The Democratic Nomination

[Ironsided]

Meh... those two things are pretty similar... particularly if he added a "that's my worry" to the end of it or a "My concern is" to the beginning of it... but whatever... the whole idea that we can get through a primary without a candidate slinging mud or backstabbing etc... is pretty quaint. People use every dirty trick in the book and outright cheat in silly meaningless sports for crissakes... of course they do the same when "leader of the free world" is at stake. And the news is going to promote/publish whatever generates ratings... because they worship Mammon above all else.

So, to quote George Carlin... "maybe something else sucks around here... like the public."

You are still in the same mindset you were last election: -This is how American politics is done and nothing can change. But Bernie did not sling mud or backstab anybody then, or now. Consistently he is like a laser beam on the issues. Debating all on stage on the issues, not character, not identity, issues. So… there… is… an… alternative… to… the… status… quo…

Hillary-supporters tried every trick in the book to make it seem like he backstabbed her, but he didn’t. Bernie at his age did 14 full fury rallies in four days and 37 in total for Hillary. Then she had the stomach to backstab him when she lost and say his campaign hurt her? She herself only did 10 half-arsed rallies for Obama. This is the selfish beasts you have outside the Bernie campaign. Is this a strategy for female politicians in America you want to see normalised in the democratic party - to use lies and deceit to portray themselves as victims, even when they are not?

If Warren went on the obvious target that is Biden that would not even be a deceit, because he is literally right there in her face on stage taking credit for her very good work in the senate like she’s a nobody. But it’s all part of “the game” I only assume you like more than actual change, supporting first Hillary, then Kamala, then Warren. Impeccable loser radar, well done.

Warren recently snapped up both Hillary and Kamala staffers. I totally believe her recent idiocy capped off with this complete self-own, own-goal, shotgun-blast-applied-directly-to-her-4head could only be conjured up by such political suicide wizards. I think Warren bought into the Hillary tactics that worked “so well” for Kamala, and Hillary, more than I think the other reasonable pragmatic option (which would be she realised she was on decline and struck a VP deal with Biden). I think Warrens brain farted again and she bought into the same narrative you express Sommer. You must play dirty to win. Problem is when you chose that side you are in for good and nothing change.

Why political parakeets are parroting what they are told without effort to challenge it I will never understand. To me it’s intellectually lazy at best. You clearly don’t like the state of things so why are you so hellbent of upholding it? And uphold it you do - if you accept it as a given. You must fight for change and you know that. Or maybe, just maybe, them or you were never progressive to begin with? Who exactly do you think Carlin referred to as the public, the deplorable or the woke or those accepting that as the narrative?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You are still in the same mindset you were last election: -This is how American politics is done and nothing can change. But Bernie did not sling mud or backstab anybody then, or now. Consistently he is like a laser beam on the issues. Debating all on stage on the issues, not character, not identity, issues. So… there… is… an… alternative… to… the… status… quo…

Hillary-supporters tried every trick in the book to make it seem like he backstabbed her, but he didn’t. Bernie at his age did 14 full fury rallies in four days and 37 in total for Hillary. Then she had the stomach to backstab him when she lost and say his campaign hurt her? She herself only did 10 half-arsed rallies for Obama. This is the selfish beasts you have outside the Bernie campaign. Is this a strategy for female politicians in America you want to see normalised in the democratic party - to use lies and deceit to portray themselves as victims, even when they are not?

If Warren went on the obvious target that is Biden that would not even be a deceit, because he is literally right there in her face on stage taking credit for her very good work in the senate like she’s a nobody. But it’s all part of “the game” I only assume you like more than actual change, supporting first Hillary, then Kamala, then Warren. Impeccable loser radar, well done.

Warren recently snapped up both Hillary and Kamala staffers. I totally believe her recent idiocy capped off with this complete self-own, own-goal, shotgun-blast-applied-directly-to-her-4head could only be conjured up by such political suicide wizards. I think Warren bought into the Hillary tactics that worked “so well” for Kamala, and Hillary, more than I think the other reasonable pragmatic option (which would be she realised she was on decline and struck a VP deal with Biden). I think Warrens brain farted again and she bought into the same narrative you express Sommer. You must play dirty to win. Problem is when you chose that side you are in for good and nothing change.

Why political parakeets are parroting what they are told without effort to challenge it I will never understand. To me it’s intellectually lazy at best. You clearly don’t like the state of things so why are you so hellbent of upholding it? And uphold it you do - if you accept it as a given. You must fight for change and you know that. Or maybe, just maybe, them or you were never progressive to begin with? Who exactly do you think Carlin referred to as the public, the deplorable or the woke or those accepting that as the narrative?

So much of what you are (directly and indirectly) projecting onto me here is incorrect, that my impression of this post is that you weren't really that interested in what I actually said, or have been saying, or my overall point, because you had a soapbox that you wanted to get on, and a speech you wanted to give and you were looking for an opportunity to segue into it. So you gave your speech. So that's that.

