|
I used to think Warren would be a bad candidate because she doesn't like campaigning, but a) retail politics seems vastly overrated these days, b) she seems to enjoy doing events and speeches these days when the debate is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll let her make the call.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I hate speaking and I believe anyone making more than three times their lowest paid employee is gulitine fodder. Trump has good public speaking skills for the audience he’s speaking to, i.e. absolute cretins. You have to do a bit better to get votes outside the core MAGAchud demographic though, unfortunately. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Are there any contingency plans should Bernie ever fall ill due to his advanced age? Does he have a protege waiting to take over? It seems awfully messed up if the only credible left wing voice in america is an old man in his 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Turner
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Trump has good public speaking skills for the audience he’s speaking to, i.e. absolute cretins. I'll post my manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
I just want a democratic, progressive candidate with enough charisma to go viral on their own without an ad campaign boosting them. We need a candidate who can generate their own publicity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just want a democratic, progressive candidate with enough charisma to go viral on their own without an ad campaign boosting them. We need a candidate who can generate their own publicity. So Vermin Supreme?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just want a democratic, progressive candidate with enough charisma to go viral on their own without an ad campaign boosting them. We need a candidate who can generate their own publicity. This is a somewhat reductionist view of how visibility in media works imo, you can be charismatic as all hell and have no media profile if the media doesn’t like what you have to say. Internet viral campaigns can work but they’ll only go so far without mainstream signal boosting and they won’t reach large sections of the electorate. Virginia and the DNC’s tactic of spending more money on ground game than advertising seems illuminating here as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just want a democratic, progressive candidate with enough charisma to go viral on their own without an ad campaign boosting them. We need a candidate who can generate their own publicity. I know he's Republican deep down, but it's obvious that the Democrats need to nominate KANYE WEST.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I know he's Republican deep down, but it's obvious that the Democrats need to nominate KANYE WEST. At least he would care about black people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:At least he would care about black people. Unity ticket with LGBT darling and registered Republican Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Unity ticket with LGBT darling and registered Republican Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner. No.  Kanye would be hilarious VP material though, I am willing to concede.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:With this hammer I blesseth thine works; with this sickle I blesseth thine harvests; may the fruits of thine labors serve those around you, as those labors serve you. Amen. In Lenin's name we pray.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/937726412664000524 Lmao the Republicans hosed their tax bill up in a way that will make the donors mad, mm baby this’ll be good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Are there any contingency plans should Bernie ever fall ill due to his advanced age? Does he have a protege waiting to take over? It seems awfully messed up if the only credible left wing voice in america is an old man in his 70s. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Just run Keith if you think Bernie is too old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Regarding other left-wing candidates, there are people I like and would definitely vote for, but I'm skeptical about how far most are willing to go. Part of why I consider Bernie different from most other progressive politicians in the Democratic Party is that he has explicitly come out as not being against ideas like a wealth tax (in this case as a possible funding mechanism for Medicare for All). Maybe other people like Keith Ellison or Elizabeth Warren would also support something like that, but I would rather go with the person who has explicitly revealed their support for such an idea. Support for a wealth tax basically reveals that the politician in question is actually serious about wealth redistribution. I don't really trust other politicians to be willing to go that far unless they make it explicit (which I think is a pretty reasonable assumption to make, given precedent). Just to reiterate, I still like and would vote for some other politicians, so don't interpret this as an opinion against them. I'm just explaining why, given what I've seen, I consider Sanders more reliable than other progressive alternatives. botany posted:the point that the dems should nominate somebody who can win primaries. His age is a decent reason to not prefer Sanders to run, but this isn't. The reasons he lost the primary are mostly* unrelated to the campaign he ran (since it was mostly due to the difference in name recognition between him and Clinton, and that difference no longer exists), and the disadvantages he had in 2016 are mostly gone now (if he hypothetically repeated a primary against Clinton, or most other Democratic politicians for that matter, he would probably win). And that's not even getting into the whole "a candidate being good for the primary doesn't mean they'll be good or the general, and vice versa" point. When I see this sort of argument, it feels like a post-hoc justification (that is, you take your desire for him to not run and then start trying to come up with a plausible argument to support that opinion). I also feel like it's usually driven largely by a desire to not agree with "Bernie Bros," though I'm not sure if that's the reason in this specific case. *I say "mostly" because there are actual mistakes, though some of those mistakes are related to the fact that he (reasonably, given past experience) didn't think he would actually stand a chance. But if you actually want to figure out the biggest contributors to Clinton beating him in the primary, it's almost entirely due to a combination of her name recognition and the association with her husband's presidency among older Americans (by "older" here I mean like anyone over the age of 40-50). