|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
Kraftwerk posted:If Bernie wins could there be some kind of centrist rebellion within the Democratic party to try to marginalize his power- or would they fall in line and kiss the ring the way the Republicans did with Trump? It’d be really odd for the establishment to rebel against policies that the establishment now says they support. Whether or not they are being disingenuous, in a way they’re kind of stuck now because they’re on record supporting them. Plus the base, including the more “mainstream” base will have an expectation that those policies will be pushed. The one area I could conceivably see a push back is eliminating private insurance, since I do think there’s a sizable number of more mainstream Dems in the base who are concerned about eliminating that, though i think it’s more for political reasons as fear doing so could backfire politically. But everything else I think the base will be pretty boisterous In pushing. And that will compel the more centrist dem politicians to fall in line.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Radish posted:This guy is such a tool. He really does loathe people who protest, huh? Between this and his putting down "social justice warriors" in his book, it paints a pretty clear picture of a guy who doesn't like to be made uncomfortable by his lessers. But beyond that, it sure would be nice if they'd actually ask him some policy questions. But no, let's quiz him on whether or not James Buchanan was gay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:He really does loathe people who protest, huh? Between this and his putting down "social justice warriors" in his book, it paints a pretty clear picture of a guy who doesn't like to be made uncomfortable by his lessers. It's barely even a protest, it's just NOT going to a fast food restaurant based on not wanting to monetarily support practices you don't agree with. It's practically the only way to voice an opinion in the capitalist system but that's just too much. I can't wait for what he's going to agree with Shapiro on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
There is nothing more infuriating than the apathy of white liberals towards some of the actions of Pete Butt towards the poor. Particularly the apathy of white, upper middle class gay men.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Radish posted:This guy is such a tool. As an activist I have mixed feelings: I do agree that activists need to make sure they aren’t coming across as too sanctimonious, and are consistent, because not doing so risks diluting the efficacy of the message. However, this: ““My belief is that we should primarily deal with political issues in the political arena.”” Really turns me off. A theory of change requires an inside and outside approach. Activism helps create the political will and climate that allows the political arena to push for more progressive policies. The fact that Pete doesn’t seem to get that is a huge deal breaker in my book: theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Apr 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:Publicly ratfucking Bernie would be the death of the party. I'm not sure what the "death of the party" would even mean in the context of US politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Judakel posted:There is nothing more infuriating than the apathy of white liberals towards some of the actions of Pete Butt towards the poor. Particularly the apathy of white, upper middle class gay men. I mean he sound like poo poo on both the economic and social aspects of policy. I'm not sure what the hell I'm supposed to be excited for unless I think the kids at Kent State might have got what was coming. mcmagic posted:I'm not sure what the "death of the party" would even mean in the context of US politics. People being so demoralized outside of old gen X and boomer Democrats that they wouldn't even be an effective controlled opposition. I'm talking about a real ratfucking though, like Sanders wins the primary but it's awarded to someone else through some broken process. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Apr 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:He really does loathe people who protest, huh? Between this and his putting down "social justice warriors" in his book, it paints a pretty clear picture of a guy who doesn't like to be made uncomfortable by his lessers. he pulled the "yet you participate in society. curious!" argument without a shred of irony
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:I mean he sound like poo poo on both the economic and social aspects of policy. I'm not sure what the hell I'm supposed to be excited for unless I think the kids at Kent State might have got what was coming. To us. To other people he sounds comforting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
The "Democrats will sooner sabotage and lose than have Bernie win to protect their class interests!" narrative is dumb because it presumes that the President is a dictator who can magically pass policy with the wave of a wand. What the Dems understand that this thread constantly ignores is there is zero policy he can pass without the full sign-off of every last centrist in the Senate. Of course they'd *prefer* to have one of their own win, but there is also no question that if you're Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, you're still radically better with Bernie in the Oval Office than Trump. He'll sign off on the reasonable policies you want to pass, like HR-1, he won't pass the social policies you find abhorent, and anything actually extreme he wants to pass, you still get to block and water down to your heart's content. If Bernie wins the nomination, the (vast majority of) Dems will absolutely go all out to help him win, and then do everything they can once he's in office to moderate and control his agenda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The "Democrats will sooner sabotage and lose than have Bernie win to protect their class interests!" narrative is dumb because it presumes that the President is a dictator who can magically pass policy with the wave of a wand. What the Dems understand that this thread constantly ignores is there is zero policy he can pass without the full sign-off of every last centrist in the Senate. Of course they'd *prefer* to have one of their own win, but there is also no question that if you're Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, you're still radically better with Bernie in the Oval Office than Trump. He'll sign off on the reasonable policies you want to pass, like HR-1, he won't pass the social policies you find abhorent, and anything actually extreme he wants to pass, you still get to block and water down to your heart's content. wrong. Bernie could do a ton of damage to the neoliberal/neoconservative project by effectively wielding the administrative agencies and foreign policy apparatus respectfully.