 

[Ironsided]

Unsurprising, you are the victim here. Where did I hurt you and what “projections” were incorrect?

 

[Sommerswerd]

"Hurt"? Please. I'm not a "victim" you're just wrong and now you're trying to patronize and paint yourself as a martyr. I'll pass. You gave your speech. Like I said, That's that.

 

[IglooDame]

Tulsi Gabbard has bought a house in New Hampshire. On the one hand, understandable given how far away her home state is, but on the other hand, apparently her popularity in Hawaii (as a fairly Dem-heavy state) is slipping fast.

 

[Kyriakos]

You are still in the same mindset you were last election: -This is how American politics is done and nothing can change. But Bernie did not sling mud or backstab anybody then, or now. Consistently he is like a laser beam on the issues. Debating all on stage on the issues, not character, not identity, issues. So… there… is… an… alternative… to… the… status… quo…

Hillary-supporters tried every trick in the book to make it seem like he backstabbed her, but he didn’t. Bernie at his age did 14 full fury rallies in four days and 37 in total for Hillary. Then she had the stomach to backstab him when she lost and say his campaign hurt her? She herself only did 10 half-arsed rallies for Obama. This is the selfish beasts you have outside the Bernie campaign. Is this a strategy for female politicians in America you want to see normalised in the democratic party - to use lies and deceit to portray themselves as victims, even when they are not?

If Warren went on the obvious target that is Biden that would not even be a deceit, because he is literally right there in her face on stage taking credit for her very good work in the senate like she’s a nobody. But it’s all part of “the game” I only assume you like more than actual change, supporting first Hillary, then Kamala, then Warren. Impeccable loser radar, well done.

Warren recently snapped up both Hillary and Kamala staffers. I totally believe her recent idiocy capped off with this complete self-own, own-goal, shotgun-blast-applied-directly-to-her-4head could only be conjured up by such political suicide wizards. I think Warren bought into the Hillary tactics that worked “so well” for Kamala, and Hillary, more than I think the other reasonable pragmatic option (which would be she realised she was on decline and struck a VP deal with Biden). I think Warrens brain farted again and she bought into the same narrative you express Sommer. You must play dirty to win. Problem is when you chose that side you are in for good and nothing change.

Why political parakeets are parroting what they are told without effort to challenge it I will never understand. To me it’s intellectually lazy at best. You clearly don’t like the state of things so why are you so hellbent of upholding it? And uphold it you do - if you accept it as a given. You must fight for change and you know that. Or maybe, just maybe, them or you were never progressive to begin with? Who exactly do you think Carlin referred to as the public, the deplorable or the woke or those accepting that as the narrative?

Sommerswerd isn't progressive*. He said so many times, and also boasted that for him it's fine if things stay as they are. Good for Sommer, I guess, but then again I am not seeing how it makes it illegitimate to call out CNN's and Warren's rather cretinous jab at Bernie.

Anyway, Warren or Biden won't beat Trump, imho. Bernie, imho, will. Also, Bernie happens to be respected, while Biden is a senile joke by now and Warren is some slightly improved version of Hellary - not very surprising, given she supported Hell in 2016 too

Not even seeing why anyone would believe Bernie, the person who wanted Warren to run in 2016, was of the view a woman can't win. I mean, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand

*That Som isn't progressive doesn't mean that I am. After all, I support (among other things) the restoration of the Byzantine Empire.

 

[IglooDame]

All other things being equal, a more moderate candidate will beat a less moderate candidate in a two-candidate general election. So by the math, the Dem moderates are more likely to beat Trump than the more progressive ones. You're not going to get the Republicans who dislike Trump and conservative-to-middle-of-the-road independents with a progressive. IMHO.

 

[Ironsided]

You don’t need more conservative voters when you have 44.3% not voting at all. You need to win back voters, excite the people and win the new young voters. Good luck doing that in the centre of the CNN, abc, MSNBC echo chamber.

 

[ThERat]

A moderate will beat Trump is the most hilarious crap I have to read here. People are sick and tired of neolib democrats, and all except Bernie represent this. Warren made it abundantly clear with her change in policies and with this really low blow against a so called friend. Trump will beat any so-called moderate (in reality people bought by the establishment who will change absolutely nothing for the people). Trump will eat them alive cos all of them have terrible track records. The one candidate who has been consistent over decades is Bernie. Trump can only resort to calling him a communist, which is pretty zzzz.

Anyway, Warren's stupid move totally backfired, just look at her FB page. And CNN is so absolutely disgusting, I even agree with Trump and Tucker on that, which is something I never thought I would.

