2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Oh. Look. An article that I already read that only really says that they specifically dislike Bernie and Warren. Yes, you've uncovered the establishment plot with this piece of evidence.
This sounds like a specifically bad idea.
Because you have to keep fighting, you have better name recognition, you tried to approach groups like black voters and because a lot has changed since 2016.
Nobody knows if there´s enough voters for someone this "radical", but trying is the least you can do.
The way our general elections work, the less candidates running as independents, the better.
It'd split the vote 3 ways, and we can all guess with relative certainty how that would turn out, given that Republicans get in line.
I agree, but name recognition is something that ultimately all candidates have to fight for. Bernie has the leg-up this cycle on someone like Gillibrand for example, who isn't well known, because of him making that large effort in 2016. Yet, I won't claim that the DNC has it out for Gillibrand if she can't build her brand in time for voting season.
OP
OP
Some true things.
* The 2016 Democratic primary had problems where all of the realistic candidates except Hillary were "encouraged" not to run.
* As a necessary part of that argument, Bernie Sanders was not viewed by Democrats (politicians or voters) as a realistic candidate with a real chance to win the primary.
* If a realistic candidate had run, they probably would've beaten Hillary.
* So clearing the decks was probably a bad idea and it's good that the exact opposite thing is happening here.
* But Bernie's success in 2016 was due in at least some large part to the absence of any non-Hillary competition, and now there is lots of non-Hillary competition.
* The polls are already showing that this is a big problem for him.
* Socialism is good either way.
* The 2016 Democratic primary had problems where all of the realistic candidates except Hillary were "encouraged" not to run.
* As a necessary part of that argument, Bernie Sanders was not viewed by Democrats (politicians or voters) as a realistic candidate with a real chance to win the primary.
* If a realistic candidate had run, they probably would've beaten Hillary.
* So clearing the decks was probably a bad idea and it's good that the exact opposite thing is happening here.
* But Bernie's success in 2016 was due in at least some large part to the absence of any non-Hillary competition, and now there is lots of non-Hillary competition.
* The polls are already showing that this is a big problem for him.
* Socialism is good either way.
Interesting opinion. Should Democrats stop seeking votes from independents as well?
Also I believe Bernie switches his party affiliation to D when he runs
John Delaney announced his campaign in July 2017 and he still polls at like 1%. The powers that be must be terrified of a Delaney presidency.
If you want candidates more to the left, closed primaries are an easy way to do that. (see: Lipinski/Newman.)
I'd like to hear your rationale for the comparison of people thinking the buzzwords "centrist, neolib, etc." have been used so widely to dismiss arguments that all meaning has been drained from them and terfs being called exactly word for word what they are?
I can agree with all this, but when people mention establishment conspiracy they mean the establishment rigging the election against Bernie.
centrism and neoliberalism are extremely well defined terms that are being used to describe people who don't like the negative implications they have
in which case i think the solution is to rethink one's positions rather than pretend that language has no meaning
OP
OP
Yes, but the relatively common counterargument of "THERE WAS NO RIGGING AND NO PARTY CONTROL OF THE PRIMARY" founders a bit because, technically speaking, there was a lot of rigging and party control of the primary. It just mostly ended up helping Bernie by accident.
What an amazingly awful take. Being a terf is a clearly defined stance that the person labeled with would admit to holding and based on their own belief system, though they might occasionally prefer friendlier packaging. Neoliberal is defined by the person applying it and thus considerably more arbitrary.
Also comparing issues of trans rights to terminology used in leftist political discourse is, at best, a little bit silly.
The language has meaning. But the way the language is used does not share that meaning 90% of the time and is used as a shorthand for not wanting to talk about specifics. Which is incomparable to terfs.
The "rigging" was not present during the primary, is basically my point. And the pre-primary "rigging" was mostly just clearing out Biden (Which consisted of a combination of his son dying and Obama specifically telling him not to) as there weren't that many people that would actually have stood a chance against Hillary capable of running at that point. In fact, I can't think of anyone that would have stood a chance other than Biden.