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Dec 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Just run Keith if you think Bernie is too old. keithy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:I used to think Warren would be a bad candidate because she doesn't like campaigning, but a) retail politics seems vastly overrated these days, b) she seems to enjoy doing events and speeches these days when the debate is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll let her make the call. The question really is: can Elizabeth Warren go into a small town in the Midwest and eat moose chili? (Actually she's from Oklahoma so if she ate a lot of different wild game I wouldn't be surprised)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
imo, we should do bernie/keith 2020 solves the "bernie's too old" problem nicely and helps build keith up for either him to be the first black muslim pres of the US when bernie dies, or after bernie's term ends. also, keith would provide a good counter to republicans wanting to impeach bernie for being leftist
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, we should do bernie/keith 2020 They'd just find a reason to remove Ellison from office. You really think it would stop them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Run Barbara Lee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Run Barbara Lee. I had to look up who this is but I'm glad that I did, she owns. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:I used to think Warren would be a bad candidate because she doesn't like campaigning, but a) retail politics seems vastly overrated these days, b) she seems to enjoy doing events and speeches these days when the debate is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll let her make the call. Warren isn't an absolutely awful general candidate like Sanders (seriously, look at the polling for "would you vote for a socialist" and then tell me he would have won), but she doesn't have a clear platform. Beyond that, if / when she runs in 2019 / 20, she's going to get absolutely hammered with "CFPB / your work caused this economic hell."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
I think the "Pocahontas" moniker and the backstory behind it is going to be way more effective than any of us want to admit. It not only signals to racists on where to stand, but it's also helps paint her as inauthentic, which is apparently the worst thing a person can be when they run for office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:They'd just find a reason to remove Ellison from office. You really think it would stop them? i think they'd be deathly afraid to get him in office as potus in the first place, and chaining impeachment sounds implausible, even for republicans
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Timby posted:Warren isn't an absolutely awful general candidate like Sanders (seriously, look at the polling for "would you vote for a socialist" and then tell me he would have won), but she doesn't have a clear platform. Beyond that, if / when she runs in 2019 / 20, she's going to get absolutely hammered with "CFPB / your work caused this economic hell." This is a dumb take. I don't strictly speaking agree with the counterfactual that Bernie would've won, but I think that sitting here in 2017 and telling us he or someone of equivalent politics couldn't win in 2020 is hilarious lmao. A Bernie/Keith ticket would be interesting and I'm a lot more interested in that than I am in Bernie by himself for a variety of reasons. I wouldn't want Keith to become the "See Bernie loves black people" cudgel however, a hypothetical Bernie 2020 run hopefully learns a lot from 2016 wrt engaging with minority communities. His support for Puerto Rico and DACA have been encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
That was the one complaint I had with Bernie 2016--he completely seemed to ignore states that were minority-heavy, effectively ceding the entire South to Clinton. I firmly believe that no matter how bad his polling looked, he should have gone down there anyway. Give a few speeches. Stop in at a few roadside diners and talk to some people. Try the New Hampshire approach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
NH Republicans want to try and disenfranchise college students, whom they blame for NH going Dem at the national level in 2016
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:That was the one complaint I had with Bernie 2016--he completely seemed to ignore states that were minority-heavy, effectively ceding the entire South to Clinton. in a world where he thought he had any kind of legitimate shot, he probably does. but clinton's weakness was as much a surprise to him as it was to her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:in a world where he thought he had any kind of legitimate shot, he probably does. Yeah this is a lesson every left wing protest candidate at every level should take to heart going forward: if you're gonna run, run like you loving mean it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yeah this is a lesson every left wing protest candidate at every level should take to heart going forward: if you're gonna run, run like you loving mean it. And therein lay the tragedy--Bernie didn't realize that he had the exact political landscape he needed to win both the nomination and maybe even the Presidency in 2016. I firmly believe that he could have pulled it off if he had run like a candidate rather than an insurgent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:And therein lay the tragedy--Bernie didn't realize that he had the exact political landscape he needed to win both the nomination and maybe even the Presidency in 2016. I firmly believe that he could have pulled it off if he had run like a candidate rather than an insurgent. I mean it's a counterfactual, so we can't know, but I wonder sometimes if there was a kind of Bernie paradox in 2016: if he started laying the groundwork in 2012 and reaching out to the right people, making the right public noise, raising his profile, what if he was seen as establishment by 2016 and the enthusiasm wasn't there? Whereas conversely, running as he did, as a protest candidate, meant that the anti-establishment and youth vote turned out for him but no one else knew or cared. The central question being: if he runs and wins in 2020, did he have to lose first in order to achieve that? It's kind of a dumb question when I type it out as such but I dunno. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess what I'm hypothesizing is that he is the mirror universe Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I think no matter how Bernie ran, he was going to lose that primary. The name recognition of "Clinton" is just far too strong to overcome in a Democratic primary. Remember that before Bill won, we had 12 years of GOP control. Bill winning was viewed as this miracle moment for the Dems, like he saved us from 1,000 years of Republican rule. The Clinton name was just far too strong an advantage for any outsider to beat. Honestly, I'm fine with him running in 2020 as long as he picks a young VP who shares his values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think no matter how Bernie ran, he was going to lose that primary. The name recognition of "Clinton" is just far too strong to overcome in a Democratic primary. The only way for Bernie to have won would have been to start building name recognition four years previously. Obama was able to do that because his rhetorical gifts allowed him to steal the spotlight at several high profile points -- such as the Kerry convention before the 2004 election -- and then he managed to secure some extremely high profile endorsements very early on in the 2007 race -- the Oprah endorsement being the big one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Unity ticket with LGBT darling and registered Republican Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner. Deadnaming is not OK or funny even when the target is reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
I like Bernie but I think he's way too toxic with a segment of the Democratic base who I fear would rather live in four more years of Trump (especially since they probably won't be affected by the really bad poo poo) than vote for Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Radish posted:I like Bernie but I think he's way too toxic with a segment of the Democratic base who I fear would rather live in four more years of Trump (especially since they probably won't be affected by the really bad poo poo) than vote for Sanders. So, Bernie is not my first choice for 2020 if I could pick anyone, but I don't think this is a good argument for him to not run (though it might be a good argument for why he might not get the nom). If "some people don't like me" was a justification for not running no one would run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
botany posted:The deficit is the difference between federal spending and federal intake. By definition, a deficit (as opposed to a surplus) means that the government is putting more money into the economy than it is taking out via taxes. In other words, a deficit means a net increase in financial assets for the private sector. (I'm skipping over stuff like import/export balances here.) That's a good thing. Deficits inherently do a good thing. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were an insane neoliberal who sees the government redistributing public wealth to the already-wealthy as a good thing because it "increases financial assets for the private sector" - as if there's something good about that. There is nothing good about that, remotely, whatsoever. quote:This makes public debt synonymous with private wealth. Obviously there's the question of how this private wealth is distributed, and if that's your concern I fully agree. But that doesn't have much to do with the deficit. Uh no, it's pretty obviously inherently super bad and it's not just a question about distribution, it's the fundamental nature of society "owing" financial dispensations to individuals based on the amount of wealth they "loaned" to society. quote:When is public debt unsustainable? When the government's capability to service it is in question. This is a hard limit in asset-backed (non-fiat) currencies, either of the gold-standard variety or in mixed systems where the national currency is dependent on some other currency (the euro zone is a good example of this). The US is a currency sovereign country, so these limitations don't apply. Capability to service debt has less to do with overall debt level than with the political situation around the world and the USD's global reserve currency status. quote:Taxation is not dependent on either deficit or debt. When the government spends, it creates financial assets. When it taxes, it destroys financial assets. It can do both of these things essentially as it wants (if we ignore politics for a minute). The government's goal should be sustainable growth of the economy, coupled with full employment. In order to achieve these goals it can make monetary decisions that affect return rates, inflation and bubbles. So taxation is a tool for taking money out of the economy to make sure that inflationary pressure doesn't build up beyond what is desirable to discourage hoarding, for instance. It doesn't require debt or a deficit to do that. gently caress off, you insane neoliberal shill. quote:To get back to the original question: Basically the only situation where a deficit is unsustainable in some way is if it is so huge that it would make bond holders cash in for fear that the government will no longer be able to service its debt. But that confidence is a lot more about political stability and world politics than strictly about monetary policy. You are a fundamentally evil person with a warped, wholly immoral view of: 1) What the government is 2) What the government is for 3) What things are good 4) What things are bad 5) What the fuckin' word sustainable means
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
The main issue I have with running Keith Ellison on Bernie’s ticket is the same one the democrat party had with having Henry Wallace run for Roosevelt’s final term. I could see the party machinery try to stop this and put “their guy” in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You are a fundamentally evil person with a warped, wholly immoral view of: You just quoted a post that was talking about deficits as a good thing and citing full employment as an explicit ideal goal of government and unironically called the person making it a neoliberal shill, I think you may not be reading the post well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:29
|
|