 

[Socrates99]

All other things being equal, a more moderate candidate will beat a less moderate candidate in a two-candidate general election. So by the math, the Dem moderates are more likely to beat Trump than the more progressive ones. You're not going to get the Republicans who dislike Trump and conservative-to-middle-of-the-road independents with a progressive. IMHO.

Hillary was a moderate, crap on progressives, style democrat. Trump proved winning the general isn't about attracting the "middle." Its about exciting your base. That guy made no concessions to the middle, in fact sometimes it seemed like he actively tried to chase them away. The moderates are offering nothing. Do we really believe people are going to go out of their way for a nothing that's mildly better than Trump?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sommerswerd isn't progressive*. He said so many times

No I haven't.

 

[Kyriakos]

No I haven't.

You supported Hillary, come on, you are no progressive

 

[Sommerswerd]

You supported Hillary, come on, you are no progressive

Your opinion in this regard doesn't change the fact that your "said so many times" statement was absolutely false.

 

[rah]

Hillary was a moderate, crap on progressives, style democrat.

She barely, and I mean barely lost and she was hated quite bad. Any likable moderate would have kicked Trump's butt.

 

[Commodore]

If he was going to flame out it would have happened already

Truth. Biden already weathered the worst of the storm against his campaign when he had both Republicans and the other Democrat candidates pouncing on his every word and accusing him of dementia and coasting on Obama's legacy. He came through all of that relatively unscathed, so the nomination seems to be his to lose.

 

[Hygro]

Hillary was a moderate, crap on progressives, style democrat. Trump proved winning the general isn't about attracting the "middle." Its about exciting your base. That guy made no concessions to the middle, in fact sometimes it seemed like he actively tried to chase them away. The moderates are offering nothing. Do we really believe people are going to go out of their way for a nothing that's mildly better than Trump?

Clinton pushes gay military service and universal healthcare in 1993, and ran to the left of Obama in 2008. She’s not an anti progressive.

 

[mitsho]

Clinton primarily was/is a technocrat, believing in experts being able to design the optimal policy and bureaucracy in coordination with the market being the best to implement them. That‘s very far from the populist tendencies around in this election and also for example far from the focus on the person of the Biden campaign. It makes it also very hard to pin down what Hillary Clinton really thought herself. and since she couldn‘t build on personal appeal due to the quite unfounded hatred against her built over decades in the public eye, she couldn‘t mobilize enough. Also, her campaign was already planning for her presidency and didn‘t want to waste a lot of energy on the election. So she lost.

But I‘m not sure this discussion on technocrat versus populist versus personality type of politician does much to help distinguish who is the best to beat the donald. I believe, everyone of them can.

 

[Socrates99]

She barely, and I mean barely lost and she was hated quite bad. Any likable moderate would have kicked Trump's butt.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribe...rump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/

Trust me I know it's insane to link Forbes to prove a leftwing point.

M4ALL polls so well amongst Democrats that even the moderates have had to coopt one version or another of that name. Do you really think the voters that the article describes are going to show up for a more likable candidate with Hillary's policies?

There was another thread a while back, was it Hobbs that started it? I can't remember, but it was about the fact that the left outnumbers the right but for some reason the right stays competitive. It's because Republicans feed their base while moderate Democrats dismiss theirs.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There was another thread a while back, was it Hobbs that started it? I can't remember, but it was about the fact that the left outnumbers the right but for some reason the right stays competitive. It's because Republicans feed their base while moderate Democrats dismiss theirs.

Another possibility is that its because the hard-right Conservative is more willing to get along to go along, ie hold their nose and vote for the Republican who isn't conservative enough... and the Republican leaning moderate is more willing to get along to go along, ie hold their nose and vote for a hard-line Conservative, even if the person holds offensive/controversial views/positions. Meanwhile far-left liberals/progressives more often refuse to support Democrats who they view as moderates, neoliberal, etc., while left-leaning moderates are often similarly reluctant to support far-left liberals who they view as too radical/unrealistic/woke etc.

Essentially, the Republicans' voters stick together, and the Democrats' voters don't, so the Democrats lose. Then the two factions of voters point fingers and blame each other. I don't pretend to have a solution, but I don't think the issue is that Republicans feed the base while Democrats ignore their base. The reality is that Republicans also ignore their base sometimes, but their base voters forgive them and vote for them anyway... and Republicans pander to the base sometimes, but their moderate voters forgive them and vote for them anyway.

 

[Ironsided]

My take is Democrats now have a solid social democratic faction inside the party challenging the liberals for power.

Most other countries have a separate social democratic party option and often an even more left-wing/communist alternative to boot.

In Sweden for example Cons + Libs are the traditional foundation of the right-wing alliance. The traditional opposition is the red/green alliance with the social democrats, the greens and the hard left.

Right now, we have an unholy centre alliance of SocDem backed by Libs in government which is taking a toll on both parties. Very much like the ideological problems inside the US dems.

I don’t see an easy way out.