Bernie/Pete vs Biden Electability

2,142 Views | 82 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Professor Bearitas
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

Having said all that I don't think Trump is any type of guarantee to win. 35%-40% of the electorate HATES him. That is hard to overcome.

40% of the electorate, but unfortunately not evenly distributed.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Griff said:

OaktownBear said:


Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat.
What will you do if Sanders goes into the convention with somewhere in the neighborhood of 41-45% of the delegates with a 10% lead over his nearest competitor and a brokered convention nominates someone other than the person with the highest delegate count?
If a candidate goes in with a popular vote MAJORITY and/or a pledged delegate MAJORITY, and the Democrats overthrow that with superdelegates I have an issue. I have no issue if no candidate gets a majority and the plurality leader does not come out with the nomination. That is how governments are formed all the time in other democracies. I don't see why if the results were Bernie 40%, Buttigieg 30%, Klobuchar 30%, that means Bernie wins. In that case, a runoff would probably mean Bernie would lose. If a deal were struck between the two moderates I have no issue with that. That is why we have a convention. That is the way it has always worked. If you don't get a majority, you need to convince delegates to move to you and they keep voting until a majority is achieved. If we are looking at 49%, 26%, 25%, yeah, I'd be more sympathetic to the notion that it was not the right outcome. I would also say, rather than superdelegates deciding, I would rather the pledged delegates decide it.

My preference would be to adopt rank choice voting and go with the popular vote outcome. That would also encourage people to vote for their favorite candidate instead of worrying about wasting their vote on someone who they think won't win.

By the way, if you think I'm against Bernie, I'm not. I haven't decided who I'm voting for, but he is top 2 for me at the moment.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I haven't done due diligence on Klobuchar to know whether to giver her my support. However, as a candidate she has had to earn every vote she has gotten through hard work and basically winning almost every debate. That is impressive. I suspect that she would actually run the best general campaign and be the most electable when you consider all factors including skill at campaigning and debating. Whether I ultimately support her or not, I'd very much like to see her become a viable candidate for the nomination.
Klobuchar seems the most presidential to me.
Klobuchar would get my vote.
Pete? No.
There is no substance to Pete.
Tell me what he is running on again? The future? Unity?
Sorry, too vague
Sorry too much corporate backing
Been there, done that.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Professor Griff said:

OaktownBear said:


Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat.
What will you do if Sanders goes into the convention with somewhere in the neighborhood of 41-45% of the delegates with a 10% lead over his nearest competitor and a brokered convention nominates someone other than the person with the highest delegate count?
If a candidate goes in with a popular vote MAJORITY and/or a pledged delegate MAJORITY, and the Democrats overthrow that with superdelegates I have an issue. I have no issue if no candidate gets a majority and the plurality leader does not come out with the nomination. That is how governments are formed all the time in other democracies. I don't see why if the results were Bernie 40%, Buttigieg 30%, Klobuchar 30%, that means Bernie wins. In that case, a runoff would probably mean Bernie would lose. If a deal were struck between the two moderates I have no issue with that. That is why we have a convention. That is the way it has always worked. If you don't get a majority, you need to convince delegates to move to you and they keep voting until a majority is achieved. If we are looking at 49%, 26%, 25%, yeah, I'd be more sympathetic to the notion that it was not the right outcome. I would also say, rather than superdelegates deciding, I would rather the pledged delegates decide it.

My preference would be to adopt rank choice voting and go with the popular vote outcome. That would also encourage people to vote for their favorite candidate instead of worrying about wasting their vote on someone who they think won't win.

