2020 US Election (Part One)

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I never thought I would say it but in light of this, that MSNBC woman was probably right that sexism is motivating many Bernie supporters.

Maybe. I think it's a weird combo of perceptions of electability and familiarity. I think part of the electability thing is definitely sexism, where it just so happens women routinely poll as less electable/able to beat Trump. Part of it again is that Biden and Bernie have the most name brand popularity, and Warren is the other of the top 3 candidates and doesn't have quite as much, so that argument may still change for her.

But yeah. The big funny is that when Michael Avenetti or w/e his name was was like "Dems need a white dude to beat Trump" everyone laughed and called him trash and said look at how important black voters, women, students are and were in 2016 when some stayed home and in 2018 when they came out, and then somehow... everyone convinced themselves actually he was right lmao.

So her voters are Wall Street and Washington Post ^_^

No on the former - there's been 10000000000 articles about how everyone on Wall Street is freaking out over Bernie and Warren and how Wall Street "Dems" would rather vote Trump than either of them, but her base is more college educated and more white women, so there's a sort of truth about the bougie progressive white people. Of course, leftist white people are now the most leftist group of Americans so, as long as everyone is cool with housing discrimination you know. Anyways. America is hell.

Edit:

Warren has seemed like the sensible choice for a long time considering we know the DNC won't let Bernie run. However this is 2019 and "sensible" is a thing of the past.
I think the whole Native American DNA thing is like...really, really bad. The right wing media will have an absolute field day with that, it's exactly the kind of ridiculous, self-serving identity politics that's turned so many people away from the Democrats in recent years. It seems a bit silly, but I actually think this single little issue can completely tank her campaign

Yeah, I think if it had stopped where it had it'd be mostly nbd, and her apology was generally well received, but another video came out this week where she spoke about her grandparents, and whoever wins the primary has to have a plan for the entire federal government being subsumed by Trump into leveraging all of their resources to stop the Dem. This is why I think Biden is such a weak candidate, and Warren's DNA thing could be an issue. Of course, most (white) Americans don't care about Native Americans so maybe not! Bernie actually looks good when considering this, and maybe even Harris, whose throwing people in prison thing is only a stickler for leftists and not most Americans.

 

[Lexicus]

But yeah. The big funny is that when Michael Avenetti or w/e his name was was like "Dems need a white dude to beat Trump" everyone laughed and called him trash and said look at how important black voters, women, students are and were in 2016 when some stayed home and in 2018 when they came out, and then somehow... everyone convinced themselves actually he was right lmao.

I don't think 'everyone' did laugh at him that way...the Twitterati, maybe, but my feeling has always been that most Democratic voters were going to go with a more conservative option based on the electability calculation.

I mean, as I've said before, if Biden is nominated many of the same people who laughed Avenatti off will claim it is a betrayal of black people, but if Biden does win the nomination it will be because of his giant lead among black voters in states like South Carolina.

In 2008 for example black voters were among Hillary Clinton's strongest backers against Obama until Obama showed he was a serious contender by winning Iowa. After that point black voters went to Obama en masse and Hillary became the candidate for conservative white people (in yet another strange twist I would guess that in fact many of the people who were the most gung-ho for Clinton in 2008 went on to support Sanders in 2016 and continue to support Sanders now).

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Bernie would be the first Jewish President. Is it a form of soft antisemitism to ignore this?

Yeah, to the nation as a whole for sure it'd be a pretty big deal. I don't think Dem voters consider that angle much. Bernie has spoken about it in a few interviews but he doesn't make a big deal of it, but it would be a pretty big deal in a historical sense and modern sense considering the explosion in antisemitism. I think it'd be a bigger thing if he won the primary and the conservatives started going ham on the Soros conspiracy bs and him and just absolutely taking off what little mask remains (if any). But it probably should be considered as a big thing, much like JFK's Catholicism did.

big thing big deal big thing big deal how many times can i type lol

 

[Socrates99]

I was thinking, and I may be way off here but, maybe the reason Warren voters aren't choosing Bernie as their number 2 is because they have bought into the "rainbows and unicorns" narrative where Bernie's plans are pipe dreams and Warren's are more pragmatic. The media has been pushing this narrative relentlessly since 2015 (at least the part about Bernie's ideas being crazy.) Harris has paid lip service to progressive issues even if in reality she's terrible on them. An uninformed voter might view Bernie as a bridge too far while seeing Harris as an acceptable if less than ideal 2nd choice.

Then again it could just be the "it should've been a woman in 2016" crowd rallying behind the top two women.

 

[Lexicus]

I was thinking, and I may be way off here but, maybe the reason Warren voters aren't choosing Bernie as their number 2 is because they have bought into the "rainbows and unicorns" narrative where Bernie's plans are pipe dreams and Warren's are more pragmatic. The media has been pushing this narrative relentlessly since 2015. Harris has paid lip service to progressive issues even if in reality she's terrible on them. An uninformed voter might view Bernie as a bridge too far while seeing Harris as an acceptable if less than ideal choice.

