic or realistic. It's just less ambitious. And she's using that newfound gap in ambition to admonish Sanders for aiming higher, taking the position that attempting desperately needed change has a significantly lower possibility of success than just not attempting it at all. She is trying to anchor party aspirations to the mediocrity of the last decade for her benefit, damage to the causes she supposedly believes in be damned. It's garbage.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I spent a fair amount of time defending Warren as she started taking more pointed jabs at Sanders when her prospects began to fade. I was wrong to do so, and I take it all back. I am profoundly disappointed in her, and I feel like a moron for ever holding her in high regard.

Click to shrink...

I've never understood this argument. None of the plans for passing M4All are very feasable at all. All of them require huge amounts of congressional effort. I don't see why in Warren's case these things suddenly matter.

 

[ApatheticDolphin]

Do you get outraged by It's always sunny in Philadelphia?

Click to shrink...

cool dismissal. Yes I'm outraged at everything, clearly. Sexism isn't real, it's just stupid women being outraged at jokes right? It's the women who are wrong.

Such as?

Click to shrink...

I literally just said an example in that post. Look at their accounts if you don't believe me, because apparently it's so hard to believe that sexism from leftist men is possible.

I'm asking dudes on this forum to do 1% effort.

 

[KidAAlbum]

I don't get the "Bernie won't get anything done" takes. Because either he wins the election and then tries to do the things he wants and fails. Or we elect someone like Biden and he doesn't even try.

Wouldn't you want an insignificant non-zero chance of progress as opposed to literally zero chance?

Click to shrink...

Apparently compromising at this point isn't pie in the sky, because the end goal Biden wants (public option) is going to not be fought by more moderate Dems and all the Republicans.

I don't get this big brain logic, but because they're more to the right of Bernie, they think they're somehow invulnerable to the same compromising process that Bernie would be subjected to.


Bernie
1. Start to the left of the moderate Dems and Republicans
2. Republicans fight against said policy
3. ????
4. We end up with the original goal

"See, his policy proposal is pie in the sky." - Anti-Bernie crowd

Biden
1. Start to the left of the moderate Dems and Republicans
2. Republicans fight against said policy
3. ????
4. We end up with the original goal

"See, his policy proposal is not pie in the sky."- Anti-Bernie crowd

 

[MasterOfPastures]

I literally just said an example in that post. Look at their accounts if you don't believe me, because apparently it's so hard to believe that sexism from leftist men is possible.

I'm asking dudes on this forum to do 1% effort.

Click to shrink...

Oh, ok. Let me try this

👏Show👏me👏evidence👏of👏what👏you👏are👏claiming👏.

You are claiming they are sexist, and I am asking for proof. Dont skirt around the burden.
Show the receipts, and then I will say "yes that is sexism", or I will say "no".

 

[Fudgepuppy]

cool dismissal. Yes I'm outraged at everything, clearly. Sexism isn't real, it's just stupid women being outraged at jokes right? It's the women who are wrong.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. You seem to extract a lot of assumptions from very little here.

What I'm getting at is that the guy they defended, wasn't exactly making jokes at the expense of marginalized people. He was bashing liberals who are eroding the world with their neoliberal policies.

And with your logic, it isn't okay to dismiss Amber's lack of outrage either?

People aren't monoliths.

 

[Deleted member 278]

We're watching her burn this bridge in real time. Excuse the Shaun King tweet, but:



Saying "You, a lone senator, didn't wave a magic wand and single handedly enact things we both supposedly support, so actually making no attempt to fight for them at all makes me the better choice" in response to his potential nomination is the same empty, insincere bullshit I've seen from garbage liberals my entire life. She's one loss in Massachusetts from going full Clinton, saying shit like "Nobody likes you and its your fault I lost >:(."

I honestly think it's more likely she'll use whatever delegates she gets as leverage to secure a position in a Biden administration, because she is making it abundantly clear that she is through with Sanders, and their ideological alignment means nothing as she continuously distances herself from the policies and values they supposedly share.

Click to shrink...

In that same fucking rally she is throwing shots at LITERALLY every one of her competitors, including Joe Biden. I want her to drop out, but cmon a candidate making the argument they are better suited to be president is obviously something they have to do.

This idea that Warren would support anyone in the race besides Bernie in a contested convention is ludicrous. Especially when in that same rally that the clip you posted comes from, she keeps hammering in "progressive ideas are popular, we need to stop nibbling around the edges."

Maybe she makes a play for her own candidacy at a contested convention (which would be quite stupid and not go anywhere), but there is no scenario in which Warren is the kingmaker between Bernie and Biden and picks Biden.

 

[fontguy]

I've never understood this argument. None of the plans for passing M4All are very feasable at all. All of them require huge amounts of congressional effort. I don't see why in Warren's case these things suddenly matter.