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:wrong. This is true: But if he’s going to I want to see his plan for how he will wield such power of the administrative agencies. This is something that so far I trust Warren more on, as she’s given some concrete ways she would do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The "Democrats will sooner sabotage and lose than have Bernie win to protect their class interests!" narrative is dumb because it presumes that the President is a dictator who can magically pass policy with the wave of a wand. What the Dems understand that this thread constantly ignores is there is zero policy he can pass without the full sign-off of every last centrist in the Senate. Of course they'd *prefer* to have one of their own win, but there is also no question that if you're Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, you're still radically better with Bernie in the Oval Office than Trump. He'll sign off on the reasonable policies you want to pass, like HR-1, he won't pass the social policies you find abhorent, and anything actually extreme he wants to pass, you still get to block and water down to your heart's content. You’re insanely wrong if you think no leftward policies could be enacted through executive order or executive action. EPA already has broad authority to regulate carbon, DOJ already had broad authority to prosecute financial crimes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
The Democrats were already a bicoastal fringe party after 2016, they don’t need to depress the vote even more by electing an empty suit like *long list of names that don’t begin and end with Bernie Sanders*
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:This is a surface-level argument to some extent. In terms of causes, it ignores the fact that say... stagflation in the 70's and the failure of unionism to form broad cross-race and cross-gender coalitions in the US meant that lots of Keynsian/SocDem policies couldn't deliver, or couldn't deliver for anyone but unionized white workers. Clinton could ignore the unions (and even actively work against them) in large part because the unions didn't constitute a broad base of popular and electoral support even in the late 70s. He was still a piece of poo poo, but he reflected a global, not just an American trend, of moving away from welfare states after the oil crises of the 70's. Not coincidentally this global trend had many parallels to the situation I just outlined. After three decades in which either socialism or some kind of ever expanding welfare state were widely viewed as the inevitable future around the globe, a new elite consensus took hold that emphasized the need to tame inflation, reduce labour militancy and restore economic dynamism. That new view was resisted at first but eventually became widely held among the politicians, journalists and business leaders that within any given country can be said to represent something approximating the "establishment". This view was given urgency by the crisis of Keynesianism and it's inability to deal with stagflation. In many cases I think elites were also motivated by the recognition that they stood to benefit economically from the abandonment of the Keynesian welfare state. Either way, the new consensus took hold and the need to solve the crisis of the 1970s became the inciting incident for pushing for change (the timeline here obviously varies a bit, with some countries being later to the party). The shifting toolkit of policies that were deployed to solve the crisis of the 1970s and then to prevent it from reoccuring, policies such as free trade, privatization, financialization, austerity, outsourcing, lean production, etc. - congealed into the vague and hard to pin down ideology of "neoliberalism". While this does vary from location to location, the turn toward "neoliberal" policies was controversial and often very unpopular. Neoliberal policies targeted powerful local interests and created dramatic economic shifts that produced a lot of losers. So the politicians pushing these policies needed to seize onto local political issues to justify their policies (at least in the jurisdictions where neoliberalism was implemented at least in part by elected officials, obviously the story was different in places where electoral legitimacy wasn't a concern). They took advantage of the exhaustion and growing unpopularity of the left. But the failures of the left weren't enough. "Neoliberalism" in its various national forms legitimized itself and won electoral support through appeals to nationalism, xenophobia, social conservatism and racism. The cultural backlash against the various movements for equality was instrumental in the electoral victories of the major neoliberal reformers in the 1980s and 1990s. quote:It also ignores the fact that the "status quo" isn't a monolith (and doesn't function like the far-right in terms of motives or aims). The NYT, for example, is well-known for its initial support of the Iraq war, broken windows policing policies and a lot of other terrible stuff... but today its far more aware of the socio-economic problems of capitalism: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html This is a ridiculous extrapolation. The liberal establishment is implicated