Yup, already been noticing it [my IG is mostly memes].
It's been infuriating to watch accounts I loved shill for this discarded banana peel.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Yup, already been noticing it [my IG is mostly memes].
It's been infuriating to watch accounts I loved shill for this discarded banana peel.
Imagine how beastly Bernie's Hispanic numbers would be if Cubans weren't a political anomaly. They're easily spooked by "socialism" and immediately conflate it with communism and Castro, so it's Bidenville among the Cuban Dems down in Miami. If that weren't the case? If Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell at cracking Florida? I'd be 100% certain about him cruising to a plurality.
I get very frustrated with my people.
I get very frustrated with my people.
Cubans in Florida usually side with conservatives right?
So it was gonna be a low chance winning them anyway?
It's a big part of why I mostly dismiss Bloomberg as a novelty. If Bernie goes 3.5/4 on the early primary states he's going to cement himself as more and more electable (which the mc poll is already indicating) and more and more as a winner.
Traditionally, Florida Cubans have voted Republican as a reaction to the communist dictatorship in Cuba, yes. My post was just to say that, if Cubans weren't generally far more conservative than other Hispanics, Florida would be in the bag. Wishful thinking.
It is worth noting, though, that younger generations of Cubans-Americans (whether they were born in the U.S. or Cuba) are beginning to drift toward the Democratic Party. Even when they do, though, they're still typically wary of fully tilting to the left, thus a preference for moderates like Biden and Bloomberg. That (plus the reenfranchisement referendum passed during the midterms) should help Florida become bluer than it's been in the past. Hopefully.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
www.huffpost.com
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
A public option clears the "moral travesty" check pretty cleanly. But if your come to the table arguing for single payer, the likelihood of compromising toward a public option is much more likely imo (versus coming to the table with a public option and being rejected outright).
Matt
As I read all your posts from today in this thread, I was strongly reminded of the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios's The Alt-Right Playbook series. Specifically, the episode titled "You Go High, We Go Low." If you haven't seen it, or if it's been a while, I suggest you watch it. In fact, I want you to watch it, because otherwise you'll never understand where the people who've been responding to you are coming from, and why your seeming obsession with the "democratic process" and its "integrity" (your words) can be aggravating to them - and frankly, to me as well. Here it is:
First, I'm going to assume you're a Democrat/liberal/left of Republicans.
Second, the video isn't directly about the topic at hand, but it touches on the notion of valuing the process/having integrity at all costs, something you seem to be engaging in going by many of your replies. That said, entire parts of the video are particularly relevant, so here are just a few choice quotes (emphasis mine):
"There is a liberal tendency to turn away from policy and focus instead on process - generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, compromise, decorum. And, fair enough, the absence of these things in Washington over the years is certainly something everyone left of center is sick of, but [...] none of them are results; they're means. Like, a willingness to compromise is not a position, and when you overfocus on how you should go about things, and not what things you should go about, it fosters a certain philosophy about government that is both highly flawed and highly exploitable. The valuing of means at the expense of ends. Most people would say that "the ends justify the means" is a crap moral philosophy. Democrats would agree. But liberals often overcorrect to the point where thinking about the ends at all is thought of as, in a vague, reflexive kind of way, innately immoral.
[...]
On some level, [Democrats] genuinely believe that even when it accomplishes nothing, following the rules to the bitter end is the noble thing to do.
[...]
This can be very frustrating. To us as citizens, the most important question is "what happens next?" Republicans break a rule, Democrats take the high road, and what happens next? In practice, the answer is always "they get what they want, but we get a philosophical victory." But when the questions that govern our lives are "will I get shot by police?" or "will my kid die in an emergency room for lack of funds?", unless it's gonna get my kid a philosophical blood transfusion, values neutral governance isn't useful.
[...]
An action has no intrinsic value wholly separate from its outcome. A Kentucky clerk breaking the law by refusing to sign a legal gay marriage licence is wrong, and a California clerk breaking the law by signing an illegal gay marriage licence is right. There is a moral imperative to disobey rules when following does not lead to justice."