Click to shrink...

My entire post is about the severe contradiction of her pitching herself as the more realistic progressive when her plans are markedly less realistic (and the fact that it's clearly by design). She is abandoning those principles, but selling herself as the one who will actually make them happen. And in the process of making this pitch, she is attacking Sanders (the only viable candidate here that can be counted on to pursue their once mutual progressive agenda) for committing more fully to the stances she claims to share, hurting these policies' chances of ever becoming a reality.

That's why it "suddenly matters."

 

[Lentic]

Apparently compromising at this point isn't pie in the sky, because the end goal Biden wants (public option) is going to not be fought by more moderate Dems and all the Republicans.

I don't get this big brain logic, but because they're more to the right of Bernie, they think they're somehow invulnerable to the same compromising process that Bernie would be subjected to.


Bernie
1. Start to the left of the moderate Dems and Republicans
2. Republicans fight against said policy
3. ????
4. We end up with the original goal

"See, his policy proposal is pie in the sky." - Anti-Bernie crowd

Biden
1. Start to the left of the moderate Dems and Republicans
2. Republicans fight against said policy
3. ????
4. We end up with the original goal

"See, his policy proposal is not pie in the sky."- Anti-Bernie crowd

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I don't get it either. Joe thinking he can work "across the aisle" with Republicans at this point is hilarious.

 

[alexiswrite]

My entire post is about the severe contradiction of her pitching herself as the more realistic progressive when her plans are markedly less realistic (and the fact that it's clearly by design). She is abandoning those principles, but selling herself as the one who will actually make them happen. And in the process of making this pitch, she is attacking Sanders (the only viable candidate here that can be counted on to pursue their once mutual progressive agenda) for committing more fully to the stances she claims to share, hurting these policies' chances of ever becoming a reality.

That's why it "suddenly matters."

Click to shrink...

I honestly don't see how her plans are less realistic Bernie's plans. All the things you outlined are problems, but it's still a marginally, in my opinion, (you could call it a neglible difference if you wanted) more realistic plan than somehow winning by so much that passing M4All immediately is doable. I wouldn't call that abandoning progressivism.

 

[Psamtik]

So you're just wagging your finger at people hoping for better things when people are dying on the streets and the planet is on fire?

Bernie is our compromise candidate. If this party ever wants to win votes when millennials become the major demographic, they should consider bending the knee sooner than later.

Click to shrink...

Hey, if millennials and zoomers can be bothered to show up and fucking vote, they'll get Bernie. Nobody's going to "bend the knee" (really?) to the demographic least likely to participate in November regardless of who's on the ticket.

 

[fontguy]

In that same fucking rally she is throwing shots at LITERALLY every one of her competitors, including Joe Biden.

This idea that Warren would support anyone in the race besides Bernie in a contested convention is ludicrous.

Click to shrink...

"Oh well she was attacking everyone during that rally."

But why would she attack Sanders, specifically for his fuller commitment to their (supposedly shared) agenda, at all, if she genuinely cared about its chances of being carried out? She knows he's the only viable progressive here, and the idea that she is attacking him just so she can accrue more delegates and help him in a contested convention is just stupid. She's doing this because she wants the nom, and she doesn't care if she has to jockey for it in a contested convention to do it.

And that'd be fine if a third place candidate winning the nomination through backroom dealings wasn't guaranteed to torpedo our chances of winning in November.

 

[Oddish1]

My entire post is about the severe contradiction of her pitching herself as the more realistic progressive when her plans are markedly less realistic (and the fact that it's clearly by design). She is abandoning those principles, but selling herself as the one who will actually make them happen. And in the process of making this pitch, she is attacking Sanders (the only viable candidate here that can be counted on to pursue their once mutual progressive agenda) for committing more fully to the stances she claims to share, hurting these policies' chances of ever becoming a reality.

That's why it "suddenly matters."

Click to shrink...

Warren's plan is just as realistic as Sanders, in that neither of them has any real chance of achieving Medicare for All. And I suspect both of them know that. Their stated plans for health care are more for the election than any serious policy proposal.

 

[ApatheticDolphin]

Oh, ok. Let me try this

👏Show👏me👏evidence👏of👏what👏you👏are👏claiming👏.

You are claiming they are sexist, and I am asking for proof. Dont skirt around the burden.
Show the receipts, and then I will say "yes that is sexism", or I will say "no".

Click to shrink...

Holy fuck

Listen to what socialist women are saying about misogyny on the left

A controversy involving the podcast Chapo Trap House shines a light on bigger issues.

www.vox.com

 

[ApatheticDolphin]

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. You seem to extract a lot of assumptions from very little here.

