2020 US Election (Part One)

[Sommerswerd]

AOC in say a decade with more experience and larger profile might have a better shot.

AOC could win now, if only she was old enough to run. The longer she stays in Washington, the more her newness wears off, the more baggage she acquires and the more time the Republicans have to build a propaganda machine against her. Time is not on her side. She better run for POTUS the first time its available, or like Hillary in 2004, and Warren in 2016, she will miss her window. 2024 or 2028 is her window. If she misses those she ain't getting it.

 

[Kyriakos]

In some ways it was the opposite... Gore's campaign, led by the hack and fraud Donna Brazile, let themselves be convinced to distance themselves from their greatest asset, Clinton, due to the Lewinsky scandal. The reality is that Clinton was still very popular with Democrats, and the American public in general didn't care enough about Lewinsky to vote against Gore over it, but Gore's stupid campaign let themselves get psyched out so much about it that they sat their star player (Clinton) on the bench when they should have been bear-hugging him and using him as much as possible.

Is that the same Clinton who used Epstein's pedo-plane 20 times?
I hope he isn't "still very popular".

 

[Zardnaar]

AOC could win now, if only she was old enough to run. The longer she stays in Washington, the more her newness wears off, the more baggage she acquires and the more time the Republicans have to build a propaganda machine against her. Time is not on her side. She better run for POTUS the first time its available, or like Hillary in 2004, and Warren in 2016, she will miss her window. 2024 or 2028 is her window. If she misses those she ain't getting it.

Yeah you might be right.

 

[Patine]

AOC could win now, if only she was old enough to run. The longer she stays in Washington, the more her newness wears off, the more baggage she acquires and the more time the Republicans have to build a propaganda machine against her. Time is not on her side. She better run for POTUS the first time its available, or like Hillary in 2004, and Warren in 2016, she will miss her window. 2024 or 2028 is her window. If she misses those she ain't getting it.

Don't you mean 2008 for Hillary Clinton? Or are you referring to primary plans she had that never saw the light of day? I'm not sure Bush's biggest cheerleader on the Democratic side of the aisle to get votes for his Iraq War would have been the keenest opponent to run against him a year later, frankly.

 

[Lexicus]

AOC could win now, if only she was old enough to run. The longer she stays in Washington, the more her newness wears off, the more baggage she acquires and the more time the Republicans have to build a propaganda machine against her. Time is not on her side. She better run for POTUS the first time its available, or like Hillary in 2004, and Warren in 2016, she will miss her window. 2024 or 2028 is her window. If she misses those she ain't getting it.

I wouldn't underestimate her. She is much, much smarter and better at politics than either Sanders or Biden.

Bernie could absolutely be doing a better job, but the voters are going for a man with no policies? How do you reach someone who has ostriched themselves.

Blaming the voters for being too dumb to recognize the obvious brilliance of our candidate is an odious habit the left needs to cede to the liberals. The left needs to actually answer this question, and fast. Again, my initial idea is rebuilding the union movement and other forms of community organizing that can reliably get out the vote for left candidates.

 

[Patine]

I wouldn't underestimate her. She is much, much smarter and better at politics than either Sanders or Biden.



Blaming the voters for being too dumb to recognize the obvious brilliance of our candidate is an odious habit the left needs to cede to the liberals. The left needs to actually answer this question, and fast. Again, my initial idea is rebuilding the union movement and other forms of community organizing that can reliably get out the vote for left candidates.

I keep seeing this in many, many, many posts regarding U.S. politics. But I can't find ANY verification, at all, anywhere, that Die Linke has started a branch in the U.S., or any country outside of Germany.

 

[Estebonrober]

Let's take a look at this "changing what can be." How exactly is electing Sanders supposed to do that, other than through some Sanders magic wand?

DNC members would be more than happy to talk about Medicare for all...if you, Sanders, anybody had the slightest idea how to go about making it happen. So...other than "elect Sanders and see the magic" WTH do you got? I'm listening. Take your shot.

IF the Democrats get control of the senate it is going to be razor thin. So unless your great plan involves "first, shoot all the Republicans" it is DEAD. DOA. Finished.

Now, somewhere in this thread I suggested, since I too would like to see Medicare for all, that the only way I see to get there is squeeze in a public option access to medicare, then hold power long enough for it to drive out the private sector competitors without the GOP getting back in and fornicating all over it. Undoubtedly that doesn't sound magical enough or provide the instant gratification that Sanders promises, but it does have the benefit of being at least marginally realistic.