The type of responses you've been posting are, to be blunt, infuriating. You're arguing about the process to justify how Bloomberg entering the election and making his way to the top is normal and good democracy, actually, all while denying any responsibility for your opinions by going "but you know, on a moral level, I agree with you, Bloomberg is bad... But the process though!" Who cares about the damn process? Democracy and the democratic process are not the same thing. The democratic process is meaningless, if not outright detrimental to democracy if it's flawed in a way that other forces can disproportionately influence the people. Bloomberg is using his outrageous wealth to inundate us with ads and buying people to shill for him and fuck with the process. His candidacy might be legal, but it is most definitely not "legitimate", to use your words. And the end result, should he get the nomination, is that people would then have to choose between someone who is a threat to their lives, and someone who would be... a threat to their lives too. Only with even more money to corrupt the system. Yay.
That's why posters in this thread are so frustrated with your tonedeaf takes about the goddamn integrity of the process. Integrity means nothing when lives and freedom are in peril. The process means nothing when it can be legally exploited in such a way that it undermines democracy. Stop fetishizing a slavish values neutral adherence to the process; stop fetishizing a form of democracy that would lead to plutocracy. Imagine if the heroic lady from yesterday's conference acted that way: "This isn't democracy. This is plutocracy... But Bloomberg is respecting the law, so carry on; we gotta respect the process for whatever reason, after all!"
This stance of yours wouldn't be so frustrating if ERA wasn't supposed to be a safe space for the very vulnerable people Bloomberg has harmed... But it kind of is. Well, some of us try to make it that anyway. And you're not helping when you do this. Especially not as a mod. Honestly, I find your takes unsettlingly detached from reality.
Do better, dude.
As I read all your posts from today in this thread, I was strongly reminded of the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios's The Alt-Right Playbook series. Specifically, the episode titled "You Go High, We Go Low." If you haven't seen it, or if it's been a while, I suggest you watch it. In fact, I want you to watch it, because otherwise you'll never understand where the people who've been responding to you are coming from, and why your seeming obsession with the "democratic process" and its "integrity" (your words) can be aggravating to them - and frankly, to me as well. Here it is:
First, I'm going to assume you're a Democrat/liberal/left of Republicans.
Second, the video isn't directly about the topic at hand, but it touches on the notion of valuing the process/having integrity at all costs, something you seem to be engaging in going by many of your replies. That said, entire parts of the video are particularly relevant, so here are just a few choice quotes (emphasis mine):
"There is a liberal tendency to turn away from policy and focus instead on process - generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, compromise, decorum. And, fair enough, the absence of these things in Washington over the years is certainly something everyone left of center is sick of, but [...] none of them are results; they're means. Like, a willingness to compromise is not a position, and when you overfocus on how you should go about things, and not what things you should go about, it fosters a certain philosophy about government that is both highly flawed and highly exploitable. The valuing of means at the expense of ends. Most people would say that "the ends justify the means" is a crap moral philosophy. Democrats would agree. But liberals often overcorrect to the point where thinking about the ends at all is thought of as, in a vague, reflexive kind of way, innately immoral.
[...]
On some level, [Democrats] genuinely believe that even when it accomplishes nothing, following the rules to the bitter end is the noble thing to do.
[...]
This can be very frustrating. To us as citizens, the most important question is "what happens next?" Republicans break a rule, Democrats take the high road, and what happens next? In practice, the answer is always "they get what they want, but we get a philosophical victory." But when the questions that govern our lives are "will I get shot by police?" or "will my kid die in an emergency room for lack of funds?", unless it's gonna get my kid a philosophical blood transfusion, values neutral governance isn't useful.
[...]
An action has no intrinsic value wholly separate from its outcome. A Kentucky clerk breaking the law by refusing to sign a legal gay marriage licence is wrong, and a California clerk breaking the law by signing an illegal gay marriage licence is right. There is a moral imperative to disobey rules when following does not lead to justice."
