|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Main Paineframe posted:But nothing seems to cause more meltdowns here than talking about what happens after the primary, which is kind of out of scope for this thread anyway.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Leftism isn't ascendant because Bernie run, it's ascendant because an entire generation has been completely hosed over by rampant inequality and the institutional collapse of capitalism, and because the Boomers who represent the last passionate adherence to the cult of American exceptionalism are dying off. Bernie was a catalyst that accelerated what was happening, but the material conditions of America are what are driving leftism. Leftism is relatively ascendant because those material conditions gave rise to a largely millenial movement that could not find expression in sclerotic liberal establishment politics, but rather in the decades-consistent, socially democratic politics of Sanders. Among 2016 politicians, there could hardly have been anyone but Sanders who could harness that energy into enduring left movements rather than squandering or misdirecting it. Look at DSA membership since 2016 and Our Revolution, for example. Of course the material conditions were a prerequisite for his success, but Sanders personally deserves credit for leading a transformation of the political landscape so as to facilitate the left ascendancy. Few others could have done what he did. They wouldn't have had the credibility, desire, experience, or clout. Sanders almost took over the party by mounting a serious bid for the 2016 nomination, and later the DNC chairmanship via Ellison. That, coupled with his popularity, especially among young dems, caused the party reluctantly to tack left in response. That's why M4A and a total student debt jubilee are even under discussion, rather than just "access to buying partially subsidized health insurance" and various paltry debt refinancing schemes. Who would have moved the Overton window this far left without Sanders? Would it be Warren? Would her proposals be anywhere near as progressive as they are if Bernie hadn't blazed that trail prior and if he wasn't currently running to Warren's left? The material conditions alone don't get you anywhere close to where we are without Sanders. For the record, I don't think you're arguing in bad faith though. It looks to me like you're seeing how small a coalition within the Democratic Party leftists are, ascendant though they may be, and thinking Sanders isn't likely to succeed. I do think the demographics of the party plus institutional pressure are likely to prevail against Sanders's nomination. But leftist movements would be turbocharged by a Sanders presidency, and we need such movements to mitigate catastrophic ideological, environmental, and technological threats. So we should give Bernie's candidacy our damnedest effort, and he's surely drastically better than the rest of the field, with Warren as a somewhat far removed second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Does what will a candidate do after the 2020 Primary election to deal with the Senate fall into this rule or not? Like I think all of Sanders' plausible strategies involve the 2022 election, which feels in scope in terms of "What can Sanders, a candidate for President, even do?", but possibly out of scope for how people should be making choices in 2020. I'd say that "what will this candidate do if they become president" is fine, but talking about what'll happen during the 2020 general election is off-limits, and talking about what they might do during the 2022 or 2024 elections is so clearly premature that you probably should take a step back and realize you've been baited into a derail in order to distract you from hammering someone who's claiming it literally doesn't matter at all who wins in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:You do realize that you just took a key word in my quote ("mass"), replaced it with a different word ("active"), and then argued that I'm not supporting... the very different argument that you just made? Of course Sanders' movement is *active*. He has a very passionate dedicated base of support. What I'm disputing is that it's a MASS active movement as opposed to a fringe active movement. A mass movement, by default, requires a *mass*, which is what the relative standing in the polls* can serve as a proxy for ...those things are effectively synonymous. "Mass political movement" doesn't have some definition that requires a majority of the population be onboard or something. All it means is "a bunch of people in a movement" which is so vague it can refer to pretty much anything that has more than like a million people involved with it. And besides, your point was just wrong. It's not necessary for anywhere near a majority of the population (or even Democratic voters) to be part of a movement to affect change. My interpretation is necessary for your point to even make any sense in the first place. Polls are only relevant insofar as they show something doesn't have negligible support, but even something with only 10-20% of the population involved can be a movement capable of successfully enacting change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:You do realize that you just took a key word in my quote ("mass"), replaced it with a different word ("active"), and then argued that I'm not supporting... the very different argument that you just made? Of course Sanders' movement is *active*. He has a very passionate dedicated base of support. What I'm disputing is that it's a MASS active movement as opposed to a fringe active movement. A mass movement, by default, requires a *mass*, which is what the relative standing in the polls* can serve as a proxy for What is your definition of a "mass movement" ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Bernie promised to wipe my student loans away. Warren gave a weird non answer wonky policy as usual . All the other candidates have basically said uhh yeah student loans maybe you can refinance them or I’ll make community college free or something . Bernie is the only one who straight up said he’d cancel my debt . The candidates need to be offering more tangibles and benefits directly to get people excited about them .