By the way, if you think I'm against Bernie, I'm not. I haven't decided who I'm voting for, but he is top 2 for me at the moment.
If I were a superdelegate in such a scenario, I would want to try to get a good sense of which of the 3 candidates is going to be best head to head against Trump. But simply assuming that the moderate vote of 60% is the superior option to Bernie's 40% would be possibly a mistake. I don't think a candidate is more or less electable based on where they stand in some left to right spectrum. I think they are electable based on their ability to galvanize a popular voter turnout as a clear contrast to Trump. I think that Klobuchar and Sanders have that capability. We'll see what polls show in June. The specific polls of interest are the ones on wikipedia that show the head to head poll results for multiple polls in each state for each candidate vs. Trump. If you look at those now, Sanders is the only one that can beat Trump in enough states to win the electoral college majority. Obviously those polls are going to change between now and then.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

OaktownBear said:

Professor Griff said:

OaktownBear said:


Had the superdelegates flipped that nomination I would have stopped being a democrat.
What will you do if Sanders goes into the convention with somewhere in the neighborhood of 41-45% of the delegates with a 10% lead over his nearest competitor and a brokered convention nominates someone other than the person with the highest delegate count?
If a candidate goes in with a popular vote MAJORITY and/or a pledged delegate MAJORITY, and the Democrats overthrow that with superdelegates I have an issue. I have no issue if no candidate gets a majority and the plurality leader does not come out with the nomination. That is how governments are formed all the time in other democracies. I don't see why if the results were Bernie 40%, Buttigieg 30%, Klobuchar 30%, that means Bernie wins. In that case, a runoff would probably mean Bernie would lose. If a deal were struck between the two moderates I have no issue with that. That is why we have a convention. That is the way it has always worked. If you don't get a majority, you need to convince delegates to move to you and they keep voting until a majority is achieved. If we are looking at 49%, 26%, 25%, yeah, I'd be more sympathetic to the notion that it was not the right outcome. I would also say, rather than superdelegates deciding, I would rather the pledged delegates decide it.

My preference would be to adopt rank choice voting and go with the popular vote outcome. That would also encourage people to vote for their favorite candidate instead of worrying about wasting their vote on someone who they think won't win.

By the way, if you think I'm against Bernie, I'm not. I haven't decided who I'm voting for, but he is top 2 for me at the moment.
If I were a superdelegate in such a scenario, I would want to try to get a good sense of which of the 3 candidates is going to be best head to head against Trump. But simply assuming that the moderate vote of 60% is the superior option to Bernie's 40% would be possibly a mistake. I don't think a candidate is more or less electable based on where they stand in some left to right spectrum. I think they are electable based on their ability to galvanize a popular voter turnout as a clear contrast to Trump. I think that Klobuchar and Sanders have that capability. We'll see what polls show in June. The specific polls of interest are the ones on wikipedia that show the head to head poll results for multiple polls in each state for each candidate vs. Trump. If you look at those now, Sanders is the only one that can beat Trump in enough states to win the electoral college majority. Obviously those polls are going to change between now and then.
The head to head polls this far out are notoriously bad, most of the states are lightly polled and those polls are not very reliable polls. I would not base any strategy on them at this point.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I haven't done due diligence on Klobuchar to know whether to giver her my support. However, as a candidate she has had to earn every vote she has gotten through hard work and basically winning almost every debate. That is impressive. I suspect that she would actually run the best general campaign and be the most electable when you consider all factors including skill at campaigning and debating. Whether I ultimately support her or not, I'd very much like to see her become a viable candidate for the nomination.
Klobuchar seems the most presidential to me.
Klobuchar would get my vote.
Pete? No.
There is no substance to Pete.
Tell me what he is running on again? The future? Unity?
Sorry, too vague
Sorry too much corporate backing
Been there, done that.
That is my feeling on Buttigieg. I don't mind him being young. Not thrilled with the lack of experience. But the thing that gets me is he does a lot of talking without saying anything.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

heartofthebear said:

OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I haven't done due diligence on Klobuchar to know whether to giver her my support. However, as a candidate she has had to earn every vote she has gotten through hard work and basically winning almost every debate. That is impressive. I suspect that she would actually run the best general campaign and be the most electable when you consider all factors including skill at campaigning and debating. Whether I ultimately support her or not, I'd very much like to see her become a viable candidate for the nomination.
Klobuchar seems the most presidential to me.
Klobuchar would get my vote.
Pete? No.
There is no substance to Pete.
Tell me what he is running on again? The future? Unity?
Sorry, too vague
Sorry too much corporate backing
Been there, done that.
That is my feeling on Buttigieg. I don't mind him being young. Not thrilled with the lack of experience. But the thing that gets me is he does a lot of talking without saying anything.
He's a smart man and he is well coached. He is doing way better than he should without having to say much. The MSNBC crowd has anointed him as the only electable candidate that can beat Sanders in the primary, billionaires are donating millions to his campaign, and he is getting the backing of the DNC. All of that without saying a damn thing.
I wouldn't say anything either. All it can do is burst the bubble. This is why I asserted that the DNC would rather have Trump than Sanders. It was premature to say that, but, based on polls right now, there is no way Mayor Pete can beat Trump. And I seriously doubt that he will grab the left vote without actually standing for something really substantive. I really hope that Klobuchar continues to rise or Biden somehow rebounds in the next month.

I never liked Biden until recently, and that is precisely when his popularity dropped. The reason why I like him is because he is authentic and genuine and that is the one trait that really helps Trump. Biden seems tame and weak but he is fierce about Trump and he would roll up his sleeves and battle him. I really believe that. In fact I look forward to it. But the only dem. that I can really visualize actually sitting in the oval office or addressing congress is Klobuchar. And I think it is because she knows how to build relationships and be personable while getting things done politically.
Professor Griff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

heartofthebear said:

OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I haven't done due diligence on Klobuchar to know whether to giver her my support. However, as a candidate she has had to earn every vote she has gotten through hard work and basically winning almost every debate. That is impressive. I suspect that she would actually run the best general campaign and be the most electable when you consider all factors including skill at campaigning and debating. Whether I ultimately support her or not, I'd very much like to see her become a viable candidate for the nomination.
Klobuchar seems the most presidential to me.
Klobuchar would get my vote.
Pete? No.
There is no substance to Pete.
Tell me what he is running on again? The future? Unity?
Sorry, too vague
Sorry too much corporate backing
Been there, done that.
That is my feeling on Buttigieg. I don't mind him being young. Not thrilled with the lack of experience. But the thing that gets me is he does a lot of talking without saying anything.
Young is terrific. I'd love for our elected officials to be younger. I don't love that my preferred candidate is pushing 80. But I can't vote for a guy who has only been mayor of a small town with no defined record of what his actual policies would be on national issues, just like I can't vote for a tech executive who has never held office no matter how much I like what he says in debates. Go run for governor or Congress or the Senate and establish a record first before you try to skip to the head of the class to be President. Electing people with no record gave us Schwarzenegger and Trump, both of whom misrepresented their stances on issues as candidates and abandoned them once elected. Presidential candidates must have a voting record that we can evaluate.

The fact that Buttigieg speaks in meaningless word salads just confirms for me that he is not interested in representing my interests and is only interested in the interests of his rich donors.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

tequila4kapp said:

I am in the camp that says Sanders is not electable.

I think Biden is Trump's most stringest test, mostly because he probably flips PA which makes the EC map extremely tough for Trump. That said, I also think Biden is an atrocious candidate.

Buttigieg...I don't believe the country is ready for a gay president. I think plenty of people will say publicly that they don't care but will vote the opposite in the privacy of the booth.

Klobuchar..I haven't been following closely enough to say one way or the other.

Bloomberg..I'm not sure you can win a nomination while ignoring retail politics. Ads only get you so far.

Having said all that I don't think Trump is any type of guarantee to win. 35%-40% of the electorate HATES him. That is hard to overcome.
I'm only asking this question because of your statement about Klobuchar - Have you been following the campaign.