The type of responses you've been posting are, to be blunt, infuriating. You're arguing about the process to justify how Bloomberg entering the election and making his way to the top is normal and good democracy, actually, all while denying any responsibility for your opinions by going "but you know, on a moral level, I agree with you, Bloomberg is bad... But the process though!" Who cares about the damn process? Democracy and the democratic process are not the same thing. The democratic process is meaningless, if not outright detrimental to democracy if it's flawed in a way that other forces can disproportionately influence the people. Bloomberg is using his outrageous wealth to inundate us with ads and buying people to shill for him and fuck with the process. His candidacy might be legal, but it is most definitely not "legitimate", to use your words. And the end result, should he get the nomination, is that people would then have to choose between someone who is a threat to their lives, and someone who would be... a threat to their lives too. Only with even more money to corrupt the system. Yay.
That's why posters in this thread are so frustrated with your tonedeaf takes about the goddamn integrity of the process. Integrity means nothing when lives and freedom are in peril. The process means nothing when it can be legally exploited in such a way that it undermines democracy. Stop fetishizing a slavish values neutral adherence to the process; stop fetishizing a form of democracy that would lead to plutocracy. Imagine if the heroic lady from yesterday's conference acted that way: "This isn't democracy. This is plutocracy... But Bloomberg is respecting the law, so carry on; we gotta respect the process for whatever reason, after all!"
This stance of yours wouldn't be so frustrating if ERA wasn't supposed to be a safe space for the very vulnerable people Bloomberg has harmed... But it kind of is. Well, some of us try to make it that anyway. And you're not helping when you do this. Especially not as a mod. Honestly, I find your takes unsettlingly detached from reality.
Do better, dude.
She is right, and I doubt Bernie can successfully pass M4A, but I don't think we should be compromising from the get-go. If Bernie and AOC are unable to get it through they'll obviously go for the next best thing, but in the meantime they'll keep their base excited about M4A.Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
It's fine. You don't start a negotiation with a weak position.
An important thing to remember, for all the talk of class war...when it's really an age war. Put it this way: You're more likely to support Bernie (left politicians in general) if you're young and make over $100k/year than if you're 50+ and poor. The wrinkle to all this - First World countries like the US are only getting older.
What?
You don't telegraph that you realize that your demands are not feasible and acknowledge the likely outcome is the compromise everyone and their mother knew was going to happen, ahead of a negotiation.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
You start off way far out left and then moderate down if you have to, but fight like hell along the way. Don't start negotiating from a more moderate position. You'll just end up with something further to the right.
Nobody actually believes Bernie will get everything done that he wants. But he's the most trustworthy candidate to fight as long as he can for his positions, and he will shift the Overton window massively.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
To be honest, I don't think there's really nearly as much of a problem with this among Bernie supporters as a lot of people think there is for whatever reason. The issue (and it's a big one) is all about where you start, where your initial ideals and goals are, because everyone should know that you don't start with your compromise if you just have to end up compromising on the compromise. Bernie isn't stubborn on this stuff - he voted for the ACA afterall and clearly has tons of problems with it, but the point is getting the party on the same page as much as possible, on affirming what our goals and ideals are, before we go anywhere else, or you'll get even less of what you want.
If we ended up with a robust public option and some more price controls hell yeah would I be fine with that (for now).
It's a difference on how you view what incrementalism even is. Incrementalism in the service of an actual broader goal is fine and good - incrementalism for the sake of it from the outset, as the goal, is bad.
I saw this earlier... but is Mike even coherent most of the time?
Is he constantly being held up by strings?
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
this is a common mischaracterization of Sanders supporters
I think AOC has actually said some good words about it in the past, it's about fighting for specific goals even if you have to compromise to get good policy through
I think you're conflating Sanders supporters being disappointed when candidates pivot away from those strong goals during an election vs. coming to a compromise when policy is actually being passed
you'll note that AOC is still all about M4A she's just talking about the political realities of actually getting something passed and what it might look like. she's still going to fight like hell for M4A despite those political realities.
Except that was Elizabeth Warren's plan, and Rose Twitter reacted by saying her phase-in was too short, and that it would be literally killing people.
So, when Bernie Sanders, because he's a smart politician, who understands social welfare gains, signs a public option bill, I look forward to the Jacobin or Matt Bruenig article counting up all the people Bernie Sanders is murdering by signing that bill, instead of holding out for M4A.
Healthcare really isn't a negotiation. Even the party's blue dogs favor a public option, so regardless of anything, if the Senate can pass anything (getting rid of filibuster and having enough seats) it was always going to be the public option. To get the most out of that you need more seats not a different start point, and the public option is more popular anyway so it was always a better vehicle to get seats.