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He's a reasonable third choice. I just watched the first dem debate and he seemed really good. But I don't know a lot about him and I know debates are a poor way to understand someone's policy. Not that my opinion matters at all since this will probably all be decided before the poo poo show gets up to Washington state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:If Bernie genuinely created a popular mass movement, I'd be inclined to agree. He's currently limping into fourth in most polls and falling. What I see isn't a popular mass movement, but a fractional passionate base with a low ceiling. Trump was not popular among Republicans as a whole at the beginning of the GOP primary in 2015/2016. As he became the favorite, the Party coalesced around him because of how partisan the populace has become. The same would happen if Bernie manages to win. Even a candidate as uninspiring and baggage-laden as Hillary still managed to essentially unite the Party, if not get it to the polls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
excited to inform y'all that Biden will eventually go down in flames with Epstein, I have forseen it https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
^^^ Biden strikes me as the sort of rube who just genuinely likely and trusts the corporate lobbyists and poo poo, rather than the type who is bribed with hosed up sex stuff. Though I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he was also into those things.Punk da Bundo posted:Bernie promised to wipe my student loans away. Warren gave a weird non answer wonky policy as usual . All the other candidates have basically said uhh yeah student loans maybe you can refinance them or I’ll make community college free or something . To be fair to Warren, her student debt thing was, while absolutely inferior to Bernie's, fairly decent as far as means-tested things go. IIRC it was up to $50k for families under $100k, and scaling off above that, which would cover most people. It's still dumb, since people would pointlessly fall through the cracks, but not quite as bad as stuff like the recently discussed housing plan. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lukewsavage/status/1147691507811540992?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
It never ends! https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1148054937689083904
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Can we please end this country already
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Is there some kind of direct material gain here, apart from a tiny amount of short-lived publicity and maybe a modest book deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Is there some kind of direct material gain here, apart from a tiny amount of short-lived publicity and maybe a modest book deal? Gives him a chance to yell about impeaching Trump and get it on a national stage, I'd guess. Steyer has been one of the strongest advocates for impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
Every millionaire/billionaire dickhead is mentally deranged and egotistical enough to think they are qualified to be the leader of the 'free world' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Gives him a chance to yell about impeaching Trump and get it on a national stage, I'd guess. Steyer has been one of the strongest advocates for impeachment. he doesn't get a national stage if he doesn't even qualify for the debates
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
tom steyer is a stupid egotistical dickhead and i'm happy that the rest of the nation is getting to enjoy his bullshit instead of us californians
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but it is 100% guaranteed that anyone who announced their candidacy after the list of people allowed in the first debate was finalized are only "running for president" because they're having an affair and need a cover for being out of town all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but it is 100% guaranteed that anyone who announced their candidacy after the list of people allowed in the first debate was finalized are only "running for president" because they're having an affair and need a cover for being out of town all the time. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
We need to confiscate the rich's money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
He's running to attack the left, not Trump
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Leftism isn't ascendant because Bernie run, it's ascendant because an entire generation has been completely hosed over by rampant inequality and the institutional collapse of capitalism, and because the Boomers who represent the last passionate adherence to the cult of American exceptionalism are dying off. Bernie was a catalyst that accelerated what was happening, but the material conditions of America are what are driving leftism. It will outlive him and surpass him, regardless of what happens in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
I genuinely don't understand the "Bernie wouldn't be able to get anything past the Senate!" argument. After the past twenty years it should be very obvious that the President has a ton of power that he can exercise without Congress's approval.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1148058121706856450 https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1148058883325419520 Thinking fondly on the extremely tedious liberals who think having Marianne in the primary is bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Great, I agree, and I'm not sure while you're so eager to dismiss driving that forward by ten years. Especially when you're the one always banging on the 2020 drum because gerrymandering and election interference and HR-1, etc. Not giving fascism a few extra years to burrow even further in to the American political consciousness seems like a big deal to me, and to you given your professed priorities, and yet here you are explaining to me that it was all going to happen anyway so no big deal. I'm not eager to dismiss it which is why I support Bernie (and also I think a 2nd Trump term would basically kill any chance of a generally peaceful transition to leftism and likely force the route of full-blown national collapse/crisis)? SKULL.GIF posted:Thinking fondly on the extremely tedious liberals who think having Marianne in the primary is bad I mean... slavery didn't end because the people stepped up, it ended because the political establishment went to war. Gripweed posted:I genuinely don't understand the "Bernie wouldn't be able to get anything past the Senate!" argument. After the past twenty years it should be very obvious that the President has a ton of power that he can exercise without Congress's approval. Which President was able to do a ton w/o Congressional approval? Bush got all his worst poo poo approved by Congress (thanks Biden), and Obama's the textbook example of being obstructed to uselessness. So... Trump? He hasn't been able to do anything the Congressional GOP doesn't want him to. He hasn't "locked her up", he hasn't built his wall, he can't even get a citizenship question on the census. Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1148058121706856450 Weren't slavery and segregation ended by the political establishment though? In the case of the former--through war and battlefield necessity, and in the case of the latter, through supreme court cases?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I genuinely don't understand the "Bernie wouldn't be able to get anything past the Senate!" argument. After the past twenty years it should be very obvious that the President has a ton of power that he can exercise without Congress's approval. How could you accomplish M4A without the Senate? Literally. What are the details of how this could be accomplished?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:How could you accomplish M4A without the Senate? It's not like any of the other Democrats would be able to accomplish their plans without the Senate. So why does it matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