There is a big difference between having the best profile on paper and being the most stringent test. You acknowledge he has been an atrocious candidate. I'd say it is beyond that. No ground game. Terrible mistakes. No energy. Concedes New Hampshire at the debate. Announces he is leaving New Hampshire the morning of election day. What the hell?

A guy with Biden's profile would be a tough test for Trump. Biden would get crushed unless he demonstrates something that he has not remotely shown. Half of the Democrats have been begging Biden to give them a reason to vote for him and he still can't do it.

IMO, Biden is done. He has to get out and clear the field.
Kind of. I'm more or less an independent. I've voted for presidential candidates on both sides. The current makeup of the D party doesn't resonate with me at all. Unless I've missed something I can't imagine voting for any of their potential nominees. I follow at a moderate distance; i have a semi-academic fascination with it. Biden reminds me of Bob Dole. It is his turn but he doesn't have the goods. The Ds have a similarly empty bench to Repubs in 1996 (hell, we even have Forbes > Bloomberg). The difference is Ds are having an actual competitive primary.
BerlinerBaer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I don't understand the neighboring state argument. Did Californians care any more about John McCain than people from other states just because he was right across the state line? These are nationally recognized politicians. The only argument I'd buy is that neighboring states are often similar demographically
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BerlinerBaer said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I don't understand the neighboring state argument. Did Californians care any more about John McCain than people from other states just because he was right across the state line? These are nationally recognized politicians. The only argument I'd buy is that neighboring states are often similar demographically
I think it's a more valid argument in New England than the West Coast. Out there you can drive through 4 or 5 states in the same amount of time it takes to drive the length of California.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BerlinerBaer said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I don't understand the neighboring state argument. Did Californians care any more about John McCain than people from other states just because he was right across the state line? These are nationally recognized politicians. The only argument I'd buy is that neighboring states are often similar demographically
The NE is different. Those states are small and there's more of a regional factor at play. West coast states are so huge and spread out that we don't get the same effect.
Professor Griff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BerlinerBaer said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I don't understand the neighboring state argument. Did Californians care any more about John McCain than people from other states just because he was right across the state line? These are nationally recognized politicians. The only argument I'd buy is that neighboring states are often similar demographically
We didn't even care about Kamala Harris and she's from the state
Blue Moon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:


Kind of. I'm more or less an independent. I've voted for presidential candidates on both sides.
I've read your posts. Tell the truth. Which candidates have you voted for as president in your lifetime.
Blue Moon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Bernie absolutely can beat Trump.

My concerns are:

1. His age.

If he can finish out his term can he run for a second one? Maybe that is getting ahead of ourselves, but it is something to consider strategically.

2. His ability to accomplish his goals.

While I think Bernie can win, I don't think he will be able to do much of what he promises - especially if the GOP keeps the Senate. I do not think he will be an effective President. Is that setting the Dems up for a GOP win in 2024 and 2028 after a failed "social experiment" sabotaged by Moscow Mitch from the start?

The Dems are faced with an interesting proposition where they might win the battle and yet lose the war.
Changing the country is a multi-stage battle. The first is to win the presidency. The second is to vote out as many Republican senators as possible in 2022.

Everyone knows that there is only so much change that is possible while there is still an obstructionist Senate. But even Trump has been able to make some changes,, even without legislative support (even from Republicans) and the opportunity to make appointments for federal judges is not unimportant.
Professor Griff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


As to the rest, I think Bernie can run a successful campaign in the general, but the numbers in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire should give pause. He was in a neighboring state. He couldn't come close to the vote that he got in 2016. 1/3 of the people that voted for him last time didn't vote for him. He barely beat a three year old from Indiana. The percentage of votes going to moderate candidates was much higher than liberal candidates - they are just splitting the vote right now.
https://img.nbc.com/mpx-static/image/199/959/150428_2862485_Unfrozen_Caveman_Lawyer.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes, I eat a pizza and I wonder if some higher power sent it down from the heavens.