And just in case...no, I didn't think that up on my own, that is bog standard policy throughout the Democratic party.

I said there needs to be a change in perception in regards to what is possible and that for that to happen the establishment candidate needs to lose to the "magic wand" candidate. While I support your idea of public option moving forward and would support it, I don't think starting there as the negotiating point is going to get you anything. Likely you will just get more funding for a neutered ACA (no mandate, no standards of coverage) which is largely perfect for democrat party because it milks insurance companies just so without changing anything. Typical greasy political crap with nothing for the people who voted for them. Also it will literally cost more to do it this way and Republicans will be asking you to show them the money and no wyou are trying to do that with a **** product.

@hobbsyoyo I'm not saying I'm not willing to compromise, I'm saying I would much rather be compromising after face stomping @Timsup2nothin political class with in the democratic party itself. Its the same problem this party has had for forty years. Its more concerned with its own power and concession then with ideas on progress.

 

[Estebonrober]

I wouldn't underestimate her. She is much, much smarter and better at politics than either Sanders or Biden.



Blaming the voters for being too dumb to recognize the obvious brilliance of our candidate is an odious habit the left needs to cede to the liberals. The left needs to actually answer this question, and fast. Again, my initial idea is rebuilding the union movement and other forms of community organizing that can reliably get out the vote for left candidates.

I agree with both of these sentiments. The left needs to get back to building alliances, I'm not sure how it does that with the establishment part of the party being in constant direct contradiction to the progressive movement.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Don't you mean 2008 for Hillary Clinton? Or are you referring to primary plans she had that never saw the light of day? I'm not sure Bush's biggest cheerleader on the Democratic side of the aisle to get votes for his Iraq War would have been the keenest opponent to run against him a year later, frankly.

No, I mean 2004. In 2008 her window had already passed, which is why she lost. The country needed her in 2004 to get us out of the Wars, but she didn't run, because it was going to be a tough race against an incumbent, War-time President with a booming economy. She wanted to wait for the easy race in 2008, but the waiting backfired on her. FOX News had too much time to run the "Stop Hillary Express" 365 days a year, and the Hillary hate/fatigue was too entrenched by then.

Warren's window was in 2016, when the country was thirsty for an Anti-Hillary, but she deferred because it was Hillary's "turn"... so she missed her chance to claim the mantle of leader of the progressive movement and Bernie claimed it instead. She tried to take it this cycle, but it was too late... she missed her window.

 

[Patine]

I agree with both of these sentiments. The left needs to get back to building alliances, I'm not sure how it does that with the establishment part of the party being in constant direct contradiction to the progressive movement.

And you too seem to believe Die Linke is running in the U.S.

No, I mean 2004. In 2008 her window had already passed, which is why she lost. The country needed her in 2004 to get us out of the Wars, but she didn't run, because it was going to be a tough race against an incumbent, War-time President with a booming economy. She wanted to wait for the easy race in 2008, but the waiting backfired on her. FOX News had too much time to run the "Stop Hillary Express" 365 days a year, and the Hillary hate/fatigue was too entrenched by then.

Warren's window was in 2016, when the country was thirsty for an Anti-Hillary, but she deferred because it was Hillary's "turn"... so she missed her chance to claim the mantle of leader of the progressive movement and Bernie claimed it instead. She tried to take it this cycle, but it was too late... she missed her window.

Why would she be the candidate to get the nation out of the wars when she fully supported going into Iraq, and vigorously was drumming up votes in the Senate to support it? How, oh how, was she even remotely the right candidate for the job? When has she EVER been an anti-war politician?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wouldn't underestimate her.

Underestimate her? I said:

AOC could win now, if only she was old enough to run.

Why would she be the candidate to get the nation out of the wars when she fully supported going into Iraq, and vigorously was drumming up votes in the Senate to support it? How, oh how, was she even remotely the right candidate for the job? When has she EVER been an anti-war politician?

I said that's what the country needed at the time, among other things, like getting rid of Baby Bush... but she didn't run, so no telling what she would have done or not done. My point is that her chance to win was 2004 and she missed it.

 

[Lexicus]

Underestimate her? I said:

I was referring to:

2024 or 2028 is her window. If she misses those she ain't getting it.