They are well-defined terms which are often used as invectives that ignore the meanings (conservatives Ds, liberal Rs, in-the-middle-Is and 80s/90s Reagan/Thatcher/Greenspan lasseiz-faire types respectively) that are ascribed to them, rendering the terms meaningless in most discourse.
Last edited:
the person i was replying to clearly disagrees
No. You lack reading comprehension. The person you were replying to says that the words have been drained of all meaning. When terms are used incorrectly the majority of the time they're used, they most certainly have been drained of their meaning in vernacular contexts.
how on earth do you know that those terms are used incorrectly a majority of the time?
Or aeolist just disagrees with you. Why does it always turn to insulting other people's intelligence?
Additionally, neoliberalism and centrist ideology accurately captures the Democratic discourse and policy implementation since the Carter administration.
When lefties refer to literally anything right of them as "centrist" it takes all meaning away from the word, because someone like Obama is very much not a centrist.
Obviously Aeolist disagrees with me. That's not the point of contention here. Aeolist was literally comparing the initial post saying that the use of the terms neoliberal and centrist by lefties to call literally everything not like them as neoliberal/centrist has drained them of their intended meaning to terfs thinking that, being feminists that exclude trans women, terf is an insult.
Additionally, the "lacking reading comprehension" point was brought up in regards to the statement that my post was in conflict with the post Aeolist was responding to, which isn't simply a difference in opinion, it's a lack of reading comprehension.
Because I pay attention to when they're used. Do you want a scientific study on word use? Of course, you're one of the people that uses the terms incorrectly in the first place, so it does not shock me that you can't tell when the terms are being misused.
I think it qualifies her as a human; one who may make smart decisions and not-so-smart decisions, just like we all do.
Warren is a political idiot that's a policy wonk, basically.
OP
OP
As far as I can tell, there is no suggestion that Warren was, like, deliberately lying on any of these forms. The evidence suggests that Warren believed in good faith she was part Native American, having been told such by her parents, who she had no reason to doubt.
Given that she genuinely believed it, it doesn't seem...that surprising that she put it on forms. As she says, she probably did that on all kinds of forms. Wouldn't you?
So is it fair to say Warren essentially lied about being Native American? If so why are we allowing her to stick around when we are instantly asking for people like the Virginia governor to step down?
My parents told me Santa Claus was real but if I still believed that when I applied to college that's on me
Like I think it's unfortunate that Warren did what she did, but do you really think those two things are remotely equivalent?
OP
OP
This is a false equivalence gone too far. Like, I'mma need you to really think about what you said.
If she knowingly lied for years to take advantage of one of the most oppressed groups in America in order to advance herself? Yeah that's pretty insidious. But as OP pointed out Warren was always told she was Native American so there is a chance she just believed that and never looked into her genealogy.
Warren genuinely believed she was of native descent. Naive of her but not all that shocking. It's going to stick to her and she deserves some of the blame for not getting it cleared up before running but this isn't a career ending lie. Campaign ending, sure, but it's pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
The Cherokee tribe itself just wanted an apology and retraction, not for her to quit politics forever.
The Cherokee tribe itself just wanted an apology and retraction, not for her to quit politics forever.
Believing family stories about heritage without validating is a far far far far far far cry from blackface. C'mon son.
Exactly. I literally did a double take when I saw that post.
Let's just have a short summary of the conversation we have every time the neolib/centrist whatever argument comes up.
One side says that dems are practically the same as the UK tories as a monolith save one or two figures. This ends up lumping figures Bill Clinton (an actual centrist), Obama, Gore, Hillary, Carter, and Biden under the same brush when there are very obvious differences in policy and social issue views between them.
On top of that the comparison to UK Tories only rings true if you don't look at economic and social policy. For example, in 2008 most European countries took up a policy of austerity during the recession, while the U.S. dems went with stimulus. Then you have the Tories slow dismantling of the NHS compared to the dems pushing for multi-payer/single-payer since pre-Nixon days but not being able to get it and going with the ACA as it stands. So, the comparison doesn't really hold on policy grounds.