I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts

But there is one thing I do know when that pizza is sliced into two pieces, those pieces are a lot larger than when I slice that pizza into eight pieces. Is it reasonable to expect that one man in a contest where five people are splitting up 90% of that pizza should have 60% of that pizza to himself like he did in 2016? Is it reasonable to expect that a man who got that portion of the pizza in 2016 partly because many of the other cavemen hated the cavewoman who wanted the other 40% of that pizza and wanted anybody else but her to enjoy that delicious gift from the heavens? Or is it more reasonable to think that a man in a five man race getting 1/4 of that pizza in the first two pizza parties is doing above average?

I hereby submit that my client should be awarded the 2020 Democratic nomination and $3 million in compensatory damages for biased media reporting and poor logic from other pizza eating analysts.

Thank you.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BerlinerBaer said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

Oaktown, your post very much impresses me.
Yup, it's all pretty spot-on. Nevada will be interesting in seeing where the moderate and non-white vote goes with Biden looking like a loser. If Bernie can pick up most of the latter then he's clearly got the inside track to win the nomination. If not, it's still wide open.

Not sure what to take out of New Hampshire. Yes, it should be good for Bernie in that it's a neighboring state, but the primary electorate there is also older and whiter than the typical Democratic voter base, which would not be good for him (and would be good for Pete and Amy). So maybe I'll call it a push.
I don't understand the neighboring state argument. Did Californians care any more about John McCain than people from other states just because he was right across the state line? These are nationally recognized politicians. The only argument I'd buy is that neighboring states are often similar demographically
I think it's a more valid argument in New England than the West Coast. Out there you can drive through 4 or 5 states in the same amount of time it takes to drive the length of California.


The idea that a Vermont senator and a Massachusetts senator do not have advantages in New Hampshire is ludicrous. They share media markets. They are tiny. It takes about as long to get to Vermont from any point in New Hampshire as it does to get to Sacramento from the Bay Area.

It is like saying that you don't think New Hampshire people root for the Red Sox because Bay Area fans don't root for the Diamondbacks
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Southern New Hampshire is commuting territory for Greater Boston and full of ex Mass residents
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not going to go election by election. Infer what you will from my posts and don't believe me if that's what you chose.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear Wife: yes---"Bernie is quirky---being a 79 year-old life-long communist who has said wonderful things about Fidel Castro, Cuba, china, Venezuela and who honeymooned in the old soviet union does presuppose you to saying quirky things. Even 20 years ago, Bernie would not have been allowed to be a janitor or security dude in the headquarters of the DNC. Today???The probable candidate against Trump. And, Democrats have thge nerve to say that Trump & the Republicans are crazy. Honey----call my therapist----
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

I'm not going to go election by election. Infer what you will from my posts and don't believe me if that's what you chose.


I'm sorry, but given that it isn't a hard question to answer, I think you answer it by not answering it. If you don't think you can consider any Democrat in this field, including the moderates when the alternative is Trump, I infer there is no way you will vote for a Democrat. Which is fine, but if you want to play independent, give some reason to believe that, because I'm going to bet like many conservatives, you independently vote Republican every time.

General Election: Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton

Primaries: Jackson, Brown, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton.

Wasn't hard to do. I'm a Democrat. That's my voting record. I don't agree with Republican policies. While I could come up with situations like a Gabbard v. Romney matchup where I would probably vote Republican, I've never voted Republican and probably never will. I come at that judgment honestly, but I don't pretend that my judgment is neutral

Should we make this easy and just ask what Democrats you have voted for in the general? That will save some key strokes for you. Nothing wrong with being conservative or center right. Just own it.
Blue Moon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

