1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

2020 US Election (Part Two)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Mar 11, 2020.

  1. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,667
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I understand your point and I think your argument you are making has some merit, however you've moved the goalpost a bit here. Your original argument was:
    and
    So originally you were complaining that no Democrats voiced their support for Sanders. When I gave examples of that being incorrect, you've now changed that to complaining that Warren didn't "endorse" Sanders. Now of course another problem with this amendment of your argument is that it also ignores that AOC actually did endorse Sanders... but we can put that aside for a moment.

    "Voice support" which is what you originally argued, is different from "endorse". You know... or at least should realize, that by the time Warren dropped out, Sanders window for victory had closed. Even with Warren's endorsement, he still had no chance at a majority and thus no chance for the nomination. Warren realized this, which is precisely why she held back from endorsing him. She would have been committing political suicide for a lost cause. The fact that she waited until after Bernie dropped out just makes this all the more obvious.

    What you seem to be trying to do here is essentially blame Warren for Bernie losing and cast Warren as being the one who alienated Bernie from the Democratic party and Democratic voters. But the reality, I would argue, is the opposite. If anything, Warren helped to highlight the mainstream nature of Bernie's policy proposals, and show that his positions were, in fact Democratic party positions. The polling about the overlap in Bernie and Warren voters showed clearly that although Bernie and Warren were drawing in part from the same progressive voter pool, many of Warren's supporters were not fans of Bernie and vice-versa. You've certainly heard enough Warren-hate from Bernie fans on this very forum, to know that Bernie voters and Warren voters are not 1 for 1 interchangeable... I know I have.

    Warren started out her campaign with both arms wrapped around Bernie... using "I'm with Bernie" as her veritable mantra. But she was flat in the polls and taking criticism that she needed to distinguish herself from Bernie more. So she adopted the "I'm a progressive who gets things done" theme which you essentially reference and are claiming somehow undermined Bernie. I can see your point but jeez man isn't that the whole essence what campaigning for office is? How can she possibly run for office without drawing distinctions between herself and the people she is running against? Didn't her pitch always have to be "I'm like Bernie, but I'm better"? And since she and Bernie were the two "progressives" in the race, they could only co-exist by partly undermining each other, right? Just like all the "moderates" were "undermining" each other and diluting each other's poll numbers by their very presence in the race.

    So in that sense, Bernie had just one candidate competing directly with him, while Biden had all the rest. In fact that was exactly what allowed Bernie to be in the lead for so long. His vote was less diluted than anyone else for longer than anyone else. Bernie only had one person to beat, while Biden had five... and Bernie still lost. That's not Warren's fault, or "the media's" fault or the DNC's fault. Its Bernie and Bernie's campaign's fault. What you seem to be implying here is that Warren and her voters had some sort of obligation to step aside and rally behind Bernie for the greater good or similar. Which is ironic, given how resistant a lot of Bernie voters are to the idea that they need to rally behind Biden.
     
    rah likes this.
  2. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,667
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    But I didn't say "in Sanders camp" Lex. I said she voiced support for Sanders. She literally said "I'm with Bernie" on basically every issue.

    And it does not matter how "skimpy" AOC and Warren seem. I was specifically responding to TF's claim that NO Democrats voiced support for Sanders, which was just manifestly incorrect.
     
    Estebonrober likes this.
  3. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,081
    Location:
    UK
    Sommerswerd, if this is the kind of semantics the discussion is going down, you quote Traitorfish saying "leading Democrats" and then you point to evidence of arguably non-leading Democrats. AOC, as much as I admire her, her significant accomplishments and what she stands for, is a young member of the party. She is not a leading member. She doesn't command any kind of party loyalty like someone like Pelosi does.

    And even in that aspect, you've listed two (arguable) examples, out of a party however large.

    Warren was your claim - that she endorsed Sanders. She didn't not. So moving past that, Traitorfish is arguing something I wished I'd argued earlier on (but lack the knowledge to argue effectively) - that mainstream, high-ranking Democratic uptake of Sanders' platform and / or Sanders himself as a candidate would've improved his chances. Your counterargument seems to revolve around to what arguable extent Warren supported Sanders, when even she's seen as being outside of the mainstream. To the extent that she had to go out of her away to assure people that this wasn't the case (regardless of the things she was supporting publicly). It's a paywalled article, but the paywall is only achieved clientside, so here are some excerpts. I'm not judging her for this, I'm using it to demonstrate her position with regards to the general concept argued between yourself and Traitorfish of a "leading Democrat".
     