What I'm getting at is that the guy they defended, wasn't exactly making jokes at the expense of marginalized people. He was bashing liberals who are eroding the world with their neoliberal policies.

And with your logic, it isn't okay to dismiss Amber's lack of outrage either?

People aren't monoliths.

Click to shrink...

Sexism is sexism even if it's directed at someone powerful.

Internalized misogyny is also a thing.

 

[fontguy]

Warren's plan is just as realistic as Sanders, in that neither of them has any real chance of achieving Medicare for All. And I suspect both of them know that. Their stated plans for health care are more for the election than any serious policy proposal.

Click to shrink...

No shit. The point is that pre-emptive compromise sacrifices the possibility of achieving something greater, no matter how slim, for literally nothing. And again, this is all to illustrate the fact that her entire pitch is now a massive, self-contradicting lie.

I honestly don't see how her plans are less realistic Bernie's plans. All the things you outlined are problems, but it's still a marginally, in my opinion, (you could call it a neglible difference if you wanted) more realistic plan that somehow winning by so much that passing M4All immediately is doable. I wouldn't call that abandoning progressivism.

Click to shrink...

You don't see how negotiating yourself down to the minimum you're willing to accept before you reach the table is less pragmatic than starting with what you want and working down to what you can achieve?

I'm gonna copy and paste from another post of mine made elsewhere: After Trump was elected and the Republicans set their sights on the ACA, they didn't just shoot for the lowest possible target (their "skinny repeal"), they held multiple votes. Each time the legislation failed, they watered it down and tried again. Why? Because they're not complete and total morons.

You get literally nothing for conceding like this ahead of time. There's nothing pragmatic about this approach

Unless you don't actually support M4A but you don't want to risk losing progressive voters by saying it out loud.

 

[Rran]

Moderate Dems in congress won't go for those and you know the Republicans won't. Best case scenario, some of those things get watered way the fuck down.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I figured this was most people's expectations: a "reach for the stars, hang on to the moon"-sorta thing. But it would get the ball rolling in areas that few politicians are willing to go, but which affects so many of U.S. citizens that, judging by trends, will only spiral further out of control. Skyrocketing cost of education? Absurd healthcare prices? It's a direction that, however slight the turn may ultimately be, a lot of us wish the country will take. And what I feel separates Sanders from most of the pandering politicians is that this is something he's consistently been passionate about, with a tangible objective rather than some nebulous "fighting for the soul of the country" or whatever Biden's platform is.

Don't get me wrong, though--I totally understand where you're coming from, and it's why I was on the Hildawg train in 2016. But after all of Trump's bullshit, I'm all for what Bernie's offering (and regardless of whether he could actually achieve the things he says, I'll at least know he genuinely tried to accomplish them).

 

[Vector]

Smart on Bernie's part to campaign in CA and attempt to run up the margins. If it gives him a 150+ delegate lead he's got a plurality on lock.

 

[Lentic]

I have to say that the constant blaming of young voters for not showing up rubs me the wrong way. This country has a big problem with getting the youth to show up and vote, but it's not because they're "lazy". There are definitely systemic and social issues at play.

 

[JahIthBer]

Apparently compromising at this point isn't pie in the sky, because the end goal Biden wants (public option) is going to not be fought by more moderate Dems and all the Republicans.

I don't get this big brain logic, but because they're more to the right of Bernie, they think they're somehow invulnerable to the same compromising process that Bernie would be subjected to.


Bernie
1. Start to the left of the moderate Dems and Republicans
2. Republicans fight against said policy
3. ????
4. We end up with the original goal

"See, his policy proposal is pie in the sky." - Anti-Bernie crowd

Biden
1. Start to the left of the moderate Dems and Republicans
2. Republicans fight against said policy
3. ????
4. We end up with the original goal

"See, his policy proposal is not pie in the sky."- Anti-Bernie crowd

Click to shrink...

Biden will probably work with Republicans on a lot of things, just not progressive policies.

 

[fontguy]

Biden will probably work with Republicans on a lot of things, just not progressive policies.

Click to shrink...

Republicans aren't going to work with him, is the thing. Unless it's stuff like cuts to Social Security, in which case, yeah, they will suddenly find it within their hearts to reach across the aisle, for the good of the country.

 

[Vector]

The reason why I infinitely prefer Bernie over Biden (well one of) is because Bernie won't compromise on his ideas right from the very beginning and won't settle for a middle of the road half measure compromise - that's how you end up with right wing policies being passed by Democrats.

The way you set the table for negotiations matters a lot, and if you're willing to start with the compromise position you're weak and you'll get bullied endlessly by the GOP in Congress and you'll get nothing done.

 

[Uncle at Nintendo]

Yeah I'd rather have congressional gridlock rather than "reaching across the aisle to get things done".