Basically, the terms get used as such a wide net that they don't really mean anything speific other than a expression of distaste by the person using them. Which actually ignores the fact that neolib refers to Reganites not the modern dems (Who are such a big tent party that you can't really define them as a single type, more akin to U.K. labour but to the right of labour in general). Neocon refers to the W. Bush types.
Another problem with this conversation is that the people who often use the terms neolib and centrist/whatever don't actually agree with each other on the definitions when pressed.
It's funny because this whole problem could have been entirely avoided had she not taken Trump's bait and did a DNA test. I get that she honestly believed she was Native American, but damn.
One side says that dems are practically the same as the UK tories as a monolith save one or two figures. This ends up lumping figures Bill Clinton (an actual centrist), Obama, Gore, Hillary, Carter, and Biden under the same brush when there are very obvious differences in policy and social issue views between them.
On top of that the comparison to UK Tories only rings true if you don't look at economic and social policy. For example, in 2008 most European countries took up a policy of austerity during the recession, while the U.S. dems went with stimulus. Then you have the Tories slow dismantling of the NHS compared to the dems pushing for multi-payer/single-payer since pre-Nixon days but not being able to get it and going with the ACA as it stands. So, the comparison doesn't really hold on policy grounds.
Basically, the terms get used as such a wide net that they don't really mean anything speific other than a expression of distaste by the person using them. Which actually ignores the fact that neolib refers to Reganites not the modern dems (Who are such a big tent party that you can't really define them as a single type, more akin to U.K. labour but to the right of labour in general). Neocon refers to the W. Bush types.
Another problem with this conversation is that the people who often use the terms neolib and centrist/whatever don't actually agree with each other on the definitions when pressed.
It's funny because this whole problem could have been entirely avoided had she not taken Trump's bait and did a DNA test. I get that she honestly believed she was Native American, but damn.
I don't think she believed she was lying. She was told from birth that she was native american. Which kinda makes her tone deaf and gullible. I mean, I have more Native American in me and I don't put it down as my race on forms (I'm half-hispanic and visibly so, so I put that instead). It isn't the same thing as blackface in either case.
My point is IF Warren knowingly lied about her heritage and used that lie to better herself for decades how is that a passable offense? For me that would be worse than blackface. They are both horrible don't get me wrong.
I'm probably hypothesizing and assuming too much, I'll just stop.
The evidence we have seems to suggest she probably didn't do due diligence investigating into her own background, but I'm not sure I'd categorize it as lying, which suggests deliberate behavior. More like she unintentionally spread misinformation she believed to be true?
I'm not sure I see the similarity between behavior intended to belittle a minority group and mistakenly believing you are a part of a minority group, except that they are both mistakes. Still not really comparable or morally equivalent.
The alternative is that she deliberately and knowingly deceived the public for years but then eagerly exposed herself through an unforced error. It doesn't really make sense.
OP
OP
I mean, I agree. If somebody could produce a conversation from Warren's past where she was like "oh man I've been claiming that I was Native American in the anonymized statistical data section of a bunch of legal forms and joining college social groups for Native Americans in order to gain some undefined advantage therefrom" I would certainly call for her to resign from the Democratic Party entirely. Or if, more likely, some other person was found out applying for scholarships they didn't qualify for or whatever, yes, dump on them.
I don't think that applies to this specific case, that's all.
Yeah this. Making Warren, of all people, seem to some kind of calculating schemer her entire life and the DNA test being the oppo that takes her down is just turning her into someone she's not. She's a well-meaning politician with some severe blindspots with regards to her own history and the state of optics in modern politics.
She walked into the DNA test trap none-the-wiser. This should make it clear how naive she was about the whole thing.
Yeah, I'm really not so sure about that.
I think you're giving her more credit than she likely deserves. If she didn't feel it would benefit her, why identify as NA? She clearly shares almost no values or traditions that would qualify her use of the designation.
- Status