  4. Takhisis

    Takhisis brown-haired beauty

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    48,376
    Location:
    up yours!
    Doubleplusgood on caketastydelish and doubleplusungood on Socrates99.
     
  5. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,724
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I don't agree that she substantively voiced support for Sanders. I agree with Tfish that her conduct during the campaign actually served to widen the perceived distance between Sanders and the rest of the party.

    Not at all. You're the one who brought up Warren.

    I think this is exactly the point. Had she been supporting Bernie in the sense that Tfish is talking about, she wouldn't have been running against him, she'd have been campaigning for him.

    Again, I think this is off-base...the point is that Warren was not a Bernie supporter in the sense that Tfish is talking about, not that she was obligated to support him or whatever.
     
    Gorbles likes this.
  6. Gori the Grey

    Gori the Grey The Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    6,766
    Well, ok, but on what grounds could she reasonably be expected to do that, if she thinks she's a viable candidate herself?
     
  7. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,667
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    No it wasn't. Please quote where I claimed that Warren endorsed Sanders. I specifically stated that she didn't endorse Sanders.

    I'm weary of this thing people frequently do when they're wrong... and its pointed out that they're wrong, where instead of just admitting it, they accuse the person of "semantics". :rolleyes:

    If you refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between "voicing support" and "endorsing" then fine we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
     
  8. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,724
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The grounds that Sommerswerd's claim is that she was "with Bernie." To my mind, someone who was "with Bernie" wouldn't have literally been running against him in the election.

    To be clear, I do not blame Warren for running the race. I also don't agree with Bernie supporters who believe it is primarily her fault that he lost the election.
     
  9. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,081
    Location:
    UK
    I apologise, because I was basing my post on TF's quoted reference and not your actual post. You didn't actually say that.

    However, as the forum has handily put in your incredibly snarky edit in the time it took me to insert the quote for this post, let me add that snipping one minor sentence out of a greater post (ignoring the rest of the post), bearing in mind that sentence didn't really have anything to do with what followed (which is why I said "moving past that") is most definitely tedious semantics and a cop-out too. What I meant was what Lexicus said - that you raised Warren first (as an example of a "senior" or "leading Democrat" - your words).

    I'm weary of people conveniently ignoring post contents that are contextual and applicable, and instead focusing on minor nitpicks that they can use to post rolleyes emotes ;)
     
    IglooDude and Sommerswerd like this.
  10. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,667
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I responded to that one part of your post because it was the first thing I read and I wasn't really inclined to even read the rest of your post based on how it started out since I saw it as bad-faith misrepresenting of what I'd said. However, since you've apologized for misquoting me, I now realize and fully acknowledge you are arguing in good faith, so I went back and read the rest of your post. So you're right that I was ignoring the rest of what you said. It was intentional based on my perception of how you opened your post. So I apologize and will respond to the rest.
    What I will say about this is that the fact that you've qualified your point about AOC with "arguably" strongly indicates that you recognize that "arguably" she is a "leading Democrat". If she "arguably isn't" then the corollary to that is that she "arguably is" as well. To me that proves my point. I think its obvious that AOC is a leader in the Democratic party and I don't think any serious argument can be made against that, however if you don't agree, we aren't going to convince each other. However, I don't need to justify my view that she is a leader because you've conceded it, precisely by acknowledging that it's "arguable". If you acknowledge that its "arguable" then my position that she is a leader is legitimate and the simple fact that you don't agree with it does not invalidate it.

    So since AOC has been established as at a minimum "arguably" a leading Democrat... and AOC actually "endorsed" Sanders, my argument has been proven and TF was incorrect, even if we go by your interpretation of what he meant rather than what he said... and even if we adopt your position that "endorse" is necessary to "support". No matter how you parse it, my point is correct.
    No. My point again is that the argument that No leading Democrat supported Sanders is manifestly untrue. Since the premise is untrue, the conclusion that Sanders would have won, but for the lack of support of leading Democrats, is illogical and thus flawed. AOC's endorsement of Sanders establishes the correctness of my point even without Warren, so we can even leave Warren out of it. But I will check out your article to see if I can get past the paywall later.
     
    IglooDude likes this.
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,724
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I don't think she is, not in the sense Tfish means. She is a highly visible figure, but she is not the sort of person who would make people think that Sanders would be able to work well with Democrats because her own conflicts with other Democrats have been fairly well-publicized.
     