This drives me crazy because it's the opposite. Bernie is the one with a realistic sense of what it will take to accomplish anything. Warren is coming up with all these detailed policy plans which will never be taken up by Republicans anyway. Bernie is the one who is talking in a realistic way about building a movement to shift the Overton window.

These technocratic liberals who think "if we just make detailed policy plans their obvious brilliance will dazzle everyone into supporting them" accusing other people of "rainbows and unicorns" thinking is one of the funniest things in this election.

 

[Socrates99]

This drives me crazy because it's the opposite. Bernie is the one with a realistic sense of what it will take to accomplish anything. Warren is coming up with all these detailed policy plans which will never be taken up by Republicans anyway. Bernie is the one who is talking in a realistic way about building a movement to shift the Overton window.

These technocratic liberals who think "if we just make detailed policy plans their obvious brilliance will dazzle everyone into supporting them" accusing other people of "rainbows and unicorns" thinking is one of the funniest things in this election.

I'm with you there. He'll use the bully pulpit in ways we haven't seen in decades.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Honestly I think it's just a matter of Warren and Harris are women. I don't think the practicality of it all is a big thing. Bernie and Warren both have their strengths on that - Bernie is a great grassroots mobilizer and has a more diverse base and obviously has wrangled both Hillary in 2016 and the field in 2020 to moving left, while he's been a bit more hesitant on small d democratic reforms than Warren has, like axing the filibuster, which he's been a bit sort of timid about, or packing the court, which he is against (he suggested a rotation plan between SCOTUS and Appeals courts but hasn't fleshed it out last I knew). Warren might be better about appointments and leveraging executive branch stuff (thus the major Wall Street fear of her) while Bernie is more openly questioning of certain liberal technocratic ideas and is better in terms of public facing power.

Either way they're both probably screwed because so much has to go right for them to get the senate and even then the median senator is like Bill Clinton level liberalism.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the whole Native American DNA thing is like...really, really bad. The right wing media will have an absolute field day with that,

I think that ship has sailed. No doubt Trump will bring it up again and again but I think personal attacks like this, coming from him, are going to fall on deaf ears from the electorate. In fact I think if he pushes as hard on this is as he is wont to do, most people will see it as the race-baiting tactic it is.

I am curious as to why people here don't like Warren or see her as a lesser version of Bernie. @Owen Glyndwr wrote recently he saw here as the 75% version of Bernie and I just truly don't get that. And the media (I know, I know) portrays her and Bernie as being virtually the same, platform-wise and put them both on the extreme left. She is attacked by the mainstream media as being as unelectable as Bernie precisely because they don't see any real distance between them on the issues. I'll admit I haven't dived extremely deep into their platforms but I personally haven't seen a substantial difference between them on the substance of their stances.

 

[Lexicus]

I am curious as to why people here don't like Warren or see her as a lesser version of Bernie. @Owen Glyndwr wrote recently he saw here as the 75% version of Bernie and I just truly don't get that.

This drives me crazy because it's the opposite. Bernie is the one with a realistic sense of what it will take to accomplish anything. Warren is coming up with all these detailed policy plans which will never be taken up by Republicans anyway. Bernie is the one who is talking in a realistic way about building a movement to shift the Overton window.

These technocratic liberals who think "if we just make detailed policy plans their obvious brilliance will dazzle everyone into supporting them" accusing other people of "rainbows and unicorns" thinking is one of the funniest things in this election.

There are also important policy differences. One example is student debt, which Bernie wants to completely wipe out (though he wants to bail out the creditors rather than cancelling the debt, which I personally think is a bad idea). Warren has a detailed plan which will leave quite bit lot of student debt intact. Warren afaik has nothing comparable to Bernie's plan for unions, and Warren is waffling very hard on universal health care.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I think they're closer than those on the left claim, but it's more because there's this weird idea among like Chapo fans that Bernie isn't truly capitalist, when he absolutely is, and all the Social Democracy stuff he cites and countries he cites are very clearly too.

Earlier this year I think you could make the argument Warren was to the left a bit on taxes and housing, but Bernie removed that gap. Bernie is ahead on education and health care. I think the foreign policy gap is also smaller than a lot of people think, their interviews and statements are all very very similar sounding. The biggest weirdness with Warren is her focus on American interests in her FP stuff. She has spoken on Israel from a progressive position but it's anyone's guess if she really is as anti-imperialist as she claims (and I guess the same could be said for Bernie, but he has decades of history to draw on at least).

I'm still mad at Bernie for endorsing a populist Dem who was anti-abortion last year and saying stuff like that might be necessary, because abortion is a big red line for me, but honestly I try to be ideologically driven and vote for who I truly think is the best/least garbage human, but given I'm in Michigan, I'm probably just going to choose who between the two is best able to beat Trump. To me they're close enough and their presidencies will be limited in ways enough that they'd be pretty similar, even if Bernie is probably still slightly the most progressive.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Warren has a detailed plan which will leave quite bit lot of student debt intact.

I thought she was cancelling it completely below a high income threshold with a tapering-off above that level. I think that's an entirely reasonable proposition.

And I thought she was all-in on Medicare for all?

