If you want a president that will encourage congress to take military spending elsewhere and actually help people with that money, Bernie is your guy. Pete will absolutely not attempt that.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
It does though, it's just that the Southern Republicans who vote against their class interests don't even realize they are part of said class. They have the mindset of a "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire" and choose to align themselves with the class they believe they are a part of (aka the class that workers and minorities are NOT a part of). They like Trump and Bloomberg because they equate being rich with being intelligent, so they truly believe that supporting them is supporting themselves, even if it is the opposite.
Also, the majority of billionaires aren't exactly excited about wealth tax proposals, outside of Steyer-like folks (which how many have there been at this point, really?). Can't seem to recall any wine cave parties with Sanders as of late. The people who donate to him who realize they may be paying more in taxes also realize that they will not be spending ludicrous amounts on insurance premiums anymore, which more than makes up for the difference in cost and then some.
So engage on this for a second
Extreme party politics works for Republicans better than it does for Democrats
You want the parties to come together and compromise on issues instead of just fighting for their political platforms all-or-nothing.
What happens if Democrats put forward candidates who compromise as a first action against a party of rabid "Our way or the highway" types? What do we get done?
The same thing that happened post 2012 for Obama, nothing. Nothing gets done because compromise is dead, and as a minority party the GOP will only support their own legislation. The Republican party has, as an actual rule, that they cannot and will not support any legislation that does not receive 50%+ support internally. They have an actual rule against compromise, and you want a compromise candidate.
You are making good points that I wish the country would move to. I wasn't in the camp of calling you anything to do with Pete, I was just talking about that single topic. In general, I feel the GOP will be just as unwilling to work with Pete than with Sanders. Sanders will just push back on the things like Military spending, etc.
The failing was not on the dems in the case of Obama but on the right. That they didn't hold their leaders to something higher is their own failing. You blame Obama and I blame the republicans. I don't think our Obama-ness should change because the other side acts like shitheads.
So trying to compromise didn't work, the Republican's stated goals of "We won't work with you so we can get control of all 3 branches" worked perfectly
And you don't think the Democrats should change tactics at all? Are you secretly a Republican?
You're only concerned about optics and not about the actual outcomes for millions of people. This is what an out of touch elitist who won't be impacted by consequences looks like, you
so it's predicated on a few things:
- trump is broadly unpopular, and especially unpopular considering the current economic conditions. sanders is quite widely liked - even people who don't support his policies appreciate how he speaks about the working class, and how he's spent his lifetime advocating for the poor. the issue that happened in the 2016 election, where both candidates were widely perceived to be pretty awful people, is extremely unlikely to happen again
- sanders has genuine appeal to working-class voters that clinton didn't. the fabled "learn to code" clinton argument was absolute poison in a lot of midwest states, because it positively stinks of elitism. sanders has a history on trade deals, on unionization, and on healthcare that indicates he genuinely cares about the working people. he's signaled that a major portion of his general election strategy would be to point out that trump lied about helping workers in the midwest and hasn't done anything for them, and I think that plays well enough to improve performance there by a fair bit
- his positions on foreign policy more generally make him far more appealing to some minority groups that we don't think about often, while not really having any downside. in particular, we rarely think about muslim immigrants as a voting bloc, but they fucking love sanders as a general rule because he's willing to challenge the stranglehold that pro-israel policies have on our foreign policy. they're still a relatively small portion of the electorate, but they have some decently-sized groupings in some important states (most notably michigan, which has way more muslims than you might expect!)
- a lot of it does fundamentally depend on whether or not white suburbanites will still come out to vote for democrats if it's sanders v. trump. there's no real way of getting around that. however, in practice, a lot of those voters are exactly the ones that you can motivate with the "you've got to help stop trump" rhetoric. I think a lot less of them will defect than people expect, especially if certain prospective campaign surrogates (it's obama, let's just be honest) make some speeches and tell them that the upside of a sanders presidency far outweighs whatever concerns they might have.