 

[Oddish1]

No shit. The point is that pre-emptive compromise sacrifices the possibility of achieving something greater, no matter how slim, for literally nothing. And again, this is all to illustrate the fact that her entire pitch is now a massive, self-contradicting lie.

Click to shrink...

So by that logic Sanders or Warren or whoever the Dem nominee is should be pushing for the US to be completely socialized up and down, and then compromising to something more moderate. But none of them are doing that not even Sanders. Because doing so would make them electorate poison in the Dem primary, let alone in the general election.

So primary candidates need to already find a compromise position on what plays well with the base, what they want to accomplish, and what they want to promise. Candidates do not want to promise something that they do not think they can deliver on because then it can hurt them when they're running for re-election.

So yes, Warren is running a compromise to get elected. Because she has to. Just like Bernie has to. Just like Biden has to. Because it's inherent to being a politician.

I also don't think there's much if any evidence that starting from a non-compromising position increases the chances of "achieving something greater". Congresspeople pretty much already know what they will and won't vote for.

 

[alexiswrite]

No shit. The point is that pre-emptive compromise sacrifices the possibility of achieving something greater, no matter how slim, for literally nothing. And again, this is all to illustrate the fact that her entire pitch is now a massive, self-contradicting lie.



You don't see how negotiating yourself down to the minimum you're willing to accept before you reach the table is less pragmatic than starting with what you want and working down to what you can achieve?

I'm gonna copy and paste from another post of mine made elsewhere: After Trump was elected and the Republicans set their sights on the ACA, they didn't just shoot for the lowest possible target (their "skinny repeal"), they held multiple votes. Each time the legislation failed, they watered it down and tried again. Why? Because they're not complete and total morons.

You get literally nothing for conceding like this ahead of time. There's nothing pragmatic about this approach

Unless you don't actually support M4A but you don't want to risk losing progressive voters by saying it out loud.

Click to shrink...

Her plan doesn't appear to be conceding anything except time though. The vastness of the eventual policy seems to be the same. If she simply supported the public option then your argument would be more valid here to me.

Also, I've never really bought into the idea that "the real realistic plan is the plan everyone thinks is unrealistic." This type of thing is very successful when selling a car on Craigslist, however in a political setting where time and political leverage isn't unlimited a long and angry negotiation about a policy you've already admitted won't pass seems counterproductive. Not only does it worsen your party's future political prospects, I haven't really seen any evidence that you'll get more than a neglible difference in political outcome. If the Republicans had spent time agreeing on a Obamacare repeal that they supported and then passed it relatively quickly that would have been a better situation for them.

 

[3bdelilah]

I have no doubt in my mind that Bernie will do well on Tuesday, but I can't help but feel a tiiiiny bit discouraged after Biden crushing SC more than I expected him to (I hoped for a margin of less than 10), the media framing the SC win as some kind of major comeback that will undoubtedly influence undecided voters, Buttigieg dropping out and thus not splitting the moderate vote anymore, and Warren seemingly more determined than ever to stay in the race for fuck all.

Sigh, time will tell.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Sexism is sexism even if it's directed at someone powerful.

Internalized misogyny is also a thing.

Click to shrink...

I'd rather have a mobilized left that find common ground based on class, than one that doesn't.

It's not perfect, but personally I'm getting tired of the need to be 100% compatible with all possible allies. I understand that I'm saying this from the perspective of a man, and that it's not the same as for a women. I won't tell you how to feel, or imply that your feelings and opinions about Chapo aren't valid.

 

[JahIthBer]

Republicans aren't going to work with him, is the thing. Unless it's stuff like cuts to Social Security, in which case, yeah, they will suddenly find it within their hearts to reach across the aisle, for the good of the country.

Click to shrink...

Well it's a good thing Biden agrees with cuts to that.

 

[Septimus Prime]

Look, the way I see it, "the next Trump" is inevitable. We don't know who he (or she!) is or when he's coming, but when he does, where do we want the Overton Window to be: as far left as we can possibly get it, such that he'll have to fight just to drag us back where we are now? Or right where it is now, where he can continue where Trump left off?

 

[Psittacus]

Click to shrink...

Seeing the number of people sick and tired of the status quo, and how shit continues to not get any better, keeps bringing my mind back to JFK.

Click to shrink...

The most powerful country on the planet and you can't figure out to do the same shit everyone was doing in the 80s. Trump was the warning shot but apparently nobody was listening.

 

[fontguy]

So by that logic Sanders or Warren or whoever the Dem nominee is should be pushing for the US to be completely socialized up and down, and then compromising to something more moderate. But none of them are doing that not even Sanders. Because doing so would make them electorate poison in the Dem primary, let alone in the general election.