in the deployment and maintenance of white supremacy to achieve their political goals. Pointing this out doesn't mean that I think there is no meaningful difference between different political parties or movements or entail any of the other caricatured political attitudes that you list. It does mean we should be skeptical when people try to erase that history and misrepresent things. quote:The answer is because it compromises the left and leaves them open to being co-opted by the right, who have a much easier time using leftist grievances as a jumping-off point (really any grievances, so long as they can apply to white dudes). There is far more exchange in terms of ideas and assumptions between the liberal centre and the extreme right than there is between the left and the right. The Democratic party's position on foreign policy, policing and welfare did vastly more harm and opened up far more rhetorical space for the alt-right than the actions of a few comparatively marginal leftist youtubers and journalists from the last couple years. What's the justification for this disproportionate concern about Jimmy Dore while totally ignoring the much more serious role of mainstream journalism and politics in the creation and maintenance of white supremacy? It's profoundly misleading to offer up the American capitalist establishment as a reliable bulwark against racism and fascism. And no, saying this doesn't somehow mean that neoliberals are as bad as fascists or that we should ignore the differences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:The Democrats were already a bicoastal fringe party after 2016, they don’t need to depress the vote even more by electing an empty suit like *long list of names that don’t begin and end with Bernie Sanders* They got 10 million more votes in 18 and 3 million more votes in 16.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:This is true: But if he’s going to I want to see his plan for how he will wield such power of the administrative agencies. But Warren's plans are all eventually ineffective. She doesn't want to break up banks. She wants to regulate them. Weak. She's going to break up tech companies... Somehow? There's a better case for breaking up banks than tech companies as far as what the executive branch could do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
If you threaten to start a trade war with Israel chuck Schumer will move heaven and earth to appease you and institute your agenda
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Mayor Pete has buttmentum, and Gillibrand is somehow polling behind Delaney https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1114997620848590853 zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Apr 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
overmind2000 posted:Mayor Pete has buttmentum, and Gillibrand is somehow polling behind Delaney is this the first recent poll that's had sanders beating biden? e: oh it's just for massachusetts lol. i can't read goethe.cx fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Apr 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Yeah. There’s essentially a mindset that maintaining the current status quo is *as bad* as descending into an openly exterminationist white supremacist fascism. On some level, I can see it insofar as if your goal is “advancing leftism”, neither does, but imo that’s a limited metric. CNN/MSNBC are lovely agents of the status quo, which is absolutely bad and should be challenged, but they also don’t have someone coming on every night and calling me and my family degenerate subhumans while openly encouraging the kind of monsters who shoot up mosques and call in bomb threats to my kids preschool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The status quo is going to kill us all, if not by poison gas and firing squads then by climate change. Attempts to break out of that which also increase the risk of violence from the right are probably worth it. That's the calculus - not some idiotic strawman that leftists think things can't possibly get any worse. also note that the latter is makes the former more and more likely. the status quo is a doomed path, and we have to get off it asap
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:also note that the latter is makes the former more and more likely. the status quo is a doomed path, and we have to get off it asap
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The status quo is going to kill us all, if not by poison gas and firing squads then by climate change. Attempts to break out of that which also increase the risk of violence from the right are probably worth it. That's the calculus - not some idiotic strawman that leftists think things can't possibly get any worse. "probably" carrying a whole lot of weight in that post
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:"probably" carrying a whole lot of weight in that post
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Okay comrade, whatever allows you justify filling this thread with finger-wagging concerns trolls while claiming to be a leftist. You do you. Supporting Bernie != being a leftist. I think I disagree with leftists too much for what. Like of the current crop of candidates, I support Bernie, but that's as much because the rest of the field is so repugnant that it doesn't leave much choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:"probably" carrying a whole lot of weight in that post I mean the alternative is accepting extinction but yeah I guess cluck tour tongue at people who don't want to return to "everything sucks"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Buttigieg is a natural candidate for the not-Bernie vote for a few reasons: This strikes me as total bullshit. Well, at least in this sense: I haven't heard a single person (of any political persuasion) under 50 cite age as a serious criterion for making a decision as to who to vote for. I've read plenty of editorials and heard plenty of old (50+) people express this sentiment, and it's possible the Butt Judge will get some support from olds who wanna feign being hip or whatever, but I'd bet any amount of money that "he's young so he appeals to young people" is an opinion only held by those who have not been young for a long rear end time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