I'm not going to go election by election. Infer what you will from my posts and don't believe me if that's what you chose.
That's your prerogative, as it is mine to infer meaning from this post.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
essentially, the Democratic Party is the party of centralized government in Wash DC while the Republican Party is the party of federalism ( states' rights if you prefer) Please see & read all the papers ( called the federalist papers) of all of our founding fathers. it is clearly true that most, but, certainly not all, of the founding Fathers came down on the side of federalism. In addition, the modern Democratic Part champions equality rather than freedom ( zero-sum game clearly) while the Republican Party clearly favors freedom rather than equality. Both philosophies have honest pedigrees. Again, please read all thge papers of the founding fathers. They modern Democratic party bears no resemblance at all to the philosophy of the Party circa 1940-1975. The party went off the rails briefly in 1972 with mcgovern. he was trounced 49-1. ( he did carry his home state) The party returned to its centrist tendencies with Bill Clinton, but then went off the rails again with obama, who, clearly was in many ways, the most leftist president in American history. He skated because he was slick, very talented and beloved by the MSM. ( still is) The coming report by John Durham on the depredations of the previous admin will harm thge reputation of Obama ( after all---who did all these rogue folks and rogue depts work for?) So--honest Historians will not be amused by the damning critiques and probable indictments of all the folks who worked for Obama. The main difference between Obama & Bernie is that Bernie has been wearing his philosophy on his sleeve since boyhood. With bernie--what you see is what you'll get---in spades..With Obama, he feinted right but always went left. Reminds me of Paris Austin. The Democrats had better hope that folks will not look at the state of all the major cities in this country. Every major city in thge US is governed by Democrats from top to bottom. And, every major city resembles a third world country. High taxes, drug abuse, terrible schools, rampant homelessness, high murder rates, demoralized police debts, gov't bureaucrats impossible to fire , a disappearing middle class, a political climate hostile to business and business owners. That's what I run against if I'm Trump, or that's what I run against if I am any republican in any state. Democrats---get your act together----
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So sad that so many bloggers on this site either
a) know nothing about Communism


b) assume there are no major differences between Communism & Classical Liberalism ( espoused by Democrats prior to Obama)
c ) There is no c..If you fall into category a or b you either never took a Civics course in the 4th grade, or you need to take an emergency on-line course . Most toddlers, ages 4-21 love Bernie & Communism/Socialism because they have been the victims of propaganda from left-wing teachers from Nursery School through Grad school. Toddlers have an excuse. What's yours????
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bernie Sanders' pipe dreams - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-big-2020-ideas-odds-92b2f712-4562-4758-b34e-eaf6486064d9.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

So sad that so many bloggers on this site either
a) know nothing about Communism


b) assume there are no major differences between Communism & Classical Liberalism ( espoused by Democrats prior to Obama)
c ) There is no c..If you fall into category a or b you either never took a Civics course in the 4th grade, or you need to take an emergency on-line course . Most toddlers, ages 4-21 love Bernie & Communism/Socialism because they have been the victims of propaganda from left-wing teachers from Nursery School through Grad school. Toddlers have an excuse. What's yours????
It's sad that some people don't realize there is a difference between Communism (which is mostly defunct around the world) and Democratic Socialism (which is doing pretty okay in most of Western Europe). Hint: Bernie Sanders advocates for the latter.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

tequila4kapp said:

I'm not going to go election by election. Infer what you will from my posts and don't believe me if that's what you chose.
I'm sorry, but given that it isn't a hard question to answer, I think you answer it by not answering it. If you don't think you can consider any Democrat in this field, including the moderates when the alternative is Trump, I infer there is no way you will vote for a Democrat. Which is fine, but if you want to play independent, give some reason to believe that, because I'm going to bet like many conservatives, you independently vote Republican every time.

General Election: Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton

Primaries: Jackson, Brown, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton.