Actually Mike Konczal seems to be arguing that if you push for M4A you actually won't be able to push through a public option later through reconciliation if the push for M4A doesn't work out, though I'm still trying to get some clarity on it, so I'm still not sold on what he's arguing. (read thread).
Though of course you could if you eliminated the filibuster.
twitter.com
Though of course you could if you eliminated the filibuster.
Mike Konczal on Twitter
“An issue is, under Sanders's plan to end-run the filibuster by passing M4A with reconciliation and having the VP over-rule the Byrd Rule, is that choice between the public option and M4A has to be made at the budget committees before debate even starts. https://t.co/suuet2Quo9”
twitter.com
For real this is probably greatest analysis of american liberalism on YouTube. Extremely eye opening to be honest and everyone should watch it.
Maybe, maybe not, but the point is, it's kind of pointless when it comes to Bloomberg running for the Democratic nomination.
Say, the DNC said, "we declare Mike Bloomberg is bad and isn't allowed to run for President."
Mike Bloomberg immediately sues in any random state based on their primary law, and any judge, even a left-wing one looking at the law will say Bloomberg is allowed on the ballot.
I mean, you've kind of given away the strong negotiating point when you have your surrogate giving an interview to HuffPo saying "oh we'd never want to railroad moderate Dems in Congress to support something they don't agree with, and view a public option as an acceptable compromise". That's like going into your job interview and saying that $100K is your demand but $75K would be an acceptable compromise. I don't see how that's less of a walkback than Warren including a period with a public option as part of a scheduled transition.
So, I mean, she's 100% right, both about the reality of the situation and the acceptability of the compromise (well, I guess really she's optimistic, since her "worst case scenario" doesn't seem to include the possibility of a Republican Senate where you get nothing, or a single-vote Democratic majority where Joe Manchin gives you Medicare for 50-year-olds and an extra $100 billion in Obamacare subsidies and tells you to be happy with that, but's that's splitting hairs), but it is definitely suspicious timing that after blasting Warren for the same exact compromise for months, as soon as her viability seems to have reached zero, here we are acknowledging the acceptability of the exact same compromise, and that as soon as Bernie is nearing status as the presumptive nominee on a platform of no compromise, it's all about the base, suddenly its pivot to the general, don't worry suburban voter, it's not like we're going to get to replace your healthcare anyway.
Again, not saying it's not correct, and it's not solid strategy, but if I were Warren after a few months of snake emojis being sent at me, I'd be a little peeved.
I don't care about whatever twitter boogie man you're concerned with and you should probably care less too. I'm not even going to ask what Rose Twitter is because it sounds stupid but if you want answers from them it sounds like they're on twitter
I mean, Sanders supporters in this very forum declare that Sander's M4A plan is the only way forward, and anything less than that will mean poor people will die and that will be on the hands of any politician that supports anything less than Sander's specific M4A plan.
All I want is consistency - if Warren is a snake who wants poor people to die, because her implementation of M4A is different than Bernie, than Bernie's a snake who is OK with poor people dying when he signs a public option in October of 2021.
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I disagree with some of your points, but I appreciate the time and effort you invested to put them down.
Tom Steyer proposed a $22 minimum wage. Sanders' unwillingness to go past $15 is frankly sickening, and will make it harder for a lot of working families to afford housing and provide good education for their kids.
M4A is the only way forward and anything less will mean a lot of underprivileged people will be fucked
that's still true
I'm not sure what your issue here is tbh, none of the candidates are actually president yet
The Medicare 4 All plan prohibit that too.
Count out Venezuelans too and the majority of Puerto Ricans living in Florida.
Medicare 4 All have little chance to pass even if Sanders is president.
That when some people actually openly admit the actual political reality at play, they're attacked as pre-compromising sellout snakes, while others aren't.
There is actually a difference between fighting tooth and nail for the best possible outcome, and compromising only when it has been thoroughly routed as a possibility, and explicitly building a natural terminal point into your implementation agenda while claiming you want the best possible thing. The difference here is your a priori assumption as to how far away you believe the political horizons really are. Whether you are prepared to accept that is another issue entirely, of course.