 

[Socrates99]

I think that ship has sailed. No doubt Trump will bring it up again and again but I think personal attacks like this, coming from him, are going to fall on deaf ears from the electorate. In fact I think if he pushes as hard on this is as he is wont to do, most people will see it as the race-baiting tactic it is.

I am curious as to why people here don't like Warren or see her as a lesser version of Bernie. @Owen Glyndwr wrote recently he saw here as the 75% version of Bernie and I just truly don't get that. And the media (I know, I know) portrays her and Bernie as being virtually the same, platform-wise and put them both on the extreme left. She is attacked by the mainstream media as being as unelectable as Bernie precisely because they don't see any real distance between them on the issues. I'll admit I haven't dived extremely deep into their platforms but I personally haven't seen a substantial difference between them on the substance of their stances.

Warren frequently waffles on Medicare for All. She's taken money from Raytheon in the past and has voted in favor of Trump's bloated military budget. She has not been brave at all on foreign policy and is likely to continue the status quo there. Foreign policy is arguably the POTUS' greatest realm of influence. She frequently gives signs that she's a team player with Democrats, even blue dogs that would likely tank all of her plans. She has admitted that money is corrupting and swore off of big donors in the primary but has said it's all hands on deck in the general which is like a tacit admission that a little corruption is ok as long as her side wins.

Don't get me wrong, she's an excellent 2nd choice but there are a number of very good reasons why she shouldn't be number 1 if you actually support M4ALL, peace, anti-corruption, etc.

 

[Lexicus]

I thought she was cancelling it completely below a high income threshold with a tapering-off above that level. I think that's an entirely reasonable proposition.

To be clear, AFAIK none of them are cancelling anything. If they were cancelling, they wouldn't be talking about how to "pay for" their plans by paying off the loan holders. As far as I'm concerned the loan holders should be told

But note I'm not talking about whether warren's plan is reasonable. I don't think it's really 'unreasonable'. I'm just saying there is a real difference between her plan and Bernie's and it is legitimate to prefer Bernie's, particularly if Warren's plan would leave you with debt where Bernie's would not (and there are a lot of people in that boat).

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Means testing for educational debt is just sort of blech to be honest. There should be no debt or cost.

Warren did challenge Obama pretty hard on his housing policy, so I don't think she's just going to fold as president. I think she'd very much be a vehicle for medicare for all, but yeah. There's just a few things here and there.

 

[Lexicus]

Bernie may be a "capitalist" in the sense that he's not literally a Leninist or whatever, but he is trying to decommodify things and Warren isn't. To me that's a basic difference between liberals and socialists, that liberals insist on means-testing things because they want to see social programs as correcting market failures. That's why they make you fill out paperwork to get social benefits, so they can say they made sure the market was failing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Bernie has stated he will be participating in the debate this month.

 

[Kyriakos]

Bernie has stated he will be participating in the debate this month.

Sick Bern ^_^

 

[Berzerker]

I figured Warren and Sanders were splitting the people left of Biden. I can see some overlap between Biden and Sanders since they give off that working man blue collar populist vibe. But I didn't know Biden was more popular with BernieBros than Warren.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It it was a heart attack it seems likely to have been a pretty minor one, anyway.

There's no such thing as a "minor" heart attack, however I will grant you that since many heart attacks result in death, that any heart attack that you can walk away from isn't nearly as serious as the one that kills you.

Hes not dropping out, both Clinton and Bush had the same procedure in their 60s.

The debate is in 2 weeks. Even following the heart-attack protocol, Bernie should be good to go as far as participating in the debate. As long as he's in that debate, he's still in it to win it. It is troubling that he cancelled his 1.3 million dollar Ad-buy in Iowa though... that means that his campaign has doubts long-term... at least for now. Hopefully he recovers fully, but it depends on how much heart muscle tissue he lost, and can regenerate with treatment/rehab.

Warren voter's most popular 2nd choice is Harris.

Sorry @Lexicus I know sue me.

Ultimately I think Bernie's presence helps Warren, because it keeps his voters from tuning out. Most folks aren't paying as close attention to this stuff as we are. The longer people have to get familiar with the similarities between Warren and Bernie, the more (hopefully) Bernie voters will warm to Warren as their favoured alternative. @Kyriakos is a good example (sorry to pick on you Kyr)… initially he wasn't really all that familiar with Warren and did not realize how closely she aligned with Bernie, but he has since warmed up to her a bit. I think that will be the same for others the longer Bernie stays in the race with Warren.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, to the nation as a whole for sure it'd be a pretty big deal. I don't think Dem voters consider that angle much. Bernie has spoken about it in a few interviews but he doesn't make a big deal of it, but it would be a pretty big deal in a historical sense and modern sense considering the explosion in antisemitism. I think it'd be a bigger thing if he won the primary and the conservatives started going ham on the Soros conspiracy bs and him and just absolutely taking off what little mask remains (if any). But it probably should be considered as a big thing, much like JFK's Catholicism did.

It might be worth thinking about that Vladimir Putin's criticising Greta Thunberg and accusing her of being financed by Soros.