No, there were thousands of crypto-socialists who wanted to vote for him but were blocked by the diabolical DNC.
-
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.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
In the past, "he'd do better in the general" was generally reserved for candidates who were running in the Dem Primary further to their left than they actually are, banking on their ability to effectively triangulate for the general once they secured the nomination.
But, with Bernie (since he's a hardline progressive), "he'd do better in the general" has always been a dogwhistle for "he'd do better in an election where the black vote mattered less."
But, with Bernie (since he's a hardline progressive), "he'd do better in the general" has always been a dogwhistle for "he'd do better in an election where the black vote mattered less."
Just now saw the Selzer poll and despite the numbers being almost exactly what we expected it's giving me life. Don't let me down, Iowa!
Also: icymi, Pod Save America is supporting Stacey Abrams' anti-voter fraud initiative, Fair Fight. As a non-US citizen I can't donate, so please throw in a couple of bucks on my behalf why don't you: http://votesaveamerica.com/fairfight
Also: icymi, Pod Save America is supporting Stacey Abrams' anti-voter fraud initiative, Fair Fight. As a non-US citizen I can't donate, so please throw in a couple of bucks on my behalf why don't you: http://votesaveamerica.com/fairfight
I'd actually attribute her losses in WI and MI to reduced black turnout in Milwaukee and Detroit, respectively. If the drop from 2012 to 2016 had been even a little smaller, she would've carried both states. Obama/Trump voters were not the decisive factor, and going by all the polling and post-mortems, they didn't ~~~feel ignored~~~ or ~~~anxious~~~. Some of them are shitheads with backward views.
But again, not integral to winning in those states, especially with our improving margins in suburbs.
Bernie being the nominee would cause the LARGEST political expenditures on behalf of the elite ever in history.
If you think the 1 percenters would just watch from the sidelines as their entire empires get threatened by Senator Sanders.. well, shit they just wouldn't let it happen.
If you think the 1 percenters would just watch from the sidelines as their entire empires get threatened by Senator Sanders.. well, shit they just wouldn't let it happen.
"Both sides" will be on the menu again.
Magnify something small about the Democrat to achieve some false ~~~balance~~~.
I think they'd have more to worry about from Warren. Considering her record of actual progressive accomplishment.
Warren forges alliances and learns what levers to pull to actually get things done. Bernie's entire governing strategy seems to be focused on...people rising up.
I mean, they are different to a certain extent, sure. But they (like all elections) are about creating a broad coalition of voters. That is, your natural allies, and folks who don't necessarily agree with you. We have ample data points from 2016 to 2020 to show pretty resoundingly that Bernie is really, really, really bad at this. He's not winning a significant number of people who refused to support him in 2016. He's not bringing in millions of new voters (proof from 2016 with participation being down vs 2008). He's not holding onto his 2016 supporters in 2020. The idea that he would somehow be better at forming consensus in a general election when the vast majority of people would be to his right, given he has zero personal history of being willing to moderate positions....it just doesn't ring true to me.
And I'm honestly, hand on my heart, may Cher strike me dead not trying to be overly shady to him. I swear.
honestly i don't know why the 1% would even care if sanders gets elected, to hear some people tell it everyone else in congress is directly controlled by corporate billionaire donors and all they'd have to do is just... not pass the bills sanders wants to pass, making him look like a failure and ensuring his supporters become disillusioned with the whole process and creating a "we can't elect a socialist, remember what happened last time?" narrative.
I worry about Warren's electability, but her winning the primary would make me feel a lot better about her chances in the general. She seems fairly well-positioned with respect to the college-educated white voters that have started swinging towards the Democrats, and she's been getting a lot better about talking about her working class roots. She's very weak with black voters right now, but for the same reason that Sanders would do a lot better in the general than in the primary this is only potentially a small turnout issue rather than a big persuasion issue.
I agree with some comments on the last couple pages that her really big weakness going forward is on health care, where clearly she doesn't want to get pinned down on the details of Sanders' M4A but also I think feels like she's stuck with it. If she breaks out early and can start pivoting for the general I assume that she'll end up explicitly supporting something more like Medicare for All Who Want It with the same sort of automatic enrollment as Buttigieg's.
I agree with some comments on the last couple pages that her really big weakness going forward is on health care, where clearly she doesn't want to get pinned down on the details of Sanders' M4A but also I think feels like she's stuck with it. If she breaks out early and can start pivoting for the general I assume that she'll end up explicitly supporting something more like Medicare for All Who Want It with the same sort of automatic enrollment as Buttigieg's.
accepted executive action has increased so much that I'm sure at least some stuff would get through without Congress.
Biden's +14 against Trump in the latest Fox poll has me feeling so conflicted. It might be worth getting the shitty candidate if it brings a victory that monumental. I want to see Trump destroyed. And say hello to 53 Senate seats.
No presidential election will ever finish with that kind of margin. Not saying Biden couldn't beat Trump, but if he did, it'd be by like +4 not +14.
As the situation is currently constituted, IE if the election were held today, Biden would win by far more than 4 points unless you think that all polling data is now worthless.