i don't know how people hear the warnings coming from climate scientists and still think it's pragmatic to return to the obama era status quo
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
Literally no one itt is advocating for returning to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:This strikes me as total bullshit. Well, at least in this sense: I haven't heard a single person (of any political persuasion) under 50 cite age as a serious criterion for making a decision as to who to vote for. I've read plenty of editorials and heard plenty of old (50+) people express this sentiment, and it's possible the Butt Judge will get some support from olds who wanna feign being hip or whatever, but I'd bet any amount of money that "he's young so he appeals to young people" is an opinion only held by those who have not been young for a long rear end time. I would actually prefer a younger candidate but everyone younger than Bernie is hot garbage. Hopefully we get a good crop of Millenials starting to run in the next few cycles because these Gen Xers suck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:This strikes me as total bullshit. Well, at least in this sense: I haven't heard a single person (of any political persuasion) under 50 cite age as a serious criterion for making a decision as to who to vote for. I've read plenty of editorials and heard plenty of old (50+) people express this sentiment, and it's possible the Butt Judge will get some support from olds who wanna feign being hip or whatever, but I'd bet any amount of money that "he's young so he appeals to young people" is an opinion only held by those who have not been young for a long rear end time. I mean, I'm 34 and I would definitely prefer a younger candidate? Like I think Bernie's age is his biggest knock against him, and if Bernie But Younger was an option, I'd pick them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:This strikes me as total bullshit. Well, at least in this sense: I haven't heard a single person (of any political persuasion) under 50 cite age as a serious criterion for making a decision as to who to vote for. I’m 31 and I’d love to vote for someone who’s younger than 70. That said, I’d rather have a proven not-neoliberal than anything else. Harris particularly and Beto marginally give me the creeps. Biden is a joke candidate, and Butt is an unknown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Yeah age is a big consideration considering we're watching a president mentally deteriorate live on TV right now, and most of us were alive when the last old present mentally deteriorated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Yeah age is a big consideration considering we're watching a president mentally deteriorate live on TV right now, and most of us were alive when the last old present mentally deteriorated. yeah tbh I feel like folks are always like "well if he dies in office, he just gets a new VP!" but the real threat isn't dying, it's just slowly deteriorating in a way that impacts your effectiveness and ability v
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So I was having a conversation about the crowded field of Democrat noms and it was brought up that they get to keep donations or something tax free. So that’s why everyone is running even if they don’t have a chance, they’re in it to grift and make a buck. They don't get to deposit all the money they don't spend into their bank accounts. They keep all unused cash in their campaign, same as if they ran for Senator, Governor, Mayor, or Supervisor of Elections in the tiniest county in the nation. They could go on and graft that through various means if they wanted to, but unless you're an anti-moral incarnation of avarice who owns their own series of hotels and buildings to stay/rent space at, it's not super straightforward. Usually they use the left over funds to either run for other office, see all the Senators and Congresspeople who aren't going to win the nomination, or use the warchest to donate to other candidates/entities to build a base for future efforts, see Beto after his Senate run. If they're super serious about their run, they'll probably end up blowing all their donation money and incurring debt like Hillary in 2008. Donny aside, the grift mostly comes from hawking your books and leveraging your brand increase into better speaking fees. Maybe hire a couple family members to help out with the campaign if you want. However there doesn't seem to be all that much money pouring into the coffers of the dark horse and no chance brigade. Especially since they do still have to pay their staff and pay to campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
The good news with Bernie is that I trust his 50-year background of consistency will make his dementia less impactful. He doesn’t have to improvise to have his stance be current; he was before his time, and now he gets to sleepwalk through his presidency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean, I'm 34 and I would definitely prefer a younger candidate? Like I think Bernie's age is his biggest knock against him, and if Bernie But Younger was an option, I'd pick them? Well this sorta shows that age isn't all that important for you then, doesn't it? You obviously value policy choice/ideological consistency/whatever. I mean everyone who supports Bernie (or Biden, or Trump for that matter) kind of implicitly acknowledges that age isn't a deciding factor. I'm not saying that no one wouldn't prefer a younger candidate, I'm saying that, when push comes to shove, that preference takes a back seat to every other preference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1113463484312903683
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
It owns that all of America hates candidates being old or socialist, but seems to like one specific old-rear end red motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2019 23:54
|
|