    Gorbles likes this.
  12. Takhisis

    Takhisis brown-haired beauty

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    48,376
    Location:
    up yours!
    Basically, the following holds among people who could/might/should vote…

    Trump isn't just about to lose the election. He's about to lose five or six elections for the Republicans to come
    New polls suggest Trump himself is destroying Trumpism, and the rest of the party is making the same mistakes Democrats once made when they buried themselves for 36 years

    Donald Trump is losing this year’s election — and you knew that. But the part coming into focus is that the way he’s losing it may put Republicans in voters’ doghouses for decades. In other words, Trump’s not losing one election, but as many as five or six at once.

    As The Donald himself likes to boast, hardly anyone has ever done anything like that before.

    The past week’s polls have been brutal, for the president and his party, as coalitions emerge in response to Trumpism that could last a generation. Republicans are increasingly likely to lose the Senate this fall, just like they lost the House of Representatives to Democrats in 2018, as Trump marks their brand as one for people who are old, busybodyish, and, worst of all, disconnected from reality.

    Spoiler :
    Specifically, the 11-point lead Quinnipiac University’s poll found for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, and the 8-pointer in Fox News’ poll, show the GOP looking more than ever like an all-in bet on the past, conceding the future to Democrats whether they deserve it or not.

    Internal numbers in Quinnipiac’s poll explain why Trump’s party is in both short-term and long-term trouble.

    Trump’s down 11 despite a 24-point lead with white voters who lack college degrees, about 40 percent of the electorate. With everyone else, then, he’s getting whipped by far more.

    Both variables are moving, inexorably, in ways that doom Trumpism. The percentage of women with college degrees has doubled, to 36 percent, since Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 and nearly tripled since the last big GOP presidential wave in 1980, according to Statista. And the 67 percent white electorate was 76 percent as recently as 2000, says the Pew Charitable Trust.

    So, Trumpism is betting everything on a base shrinking in both of its most relevant dimensions.

    Fox’s poll isn’t much different. It shows Trump up 26 points (58-32) among white men without degrees, and down 21 (56-35) among white women with them. And he’s getting demolished, 67-21, among nonwhites.

    That could be fixed in four years — normally — but the GOP has been lashing itself to Trumpian surrealism, even before the president raised disdain for economic reason and scientific fact to the performance art required to make treating Covid-19 with hydroxychloroquine or Lysol a partisan litmus test.

    Think about educated people you know. How many think wearing masks is a masculinity test? Think gay people shouldn’t free to work without discrimination, or to get married, GOP-base mainstays before Trump? That government should restrict birth control? That immigrants all go on welfare and ravage cities? That neo-Nazis include very fine people, and barging into Michigan’s legislature brandishing AR-15s because you can’t get a haircut is normal? Some, but not enough to win elections. Attitudes on all these issues vary by education level and occupation — the more educated and white-collar, the more voters favor Democratic answers.

    In other words, the culture war’s over and Republicans lost, even though many are very fine people.

    These patterns are showing up in Senate races. Arizona, getting more Latinx and suburban, has GOP incumbent Martha McSally down 13 points in a survey by a local pollster. Colorado’s GOP incumbent Cory Gardner’s losing by as much as 18.

    Of a sudden, the GOP’s 53-47 Senate majority could — theoretically — lose 10 members. Maine, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina are acknowledged problems. But Georgia (which has two seats open this year because Sen. Johnny Isakson resigned for health reasons), Iowa, and Montana are newer problems, and the GOP has a uniquely weak likely nominee in Kansas. If Trump stirs a wave of repudiation, even Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Texas’ John Cornyn or South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham could get wet.

    The 2022 Senate map is worse for Republicans. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley will be 89, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey wants to run for governor, and North Carolina’s Richard Burr must explain stock trades possibly based on inside information about coronavirus. Democrats need to defend just 12 seats, all in blue strongholds.

    The worst part for the GOP is that old white guys — those of whom Trump said, “I love the poorly educated” — still dominate the party. The path to GOP primary victory in 2022 runs through distaste for social norms (like abortion choice and multiculturalism) 40 to 50 years deep in mainstream culture, plus reality denialism. That’s why the GOP is likely to produce more Senate nominees — and a presidential nominee for 2024 — who struggle in November.

    Despite Trump’s claims that everything he does is unique, we’ve seen this before. The best example (better even than Herbert Hoover) is 1896, when Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan to fight for the interests of farmers in a nation turned urban and industrial.

    Bryan got buried, and buried every Democratic nominee but one for 36 years, because he was as out of step with America’s turn-of-the-century transformation as Trump is now.

    The way the Democrats really killed themselves was nominating Bryan again — in 1900 and 1908 — to make sure no one forgot they were out of touch.