And you too seem to believe Die Linke is running in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism,[7] communism, anarchism and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries.[8] Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements[9] including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements and environmental movements,[10][11] as well as a wide range of parties.[12][13][14]

 

[Birdjaguar]

If American voters had a real, contested, free-and-fair, politically healthy electoral system with real choice in candidates, blame games wouldn't be necessary here.

Have you fixed Canadian elections yet? We know our problems well enough. Do you realize how silly and meaningless your statement is?

Because I see you setting up to blame the Bernie Bros if/when Biden loses in November.

Not at all. I'm trying to set up a winning scenario. Hillary lost because she was a bad choice and she failed to campaign where she should have. Vote wise she did fine. If Biden loses because of overall vote count from millennials, that is one thing, but if he loses because he loses Florida, then it is his own damn fault. etc.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why do you think they will not?

I can only think of:

-policy differences (Biden isn't for free healthcare for all, nor tuition fees)
-underwhelming as a leaderhead (self-evident; he is no speaker, nor does he represent something new or exiting)
-corruption issues (his son and the Ukraine saga - I am sure it will help sway republicans though)
-frailty (dementia or similar, he sounds horrible)

Other than that, though, yes, I suppose Berniebros have no issue voting for him. I mean it's not like they are branded as the enemy - Berniebro is just a friendly characterization.

Sadly November is very far away. Personally I think Biden will be slaughtered. Which is bad, cause Trump had to go.

By the way, there is a logical way to get the support needed by Bernie's supporters. It is the "unusual" idea of having the other side be part of the ticket. Off course this is the DNC, they won't do it, but they definitely expect the votes of Bern's supporters because reasons.

Why? Because there are lots of folks campaigning, even here at cfc, to make Biden look like a loser even if he wins the nomination. When people hear 6 months of anti Biden propaganda, it can be hard to reverse that. You should be talking Bernie up not tearing Biden down, but we also know your goal is to enjoy being divisive and nothing more.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I said there needs to be a change in perception in regards to what is possible and that for that to happen the establishment candidate needs to lose to the "magic wand" candidate.

Sounds pretty foofy to me. "The perception of what's possible" makes not piss all of a difference unless it matches up with what is actually possible. Doing what is possible matters.

 

[Lexicus]

Sounds pretty foofy to me. "The perception of what's possible" makes not piss all of a difference unless it matches up with what is actually possible. Doing what is possible matters.

And you don't believe there is any relationship between what is possible and what people perceive to be possible?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And you don't believe there is any relationship between what is possible and what people perceive to be possible?

Probably, but it may not be the relationship you imagine.

 

[Lexicus]

Probably, but it may not be the relationship you imagine.

This is exactly the problem with the Democratic Party. This is why we're in this mess. Democrats take the political landscape as a given and try to work with it, while the Republicans have been systematically shifting the public's sense of possibilities for fifty years.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And you don't believe there is any relationship between what is possible and what people perceive to be possible?

I believe that if you set out with the intention "change what people perceive to be possible" that you are very unlikely to have much effect in regards to changing what actually is possible. If people already have an accurate perception changing it will not do any good. If their perception is not accurate then it might do some good, so long as yours is accurate.

On health care, I think with a Democrat in office to sign it and a narrow margin in the senate a public option can get pushed in as an improvement to the current legislation so long as the house isn't lost. I think with anything short of sixty seats a "let's scrap the plan the Republicans broke and start from scratch with M4A" play is dead as last year's wildflowers and no amount of foofy 'perception changing' will fix that.

 

[Takhisis]

I was talking with my wife in the car earlier today that I suspect coronavirus is helping Biden and hurting both Trump and Bernie big time, as people are now looking for comfort, how things were, normalcy, etc., etc., and Bernie's "revolution" mantra sounds scary to those with coronavirus concerns, and sure enough, those who say it is a big concern, according to NPR, are voting for Biden over Bernie by over 2:1 numbers. Tough break for Bernie. Especially because national health are and sick leave and free vaccines (Bernie's policy) would do way more to stop it.

Well, yes, but unfortunately Sanders' campaign is currently not the best sell.

If he were a ‘policy wonk’ as HRC was in 2016 he might do better.

Is that the same Clinton who used Epstein's pedo-plane 20 times?
I hope he isn't "still very popular".

He still ‘had it’ in 2016.