So primary candidates need to already find a compromise position on what plays well with the base, what they want to accomplish, and what they want to promise. Candidates do not want to promise something that they do not think they can deliver on because then it can hurt them when they're running for re-election.

So yes, Warren is running a compromise to get elected. Because she has to. Just like Bernie has to. Just like Biden has to. Because it's inherent to being a politician.

I also don't think there's much if any evidence that starting from a non-compromising position increases the chances of "achieving something greater". Congresspeople pretty much already know what they will and won't vote for.

Click to shrink...

But abolishing private insurance and establishing single payer with M4A is pretty much as far left as you can get with the specific issue of "healthcare shit, how fix?" without massive societal restructuring. So I'd argue there's a pretty hard ceiling here, and Bernie is the only one right now willing to bump up against it. Warren's significantly more compromised position isn't winning her all that many voters, and she's among the worst-polling candidates in head-to-head matchups with Trump, so it hardly seems like compromise is the key to electoral palatability.

And I really think we're at a point where voters just want the assurance that their pie-in-the-sky policies will be fought for in earnest, even if they don't come to fruition, and that it doesn't pose any greater electoral peril than not attempting it at all. If anything, the latter is almost certain to increase voter apathy and depress turnout. And even then, Obama won a second term despite his tentpole legislation not even being half of what he intended and ultimately manifesting itself in an embarrassingly broken website that actually didn't let some people keep their doctors like he insisted.

Her plan doesn't appear to be conceding anything except time though. The vastness of the eventual policy seems to be the same. If she simply supported the public option then your argument would be more valid here to me.

Also, I've never really bought into the idea that "the real realistic plan is the plan everyone thinks is unrealistic." This type of thing is very successful when selling a car on Craigslist, however in a political setting where time and political leverage isn't unlimited a long and angry negotiation about a policy you've already admitted won't pass seems counterproductive. Not only does it worsen your party's future political prospects, I haven't really seen any evidence that you'll get more than a neglible difference in political outcome. If the Republicans had spent time agreeing on a Obamacare repeal that they supported and then passed it relatively quickly that would have been a better situation for them.

Click to shrink...

"Her plan doesn't appear to be conceding anything except time though."

It concedes the very possibility of M4A.

Again, why does she specify that she would attempt M4A in her third year? Why specifically wait for year three? What changes then? The answer: who controls the House. The party of the President losing control of the House after the first midterm happens pretty reliably. It happened with Obama, it happened with Trump, and it will almost certainly happen with whoever our nominee is this year, assuming we win in November. I don't know how many ways I can say this: she chose her third year as her target for M4A legislation because she knows it will be full-on impossible to pass, and she knows that wealthy, prospective donors also know this. She's supporting it on paper but has no intention of actually fighting for it until she knows the battle will be 100% unwinnable.

Well it's a good thing Biden agrees with cuts to that.

Click to shrink...

I know, right? What an amiable guy. I just love him to bits.

Spoiler

I do not love him to bits.

 

[Temascos]

Reading about Pete dropping out, this will make ST tighter than originally predicted. I think Sander's lead will be a narrow one after this, and since there are more moderate and older voters they'll gradually shift over to Biden. Fortune really went Joe's way exactly when he needed it.

 

[Tamanon]

Hey, he was just Biden his time.

 

[alexiswrite]

But abolishing private insurance and establishing single payer with M4A is pretty much as far left as you can get with the specific issue of "healthcare shit, how fix?" without massive societal restructuring. So I'd argue there's a pretty hard ceiling here, and Bernie is the only one right now willing to bump up against it. Warren's significantly more compromised position isn't winning her all that many voters, and she's among the worst-polling candidates in head-to-head matchups with Trump, so it hardly seems like compromise is the key to electoral palatability.

And I really think we're at a point where voters just want the assurance that their pie-in-the-sky policies will be fought for in earnest, even if they don't come to fruition, and that it doesn't pose any greater electoral peril than not attempting it at all. If anything, the latter is almost certain to increase voter apathy and depress turnout. And even then, Obama won a second term despite his tentpole legislation not even being half of what he intended and ultimately manifesting itself in an embarrassingly broken website that actually didn't let some people keep their doctors like he insisted.



"Her plan doesn't appear to be conceding anything except time though."

It concedes the very possibility of M4A.

Again, why does she specify that she would attempt M4A in her third year? Why specifically wait for year three? What changes then? The answer: who controls the House. The party of the President losing control of the House after the first midterm happens pretty reliably. It happened with Obama, it happened with Trump, and it will almost certainly happen with whoever our nominee is this year, assuming we win in November. I don't know how many ways I can say this: she chose her third year as her target for M4A legislation because she knows it will be full-on impossible to pass, and she knows that wealthy, prospective donors also know this. She's supporting it on paper but has no intention of actually fighting for it until she knows the battle will be 100% unwinnable.