    Like Democrats then, Republicans are falling over themselves to be the Trumpiest now, building paper trails to sink Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and for United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley whenever they run for president.

    And President Mike Pence? Oh, mother!

    So I suppose that the only possible answer is to ramp up the gerrymandering and disenfranchising.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
  13. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,965
    @Takhisis the demise of the Republican Party has been predicted since 2008. Each election we have been told they are too white, too racist, or too cruel to win national power as American demographics change; but each election sees them gaining and entrenching more power.
     
    Traitorfish, Sommerswerd and Lexicus like this.
  14. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,724
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Well, I wouldn't say they gained power in 2018 but certainly these anlyses don't seem to take into account that their willingness to completely abandon any kind of majoritarian electoral democracy changes the rules.
     
  15. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,965
    I could just be feeling pessimistic, but when the GOP had a House majority, the administration at least pretended to respect congressional oversight. Now, even the most basic requests from the House seem to be stonewalled or outright refused on made up legal concepts.
     
  16. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Disagree. Levels of bad are A Thing. Biden = "not optimal" > Trump = "apocalyptic destruction of all norms we hold dear", just as an example.
    As an example, this. /\
    This I disagree with because I maintain that "the Dems" are not a hivemind. Voters, as individuals, across multiple states, picked Biden, & they were not mind-controlled by some nebulous "the Dems".
    100% agree. She saw Sanders's flaws, thought she could run on his issues better. She failed to garner popular support as well. Worse than he did. So reality demonstrates that those policies do not = votes. On teh interwebs they do, & quite vocal, but in reality, they don't. I'm, again, not saying they *shouldn't*, but saying they *don't*.
    And I give her a little more credit than this. She saw that Bernie's Platform/Her "more credible" Platform... both failed. There wasn't even enough Dem support for those platforms. You can say "well, there should be" & I won't disagree, but Warren recognized it didn't exist. She's smart. She certainly recognized reality & acted accordingly.
    Well, they are all for oversight when out of power, completely against oversight when in power. This is one area I see a distinct difference. The Dems are for oversight even when they hold the Presidency. The Reps are only for oversight when a Dem holds the Presidency, & abdicate that view (see "No Witnesses") when they hold the Presidency..
     
  17. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,940
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the dumbest ******* thing I've read all month and between the lock down protests, people acting stupid in public spaces, and looting your own local stores, that is saying something. He is such a moron. Insufferable. Literally.
     
    EdmundIronside likes this.
  18. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,724
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I don't care how much you "loathe" him, when you repeatedly say "Democrats are bad too and I have no interest in judging levels of bad" you are literally drawing an equivalence between the Democrats and Trump. There is a simple way to stop me from pointing this out, which is to stop drawing equivalences between Republicans and Democrats.
     
  19. Takhisis

    Takhisis brown-haired beauty

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    48,376
    Location:
    up yours!
    Read my last line again:
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
  20. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,667
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    AOC is easily one of the most popular politicians in the party. You've got folks... myself included... already clamoring for her to run for POTUS. If AOC couldn't convince folks who could have? Obama? Whatever you interpret TF's meaning was by "leading Democrats" does not seem to make sense other than to essentially reach a hindsight-based conclusion that whoever supported Sanders were not the "leading Democrats" and whoever did not support Sanders were the "leading Democrats" because he lost, therefore they obviously weren't leaders. But I look at it from the opposite angle. If Sanders was a good enough candidate to win, then he would have and the people who chose to endorse him would have seen that as well and endorsed him as a result. So whatever magic support or endorsement you're feeling like he didn't get... consider that maybe he didn't get it because he wasn't an attractive enough candidate to win... rather than the lack of that support being the reason he didn't win.
    Again, I think that she presented herself as an ally of Bernie from the very beginning. As for the rest, like I said I think that this is a reasonable argument. I don't agree with it, but I can certainly see how you guys are coming to this conclusion. I will add that this does smack strongly of "Bernie lost cause Warren's fault"
    I brought up Warren because TF said "no leading Democrat" and he responded by what was, in my view blaming Warren. I wasn't directing that comment at you, but see my comment above about the "widening the gap" thing. I don't agree that this isn't "blaming Warren". That's exactly what it appears to be.
    Now this makes sense, but again... demanding fealty from Warren and her supporters to Bernie's banner (not that you are doing this) runs directly against Bernie's supporters asserting independence from Biden. I mean if you also are encouraging Bernie supporters to back Biden (which I think you are, correct me if I'm wrong) then frowning at Warren for running against Bernie is consistent, but to the extent that a person is not doing so, they're trying to have it both ways.
     

Share This Page