On the contrary I think the "he's a socialist!" smears aren't really going to work because Fox News has spent at least the last decade plus calling everything democrats do socialist. It might work for the rabid base of Republicans that get all their news from Fox, but I think for a lot of people those criticisms will ring hollow.
On top of that he's got a strong populist / working class message that I think will do well in the midwest where the economy isn't working for a whole lot of people.
And finally, Bernie has a huge number of volunteers who have been turning out in droves to canvass for him. This seems to have given him the advantage so far in IA and NH, and it will certainly be helpful in the general. Turnout in the NH Primary exceeded that of 2008, if we can get Democrats to turn out at the same levels we saw in 2008 we should have a decent chance of taking back the White House.
North Carolina is absolutely in play for Democrats if they invest in the right ways, and I would argue it's not impossible to push Georgia into play as well. Difficult and requires a lot of work and fight to get there? Absolutely. Impossible? No.
Edit: Texas is also the unicorn of this cycle. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but Texas keeps becoming more purple, so who knows.
I'm a centrist. I've often vote for both parties on my ballot. Call me a republican or a Democrat, it doesn't matter to me.
Bernie as president would have consequences for me and my family. Why am I not allowed to have that as part of my calculation when selecting who I want to vote for?
What are these consequences? Student loan debt forgiveness? Healthcare for all Americans, not just those who can afford it? Unless you're a billionaire or a family of insurance agents you really shouldn't be worried lol
Are we talking "slightly higher taxes" consequences or "we're going to Central Park" consequences?
Consequences like affordable health care and a clean environment? Are you a billionaire or something?
Centrist political ideology is wildly overrepresented. Your political preferences get far more due than their popular support. Nobody is denying your right to express yourself, your ideas are just unpopular.
He had almost 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody is going to get even close to that. Bernie is the only one proposing to try and create activism to extract concessions by disrupting the smooth functioning of the state, which probably won't even work but at least he wants to try!
Everybody waxing poetic about compromise has been unable to point out how even compromise bills are going to go through, the Dems are not going to nuke the filibuster with Schuck Choomer in charge.
The argument that class solidarity is both the strongest form of solidarity and yet completely invisible to all of the poor people who vote republican doesn't really hold up for me. They're not just ignorant. There's another form of solidarity that they're voting for, one they are choosing over class. It's cultural. Despite being nothing like Trump in terms of class, they see him as being one of them. They didn't just vote for him because he's a billionaire.
A lot of people will have less untaxed money, not just millionaires. Do you think rich people donating to Bernie are honestly doing it because they believe that it'll make them richer and not because they actually care about these issues? This feels like a stretch to me.
I mean, getting rid of the filibuster would do much more than any "activism" in conservative Dem strongholds. I'm honestly baffled why Bernie doesn't want to get rid of it.
Electability is such a lazy argument for supporting someone. It's not even true in this case.
Honest answer. Bernie v Trump, who do you vote for?
We need to build a political alternative. We are only at the beginning stages of a new politics, and already it's obvious that Sander's platform has broad appeal.
Maybe he really doesn't want to get rid of it. But if you did want to get rid of it as a president you would not mention it in an election year. Not only does it have to go through the senate dems anyway but the last thing you want is a conservative rallying cry distinct from trump
If you're gonna do it you have to put on a good show of exhaustion if you want to remain a big tent party
Again, it isn't invisible. These people truly believe they will be rich one day. The "culture" they subscribe to is successful white people, which again, they equate with monetary value. Classism begets racism, so the "issues" for them tend to go hand-in-hand. The class they desperately want to be a part of wants nothing to do with them, but they would rather be there than show solidarity towards minorities. But I suppose that isn't Republican exclusive either, given how many Dems are supporting Bloomberg.
A lot of people will have less untaxed money? Such as? A system like Medicare For All would save Americans billions of dollars. The rich who are donating to Bernie (again, would love to see receipts for how many billionaires are supporting him) know they will be taxed more. It's why you have the majority of them supporting candidates like Buttigieg or Bloomberg.
I substituted a chemistry class in college for an agricultural sciences class, thinking it would be easier.
It was not.