I know, right? What an amiable guy. I just love him to bits.

Spoiler

I do not love him to bits.

Click to shrink...

So, you're saying it concedes the possibility of M4A based on the likelihood of it passing? We've already established that all scenarios here suffer from that same problem. The only reason you selectively apply this criticism to Warren and not Bernie is that you believe in Bernie's story of it passing and not Warren's. To me, they're just both stories. If you're gonna believe one, why not believe the other. This isn't a question of plans, it's a question of who you like and find believable.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Biden is a worse campaigner than Hillary. How is he going to beat Trump?

 

[mAcOdIn]

Just insane to me as someone who walks through Los Angeles and constantly sees camps of homeless people, sees GoFundMe campaigns for people who are dying without insulin, sees my state burned to ash every autumn, people racked with student debt, depression and other mental illnesses rocketing to all time highs, and say "sorry progressives, better luck next time."

If you're an American, why aren't you mad at the state of this country?

Click to shrink...

The problem isn't really anyone here though, it's the Electoral College. From a purely popular vote standpoint pretty much anything we want to do is popular enough with the broad American electorate. However, it's unpopular enough, with enough people in the right places that it makes it moot. You'll likely never see a Democratic Presidential nominee win the EC and yet lose the popular vote, yet it's happened twice in my lifetime the other way around.

In reality, the things that would be the most beneficial things for us to do would be to grant Washington DC and our territories Statehood and to try and pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in every State.

And, to be real here, it would help if Progressives showed the way, you listed a lot of gripes about California, well, shit, if you can't show the country how to do Progressivism right in California why would a Red State or a swing State think it's a great idea? And I don't mean to shit on Cali, you guys do a lot of good things, but, as one of the larger economies in the country, nay, world, almost all of those problems are just as much in your reach via the State apparatus as they'd be from the Federal. State tuition, that's a local and State issue, health care, regulated by the State, Fires, State and local issue, homelessness, State and local issue, you guys are focused on the sexy Presidential race when California could reasonably tackle most of its' issues on its' own in a way most States couldn't.

If we lose in November I wonder if it'd be better for organizations like the DSA, Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, whoever, to just go ham on one fucking State, try and take the whole thing. Try and build an example, on a smaller scale, what could be done nationally. It's clear that using other countries as examples means nothing to most Americans, take California or some shit, give it great healthcare, tuition free college, proper housing markets and slap America in the face with it.

So, you're saying it concedes the possibility of M4A based on the likelihood of it passing? We've already established that all scenarios here suffer from that same problem. The only reason you selectively apply this criticism to Warren and not Bernie is that you believe in Bernie's story of it passing and not Warren's. To me, they're just both stories. If you're gonna believe one, why not believe the other. This isn't a question of plans, it's a question of who you like and find believable.

Click to shrink...

The incumbent party generally always loses seats in the midterms, the idea of you being more prepared in the second half of your term to pass a major piece of legislation like Medicare for All is unprecedented. Anything you state to happen in your third or fourth year that isn't an Executive Order that you just didn't feel like passing earlier for, reasons I guess, is something you're basically saying won't happen. If you're going to pass M4A it has to be in the first 2 years.

 

[fontguy]

So, you're saying it concedes the possibility of M4A based on the likelihood of it passing? We've already established that all scenarios here suffer from that same problem. The only reason you selectively apply this criticism to Warren and not Bernie is that you believe in Bernie's story of it passing and not Warren's. To me, they're just both stories. If you're gonna believe one, why not believe the other. This isn't a question of plans, it's a question of who you like and find believable.

Click to shrink...

Dude, how hard is this? One candidate is going to at least attempt M4A in earnest. One is not. Stop playing dumb. Or keep playing dumb. Either way, I'm done with your bad faith arguments and I'm ignoring you now. Bye.

 

[Oddish1]

But abolishing private insurance and establishing single payer with M4A is pretty much as far left as you can get with the specific issue of "healthcare shit, how fix?" without massive societal restructuring. So I'd argue there's a pretty hard ceiling here, and Bernie is the only one right now willing to bump up against it. Warren's significantly more compromised position isn't winning her all that many voters, and she's among the worst-polling candidates in head-to-head matchups with Trump, so it hardly seems like compromise is the key to electoral palatability.

And I really think we're at a point where voters just want the assurance that their pie-in-the-sky policies will be fought for in earnest, even if they don't come to fruition, and that it doesn't pose any greater electoral peril than not attempting it at all. If anything, the latter is almost certain to increase voter apathy and depress turnout. And even then, Obama won a second term despite his tentpole legislation not even being half of what he intended and ultimately manifesting itself in an embarrassingly broken website that actually didn't let some people keep their doctors like he insisted.