Wasn't hard to do. I'm a Democrat. That's my voting record. I don't agree with Republican policies. While I could come up with situations like a Gabbard v. Romney matchup where I would probably vote Republican, I've never voted Republican and probably never will. I come at that judgment honestly, but I don't pretend that my judgment is neutral

Should we make this easy and just ask what Democrats you have voted for in the general? That will save some key strokes for you. Nothing wrong with being conservative or center right. Just own it.
I have been registered "Unaffiliated" for maybe 20 years ("Independent" is an actual political party in Oregon, or at least was one years ago). I have voted for Dukakis, Perot and Bush 2. I have sat many out - living in deep blue state diminishes the value of an individual vote, the result is foretold. If Bill Clinton ran today I'd give serious thought to voting for him. IMO the current version of the Democratic party couldn't nominate a Clinton because it has moved so far left. That drastic move left alienates me from the party; IMO current 'moderates' are only moderate in relationship to Communists. I'm currently more of a Drain the Swamp type person. Trump and Sanders have appeal to me because of that but Trump is a pompous ass who disgustingly slept with a porn actress and Sanders is a Communist, which disqualifies him for me.

It is a bit more complex than what you guys think from reading my posts. I like Trump's use of economics to realize foreign policy instead of using the military, I like that Trump is for the working American and enacts policies to benefit them, I like that he is doing something about illegal immigration (my g/father LEGALLY immigrated here from the Iberian peninsula...I don't have a WASP last name). In many ways those policies were D party positions about 10-20 years ago. There are other things I dislike about Trump. The only person who believes everything I believe is me and I'm not running.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

essentially, the Democratic Party is the party of centralized government in Wash DC while the Republican Party is the party of federalism ( states' rights if you prefer) Please see & read all the papers ( called the federalist papers) of all of our founding fathers. it is clearly true that most, but, certainly not all, of the founding Fathers came down on the side of federalism. In addition, the modern Democratic Part champions equality rather than freedom ( zero-sum game clearly) while the Republican Party clearly favors freedom rather than equality. Both philosophies have honest pedigrees. Again, please read all thge papers of the founding fathers. They modern Democratic party bears no resemblance at all to the philosophy of the Party circa 1940-1975. The party went off the rails briefly in 1972 with mcgovern. he was trounced 49-1. ( he did carry his home state) The party returned to its centrist tendencies with Bill Clinton, but then went off the rails again with obama, who, clearly was in many ways, the most leftist president in American history. He skated because he was slick, very talented and beloved by the MSM. ( still is) The coming report by John Durham on the depredations of the previous admin will harm thge reputation of Obama ( after all---who did all these rogue folks and rogue depts work for?) So--honest Historians will not be amused by the damning critiques and probable indictments of all the folks who worked for Obama. The main difference between Obama & Bernie is that Bernie has been wearing his philosophy on his sleeve since boyhood. With bernie--what you see is what you'll get---in spades..With Obama, he feinted right but always went left. Reminds me of Paris Austin. The Democrats had better hope that folks will not look at the state of all the major cities in this country. Every major city in thge US is governed by Democrats from top to bottom. And, every major city resembles a third world country. High taxes, drug abuse, terrible schools, rampant homelessness, high murder rates, demoralized police debts, gov't bureaucrats impossible to fire , a disappearing middle class, a political climate hostile to business and business owners. That's what I run against if I'm Trump, or that's what I run against if I am any republican in any state. Democrats---get your act together----
Man it is so pathetic when people stop learning when they are 20 and 60 years later they try to have a conversation where they call everyone else uneducated. Your McCarthy era education was crap which would have been fine if you actually learned something beyond red scare and segregationist talking points sometime in the intervening decades.

1. Communism is not now nor every was the same thing as democratic socialism. Not close. I say that as a 100% supporter of capitalism. Joe McCarthy lied to you. I'd have thought that might have become obvious at some point in the last 50 years at least.

2. The Republicans being the party of states rights is a bullshyte conservative talking point left over from segregation and the civil rights era. Let me explain a little something about the Constitution. You know those first words called the preamble? The first three words are "We the people". If you cut out all the modifiers, it says "We the people establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That was very intentional. The federal government derives its rights from the people not the states. That was in response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution grants certain rights to the individual. It is the federal government's job to protect those rights.