Trump can so easily beat Bloomberg by running to the LEFT of Bloomberg
Trump doesn't really care about Traditional Republican Right. If he smells blood in the water, Trump will tilt LEFT on a few issues just to beat Bloomberg
Honestly Trump can beat Bloomberg on "charm" alone. Bloomberg is going to tank hard on close inspection.
This 100% and that could be enough to get 1-2% points in key areas.
Though with Bloomberg... we have never really tested essentially unlimited amount of money. What if he plans to spend $1 billion in advertisement in WI/MI/PA EACH? Like how do you lose when you put that much resources in?
User Banned (1 week): Trolling over multiple posts
No. I don't mind paying more to help improve our country.
consequences meaning this country becomes more divided. less shit gets done. The things that need to get addressed now aren't solved. thats what a Bernie prez will do and I'm not here for it. Not for a second.
I have no idea how you look at Bernie v Trump and say that a Bernie presidency will be the one that makes the country more divided
You live on another planet
As an aside, I think the division in our country comes from the rise of social media as a news source, and large media corporation pitting us against each other even though our goals are 95% similar. It's very easy nowadays to go online and find news and opinion pieces that agree with whatever biases you have, left or right. Trump or Bernie certainly won't help ease these divisions, but I think the problem goes much deeper than those two.
plus Trump can easily go after Bloomberg on Stop-n-Frisk and Red Lining and steel 2% of Black Male voters.
just 2% is enough to fuck it all up.
Trump can through out some balooney policy just to win an election and some voters will fall for it.
just 2% is enough to fuck it all up.
Trump can through out some balooney policy just to win an election and some voters will fall for it.
its not about stealing voters, its about suppressing turnout.
The extremely easy method of winning this election is to convince black voters that Bloomberg doesn't give a shit about them (factually true statement backed up by years and years of policy) and then black voters stay home.
I don't think he even needs to do that. His base is more than enough to beat a heavily depressed democratic base
Why not both?
Trump is not ideological, he doesn't care. He will do anything just to get a win.
He's a bullshit artist and good at it
What kinds of pressing issues exactly need to be addressed that Bernie isn't planning to address already that the other candidates do?
Why would this country become more "divided" than a Trump presidency has already done? What happens with "Vote Blue No Matter Who" then? What implies that "less shit" would get done? Bernie's campaign is one of the only ones not focusing on incrementalism on the majority of issues, such as climate change, healthcare, student loan debt, and wealth inequality.
You mentioned your family specifically would suffer from consequences of his Presidency - what do you mean exactly?
My dude, this country has been divided since white America flipped their shit because a black man named Barack Hussein Obama became president, if not since its conception.
No major legislation will be passed while McConnell is Senate Majority leader, no matter who the president is, so might as well vote for the guy who has the foreign policy you like
The Republicans aren't going to play ball with the Democrats under any circumstances if Trump loses, regardless of which Democrat wins. We're talking about the party who literally stalled the nomination of Cassandra Butts until she died of cancer. She wasn't even nominated for a position that would have affected them in any way, but they stalled anyway because they're horrible people.
Whatever problems a Bernie Sanders presidency might have, an increase in division isn't one of them.
exactly, the only way to beat a fake right wing populist is with a real leftist one. In my opinion.
Its the same warning i give about Pete and Biden. Bloomberg is just the worst case scenario.
Guys, is there one master list of all the fucked up stuff that has come out about Bloomberg over the past few weeks? My mom has been riding the Bloomberg train ever since Biden started to tank and it would absolutely destroy my soul if she voted for this asshat. Please help.
I'm in Florida and Bloomberg has been absolutely blanketing us. If I had a quick and easy list to share with my friends, it'd do a lot to make me feel like we're not stuck in a hopeless plutocratic hell-hole. We are, but converting people would give me some hope, at least.
I'm in Florida and Bloomberg has been absolutely blanketing us. If I had a quick and easy list to share with my friends, it'd do a lot to make me feel like we're not stuck in a hopeless plutocratic hell-hole. We are, but converting people would give me some hope, at least.
- Status