Click to shrink...

You think abolishing private insurance and establishing M4A doesn't require massive societal restructuring? Interesting.

If you want to argue that Warren's positions on healthcare is not being successful for her than I would agree. But I would also note that Biden's healthcare is significantly more compromised, and he's in second, does very well in head to head polls against Trump, and was the frontrunner for a long time. I would also point out that Sanders' plan to abolish private insurance is not actually very popular when it's explained to people. So I'm hesitant to conclude that compromise is inherently a losing position. Especially when we're also looking at polls in battleground states, where Sander's plans are considerably less popular.

 

[alexiswrite]

Dude, how hard is this? One candidate is going to at least attempt M4A in earnest. One is not. Stop playing dumb. Or keep playing dumb. Either way, I'm done with your bad faith arguments and I'm ignoring you now. Bye.

Click to shrink...

I don't understand why you'd just call someone bad faith because they disagree with you. It just seems like a way to avoid engaging with other people's perspectives.

"One candidate is going to at least attempt M4A in earnest. One is not." is a subjective read of the situation based on your view of one plan being way more achievable than the other. I don't see it that way. That's our disagreement.

 

[fontguy]

You think abolishing private insurance and establishing M4A doesn't require massive societal restructuring? Interesting.

If you want to argue that Warren's positions on healthcare is not being successful for her than I would agree. But I would also note that Biden's healthcare is significantly more compromised, and he's in second, does very well in head to head polls against Trump, and was the frontrunner for a long time. I would also point out that Sanders' plan to abolish private insurance is not actually very popular when it's explained to people. So I'm hesitant to conclude that compromise is inherently a losing position. Especially when we're also looking at polls in battleground states, where Sander's plans are considerably less popular.

Click to shrink...

In comparison to the full socialization of all industry that you proposed as an example, yes. Like I said, I think M4A is pretty maxed out. And I don't disagree that compromise isn't inherently a losing position, but I think, in general, it is a losing position more often than not, especially in our current political quagmire. I think we need turnout above all else, and compromise typically isn't great at producing it. I would be interested if you could point me to polling in battleground states regarding M4A specifically. What little I've seen actually showed good to strong support, but none of it was conducted particularly recently and, like I said, I haven't seen much.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Hey guys I have a quick question. I forgot that I had to re register to vote because I moved to a new apartment, but one that's still in my county. So I just finished it but when I did my wife's I realized that when it came to "street address", instead of just putting the name I also included the street number accidentally. Will they ignore my minor error and send me what I need to vote again or will I be denied because of this? And if I am denied, should I re register right now again to put in the correct info or do I need to wait?

This is for the state of Georgia by the way.

Click to shrink...

It's really hard to say. This thing tends to be pretty arbitrary. If you get denied, I would attempt to re-register right away. I don't think there'd be any reason you need to wait.

 

[alexiswrite]

The problem isn't really anyone here though, it's the Electoral College. From a purely popular vote standpoint pretty much anything we want to do is popular enough with the broad American electorate. However, it's unpopular enough, with enough people in the right places that it makes it moot. You'll likely never see a Democratic Presidential nominee win the EC and yet lose the popular vote, yet it's happened twice in my lifetime the other way around.

In reality, the things that would be the most beneficial things for us to do would be to grant Washington DC and our territories Statehood and to try and pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in every State.

And, to be real here, it would help if Progressives showed the way, you listed a lot of gripes about California, well, shit, if you can't show the country how to do Progressivism right in California why would a Red State or a swing State think it's a great idea? And I don't mean to shit on Cali, you guys do a lot of good things, but, as one of the larger economies in the country, nay, world, almost all of those problems are just as much in your reach via the State apparatus as they'd be from the Federal. State tuition, that's a local and State issue, health care, regulated by the State, Fires, State and local issue, homelessness, State and local issue, you guys are focused on the sexy Presidential race when California could reasonably tackle most of its' issues on its' own in a way most States couldn't.

If we lose in November I wonder if it'd be better for organizations like the DSA, Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, whoever, to just go ham on one fucking State, try and take the whole thing. Try and build an example, on a smaller scale, what could be done nationally. It's clear that using other countries as examples means nothing to most Americans, take California or some shit, give it great healthcare, tuition free college, proper housing markets and slap America in the face with it.
The incumbent party generally always loses seats in the midterms, the idea of you being more prepared in the second half of your term to pass a major piece of legislation like Medicare for All is unprecedented. Anything you state to happen in your third or fourth year that isn't an Executive Order that you just didn't feel like passing earlier for, reasons I guess, is something you're basically saying won't happen. If you're going to pass M4A it has to be in the first 2 years.