If the Dems win the Senate, Bernie Sanders will be able to enact more of his polices If the Dems don't win the Senate, Bernie Sanders will be able to enact significantly fewer policies. But that's true for literally all other Democratic candidates And either way, Bernie Sanders has better policies than the other Dem candidates. So the Senate issue doesn't matter when talking about the presidential primary
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Weren't slavery and segregation ended by the political establishment though? In the case of the former--through war and battlefield necessity, and in the case of the latter, through supreme court cases? Slavery is still legal
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:If the Dems win the Senate, Bernie Sanders will be able to enact more of his polices Well, it matters because even if the Dems do take the Senate, you'll have to abolish the filibuster to get almost anything done. Which is why support for abolishing the filibuster (or lack thereof) is a big deal. Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Main Paineframe posted:I'd say that "what will this candidate do if they become president" is fine, but talking about what'll happen during the 2020 general election is off-limits, and talking about what they might do during the 2022 or 2024 elections is so clearly premature that you probably should take a step back and realize you've been baited into a derail in order to distract you from hammering someone who's claiming it literally doesn't matter at all who wins in 2020. But especially in the second post it seems you're banning all discussion of the general, which is going to end up being a problem IMO: The protest voting thread really isn't an appropriate place to talk about what some primary candidate will do in the general, any more than this one is - rather less, in fact. And talking about it in USPOL will probably earn a (deserved) "take it to the primary thread" from fool_of_sound as well, so that's out. It would be one thing if the topic itself was fundamentally idiotic but speculating about what a particular candidate might or might not do in the general election is important to primary chat since it will influence perceptions of electability, among other reasons. Like for example it seems you've banned discussing whether a candidate will pivot to the right after the primary, right? But that seems totally germane for this thread because it is relevant to the primary, even if it's not happening between now and next July. I mean, talking about what primary candidates will do in the general election is... sort of obvious? By which I mean it's a thing that will just happen naturally. It would be like if we had a thread about cooking and then made a thread rule that mentioning which foods you enjoy is punishable by a three-day probation. And not everybody is going to see your post or re-read the OP either, so it really seems like you've set up some people up for three-day probations for doing something that really on the face of it shouldn't be a big deal. I understand the reasons for it and I could see this as something we do for a bit, maybe until the second or third debate, but the closer we get to next July the more this rule is going to drag the discussion and serve as a honeypot for probations. MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:Trump was not popular among Republicans as a whole at the beginning of the GOP primary in 2015/2016. As he became the favorite, the Party coalesced around him because of how partisan the populace has become. The same would happen if Bernie manages to win. Even a candidate as uninspiring and baggage-laden as Hillary still managed to essentially unite the Party, if not get it to the polls. Republicans don't have the circular firing squad tradition and Trump supporters don't think mainstream GOP voters are the enemy. It's a lot easier to unite against a common enemy than it is to unite with people who think you are the enemy, which is the situation that mainstream Democrats are in if Bernie wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
This is why you gotta bring back earmarks, at that point you can just bribe squishy senators again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1148058121706856450 We already had a chat about this, quit acting like an ableist piece of poo poo. I literally have family members with compromised immune systems that would be seriously hurt by her bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Well, it matters because even if the Dems do take the Senate, you'll have to abolish the filibuster to get almost anything done. Which is why support for abolishing the filibuster (or lack thereof) is a big deal. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok so does Sanders possess mind control such that if he wins the Presidency he can mind control decorum-Dems into agreeing to nuke the filibuster or does he not possess such mind control meaning his position on the filibuster as President is meaningless? I mean, you could apply this reasoning to literally anything a candidate claims? Does Sanders possess mind control to get decorum-Dems to sign off on M4A or student loan forgiveness? How is this any different from any other policy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean, you could apply this reasoning to literally anything a candidate claims? Does Sanders possess mind control to get decorum-Dems to sign off on M4A or student loan forgiveness? How is this any different from any other policy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
This thread is so wild because on the one hand it's like "Well Sanders' student loan forgiveness plan is better than Warrens', which makes Sanders a better candidate!" when neither plan will ever remotely pass the Senate, but then when faced with an actual actionable step that you could realistically get a bare majority to sign off on like abolishing the filibuster, suddenly it's "Well, jeez the President has no real power anyway, what is Sanders, a wizard?" It's like pie-in-the-sky thinking is the metric for judging candidates right up until Sanders is weak on something, and then suddenly it's the Realism Squad on how it's fine he sucks because jeez that'll never happen anyway. twodot posted:You might, if you believed nothing mattered. I however believe things matters, and therefore can distinguish between different candidates being good or bad. If you want me to answer your question, you can begin with answering mine. I believe abolishing the filibuster is a vastly more realistic and attainable outcome with a 50-Dem Senate than any of Sanders' signature issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 06:14
|
|