I don't think the Democratic Party allowing Bloomberg to run for the nomination has anything to do with going high or going low. I think the only people who have any right to chose the party's standard bearer are the voters.
It literally is starting with the compromise from the beginning. That is the point. That is what is being considered morally questionable and foolish considering all legislation inevitably gets watered down as it makes its way through the process.
Bernie supports M4A as his goal and ideal, it's what he will fight for before ever having to compromise. Warren starts with her compromise as the goal and will inevitably compromise further from that point. There is nothing more complicated to it than this.
i don't know why you're saying aoc saying something about m4a is the same thing as bernie saying something about m4a (which is the same thing as warren saying something about m4a??)
whether or not she's a 'surrogate' doesn't matter, she's not saying she's speaking for bernie and she never suggests she is.
whether or not she's a 'surrogate' doesn't matter, she's not saying she's speaking for bernie and she never suggests she is.
obviously, that's what AOC was talking about
you still support the hell out of it as the ideal way to move forward as a nation or in Bernie's case run on it as a cornerstone of your presidential campaign. Bernie would most likely be fine if a public option was the only feasible way forward during his presidency but he's still gonna run on M4A and build support around that ideal.
I think you're getting a lot of wires crossed and frankly it seems like your main beef is with randos on twitter who called Warren a snake
I'll leave you to handle that on your own
Except your first part isn't true - if Random Democrat X came in and had a health care bill that 51 Senator's agreed too, there'd be no watering down. Now, that may not go far enough for you, but that's not pre-compromising.
As far as the rest, it's interesting that two different implementation routes to M4A has been changed too, "Elizabeth Warren has pre-compromised, while Sanders hasn't," ignoring the fact that Bernie has implementation as well. I could argue that Bernie has pre-compromised for not wanting M4A to be not immediate, but that'd be a silly argument.
The actual truth is, whether Sanders or Warren is President, the health care bill they sign will be the same, regardless of where they start.
I mean, this is technically true, but also c'mon, we all know AOC isn't giving comment on the record to Huff Po writers about Bernie's signature policy without coordinating with the campaign. You're right it's not Bernie, and I'm sure that's exactly what Bernie will say, but I'm also sure that maintaining that plausible deniability is intentional too. That's the whole art of the pivot to the general, finding ways to communicate different things to different audiences without technically lying. And it's good, smart strategy — honestly kind of a useful corrective to the idea that Bernie is some sort of my-way-or-the-highway tyrant that the media seems to want to portray — but it is a funny development, after the themes of absolute clarity he built his primary campaign around and the bluntness and unbendingness his most ardent supporters say they like most about him.
I'd argue this is even more of a precompromise. Warren had a public option as part of a transition to to M4A. And Bernie fans are absolutely right that that looks suspiciously like an off-ramp, but it is still part of a package that includes eventual M4A as a theoretically non-negotiable part of it. AOC is straight up giving away the game and saying oh yeah, we'd negotiate down to this, as the actual final, complete policy.
Last edited:
BIngo.
AOC's statement is perfectly fine. But, it's another bit of proof, just like his past statements on supporting hererodox Democratic candidates, that Bernie himself and some of Bernie's staff and support base have two different views of the world.
That's... a bit of a misreading of Kilrogg's post. I understand if you don't want to address his criticisms of your posts, but at least try and understand his argument against the Bloomberg thing better.
I think the issue that Warren supporters had with the attacks made against Warren's M4A transition plan was not criticism that it wasn't smart strategically. It was accusing her of saying her plan shows that she actually doesn't support M4A.
That attack was grossly unfair.
That attack was grossly unfair.
also, and maybe it'll alienate rose twitter or gardenia twitter or whoever the fuck, but if Bernie is going to be the nom eventually he's going to need quell the fears of dems who are currently losing their fucking minds over his chances. having one of his most recognizable surrogates come out like this is a good thing. maybe they can exhale.
Documents reveal DNC was 'intimately involved' in development of troubled Iowa caucus app
Internal correspondence provided to Yahoo News demonstrates that national party officials had extensive oversight over the development of the technology.
well isn't this interesting
- Status