Click to shrink...

I understand that conventional wisdom works in that way. It is super difficult to be in the position to pass it in your second term. I agree. However, based on the current political landscape, if we're talking about passing Medicare for all during one of the next president's terms, we've already abandoned conventional wisdom and are relying on something very weird to occur. We're already in the area of wanting something unprecedented to happen. That's my point here. The argument that Warren's plan is bad because it is extremely unlikely to happen doesn't hold water, to me, because all these plans are extremely unlikely.

In my view, to actually have a good chance of passing it you'd need to, as a prerequisite, add senators from DC and Puerto Rico, abolish the Senate filibuster, pass a bunch of voting rights legislation. Which no one seems to be proposing.

 

[TwoDelay]

Look, the way I see it, "the next Trump" is inevitable. We don't know who he (or she!) is or when he's coming, but when he does, where do we want the Overton Window to be: as far left as we can possibly get it, such that he'll have to fight just to drag us back where we are now? Or right where it is now, where he can continue where Trump left off?

Click to shrink...

Donald trump Jr is standing right there

Spoiler

It'd be darn funny if the last 4 republican presidents are father son

 

[Xaszatm]

I hate the "let's take it slow, progress needs to be slow and methodical" crowd with a burning passion. It speaks of those who don't care of people dying due to lack of insulin, of those who cannot afford treatments, and those who drown in medical debt. It reeks of those who take those people and just chart them up as a sunk cost or a "necessary sacrifice" for their "long term plan". It's this attitude:

I'm sorry but people are dying from lack of healthcare now. People are drowning in medical debt now. People cannot afford necessary medication and treatments to live now. I am sorry I am not willing to wait on a 10+ year timetable for decent healthcare in this country for everyone.

 

[Jas]

 

[YaBish]

Hey, was it mentioned yesterday that Bernie raised $46M in February? That shit is crazy.

 

[3bdelilah]

Click to shrink...

So around pre-SC levels right?

 

[Hoot]

I hate the "let's take it slow, progress needs to be slow and methodical" crowd with a burning passion. It speaks of those who don't care of people dying due to lack of insulin, of those who cannot afford treatments, and those who drown in medical debt. It reeks of those who take those people and just chart them up as a sunk cost or a "necessary sacrifice" for their "long term plan". It's this attitude:

I'm sorry but people are dying from lack of healthcare now. People are drowning in medical debt now. People cannot afford necessary medication and treatments to live now. I am sorry I am not willing to wait on a 10+ year timetable for decent healthcare in this country for everyone.

Click to shrink...

Incredibly this

It's astounding how so many of my US friends are basically one accident away from having their life ruined. I have a friend who is scared to death of being sick because she can has such a limited count of sick days. Another one would basically have his life over. One is working three freaking jobs because he had a kid and that's barely enough (not counting his wife, who is also working). One constantly battles with depression and cannot afford with therapy. And this doesn't even begin to consider the tragedy of all the gofundme I see, especially from trans acquaintances who can barely afford to live.

Those are the people fighting for their lives here. Not just some nebulous homogenous "Bernie bro" blob that opponents love to reheat to erase that reality

Moderates at this point are not gonna be the saviour. In fact, they've been complicit in this for a very, very long time. And getting angry at a group of people who is looking at a future where they'll be 40-50, penniless, in a world that will be on fire if nothing is done and clawing for life, a politics of moderation is not gonna cut it at all.

 

[BowieZ]

I hate the "let's take it slow, progress needs to be slow and methodical" crowd with a burning passion. It speaks of those who don't care of people dying due to lack of insulin, of those who cannot afford treatments, and those who drown in medical debt. It reeks of those who take those people and just chart them up as a sunk cost or a "necessary sacrifice" for their "long term plan". It's this attitude:

I'm sorry but people are dying from lack of healthcare now. People are drowning in medical debt now. People cannot afford necessary medication and treatments to live now. I am sorry I am not willing to wait on a 10+ year timetable for decent healthcare in this country for everyone.

Click to shrink...

But I want to vote for a candidate who, you know... really 'speaks to me'! And just a return to (so-called) decency...

 

[Temascos]

Hey, was it mentioned yesterday that Bernie raised $46M in February? That shit is crazy.

Click to shrink...

Bernie's got a good amount of funding (Obviously nothing compared to Bloomberg but better than most of the other candidates as I understand it, Joe's caught up a little bit thanks to SC) to carry on through and raise awareness of his policies. It'll certainly help his grassroots organisations and setting up offices, as well as tv adverts, in places where he needs it.

Regardless of how big his base is in comparison to the overall make up of the Democractic Party voters, it's a strong and committed base which is invaluable.