I really don't see the Ukraine story getting more than a small fraction of the traction that Her Emails did because the American Public isn't nearly as predisposed to dislike and distrust Biden as they were to Hillary. The two of them are just in two totally separate political universes in most people's minds.
well I do think national polling data 13+ months out from an election is worthless, but I also think there's a political gravity that hits people when they're in the polling booth. Certainly plenty of people who are on the fence about or leaning toward not voting for Trump again will likely find themselves voting for Trump again when it comes time to make the decision.
Polling has been showing that Biden is decisively winning the "dislikes both candidates" demo which is a group that Hillary lost.
Honestly, I think these are phantom margins. If we win, it won't be more than +8 or 9, no matter who we choose. Polarization will revert each parties candidate to a high floor/low ceiling.
If it makes you feel any better, the latest ABC/WaPo and Quinnipiac polls had Warren h2h at +7 and +12, respectively. Either way, I don't believe we will truly get a clear picture about how any candidate will fare against Trump until he/she is the nominated.
I don't see any scenario in which Trump doesn't get atleast 42% of the vote when it's counted. Like that Fox poll was insane but I just can't believe for a second any candidate makes Trump go all the way down to 38%
Biden cracking 50% however isn't crazy
Biden cracking 50% however isn't crazy
Yeah the same Obama-Trump voters who Biden "wins over" probably said they'd vote for Clinton in 2015 when she was posting landslide numbers as well. They're idiots and can not be trusted.
I think Warren's winning coalition would be more durable for the party going forward.
I think the question comes down to how many "Hillary sucked but Warren is great" voters there are vs how many "Hillary sucked but Biden is great" voters are out there
I'm inclined to believe there are more of the latter
Which is so stupid considering what their positions are but
Only a fact if you're a Trump supporter.
Not a fact and an unbelievably fucking stupid thing to say.
No, I'm pretty sure what Trump is doing will always be the bigger scandal.
Weird thought but I think basic income is more doable than like 90% of the even *moderate* proposals to things we talk about doing because it can be done through Budget reconciliation where as most legislation can't
I know if we win the senate people want to nuke the buster... but if we do have senate control but don't have the votes to nuke it Basic Income should be top priority
I know if we win the senate people want to nuke the buster... but if we do have senate control but don't have the votes to nuke it Basic Income should be top priority
It's been obvious that Trump should be impeached since before the 2018 Election.
The Founding Fathers envisioned someone like Trump which is why they had an escape clause. They didn't imagine that someone as spineless as Pelosi would refuse to act.
So yes, it's a bigger scandal.
The Founding Fathers envisioned someone like Trump which is why they had an escape clause. They didn't imagine that someone as spineless as Pelosi would refuse to act.
So yes, it's a bigger scandal.
"I blame the Democrats for the Republicans more than the Republicans."
Republicans are going to be Republicans.
Democrats should not be indifferent to Republicans.
Stinks to see Bernie falling in Iowa. He needs to make up a lot of ground for February.
I'm glad Biden is falling, because if Sanders doesn't win, I hope it's Warren.
Single-Payer is one of the biggest pillars of both campaigns. I'm glad there is a path for a Democratic Presidential Candidate who has pledged support for this plan.
I'm glad Biden is falling, because if Sanders doesn't win, I hope it's Warren.
Single-Payer is one of the biggest pillars of both campaigns. I'm glad there is a path for a Democratic Presidential Candidate who has pledged support for this plan.
I'm sorry but sitting here and doing nothing is wrong.
Just like you all say we shouldn't stoop to their level and be better than also means we hold ourselves to a higher standard. That means you impeach him. On principle alone he should be impeached.
Just like you all say we shouldn't stoop to their level and be better than also means we hold ourselves to a higher standard. That means you impeach him. On principle alone he should be impeached.
I could see Biden producing a better election result this year but letting the midterms go to shit and not bothering with candidate recruitment, campaigning etc.
I think Warren would be far more proactive in party building.
Ah yes, they are a force of nature with no agency.
Democrats are the only ones capable of making decisions, and they are always wrong.
the whole founding fathers bs gets to me, they were rich white dudes that didn't even think black people were people, they didn't think women should vote, they were just assholes who wanted to regulate their own nation theme selves.
Not just that, but at the time the population was more evenly spread out among the 13 colonies, yea they had to compromise for the smaller states but relative to now, the small state's weren't much smaller than the big states.
If you went and told the founding fathers that a place like California with 50,000,000 people would have as many senators as Wyoming that has 700,000 people, then they would've rethought their compromise.
There is no reason the senate should be set up the way it is.
This feels a little like arguing that we should break the glass on the "break glass in case of fire" case even though we can see that the arsonist has already removed the fire extinguisher, because that's what you're supposed to do when there's a fire. It's the principle of the thing.
Kirbs you're being unfair here. Nancy sitting here saying "we're not gonna do thing because no GOP support" is feckless, irresponsible and quite frankly cowardice.
If she won't lead, get out of the way.
Except here it's the idea of letting them get away with it.
Moral victories aren't always just losing elections close in hard to win elections. Sometimes it means doing the right thing and making the GOP hold onto it even though you know the answer to it.
Right, we've got to break that glass even though we can see that the fire extinguisher isn't there, because breaking the glass is part of our process for fighting fires and if we don't break the glass we've let the arsonist win.
No.
We're fighting with morals, not an actual fire. Abstract things like honor, justice and morality aren't so simply brushed aside with "oh but the GOP will just cover for him".
Do what is right, not what is cool.
- Status