What I find is that whenever someone like you claims Republicans are for states rights, it is always for states rights to infringe on the rights of the individual. State's rights to have slavery. States rights to have segregation. States rights to discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc.

But suddenly, when a state wants to do something that they don't like, the state's rights issue seems to disappear. So I'm sure you as a big states rights guy are deeply concerned that the Trump administration wants to interfere with how states like California wish to deal with immigrants. I'm sure you are very concerned about the Trump administration trying to block California from regulating vehicle smog emissions or enforcing fuel efficiency standards. I'm sure you were wholeheartedly against the Defense of Marriage Act which was a clearly unconstitutional federal government grab of one of the most sacred rights of the states. I'm sure as states decriminalized marijuana and the federal government went out of their way to amp up enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in those states, you were outraged by the federal government overreach.

Actually, I'm sure not.

As for cities, whatever, my friend. Go ahead and hide in your little paradise with your bizarre visions of what it is like in the big city. We have all the money and all the people with money are trying to move here. Must be doing something right. Take away the raging economies, industries, tech, entertainment and universities that are almost entirely in Democratic urban and urban adjacent areas and the United States would be a two bit economy that couldn't afford a substantial military and that the rest of the world would see as being behind Canada in importance.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

OaktownBear said:

tequila4kapp said:

I'm not going to go election by election. Infer what you will from my posts and don't believe me if that's what you chose.
I'm sorry, but given that it isn't a hard question to answer, I think you answer it by not answering it. If you don't think you can consider any Democrat in this field, including the moderates when the alternative is Trump, I infer there is no way you will vote for a Democrat. Which is fine, but if you want to play independent, give some reason to believe that, because I'm going to bet like many conservatives, you independently vote Republican every time.

General Election: Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton

Primaries: Jackson, Brown, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton.

Wasn't hard to do. I'm a Democrat. That's my voting record. I don't agree with Republican policies. While I could come up with situations like a Gabbard v. Romney matchup where I would probably vote Republican, I've never voted Republican and probably never will. I come at that judgment honestly, but I don't pretend that my judgment is neutral

Should we make this easy and just ask what Democrats you have voted for in the general? That will save some key strokes for you. Nothing wrong with being conservative or center right. Just own it.
I have been registered "Unaffiliated" for maybe 20 years ("Independent" is an actual political party in Oregon, or at least was one years ago). I have voted for Dukakis, Perot and Bush 2. I have sat many out - living in deep blue state diminishes the value of an individual vote, the result is foretold. If Clinton ran today I'd give serious thought to voting for him. IMO the current version of the Democratic party couldn't nominate a Clinton because it has moved so far left. That drastic move left alienates me from the party; IMO current 'moderates' are only moderate in relationship to Communists. I'm currently more of a Drain the Swamp type person. Trump and Sanders have appeal to me because of that but Trump is a pompous ass who disgustingly slept with a porn actress and Sanders is a Communist, which disqualifies him for me.

It is a bit more complex than what you guys think from reading my posts. I like Trump's use of economics to realize international policy instead of using the military, I like that Trump is for the working American and enacts policies to benefit them, I like that he is doing something about illegal immigration (my g/father LEGALLY immigrated here from the Iberian peninsula...I don't have a WASP last name). In many ways those policies were D party positions about 10-20 years ago. There are other things I dislike about Trump. The only person who believes everything I believe is me and I'm not running.
See, was that hard? At least we have an honest point of reference of where you are coming from.

I'm going to be honest, I don't think you'd consider voting for Clinton today because I think there are candidates that are not far from Clinton and it is your perception of them that has changed. From this and other posts, your perception of some of the candidates' views are clearly not coming from the candidates or the campaign but through a filter of media that do not have an incentive to give you an accurate representation of their views.

As for Sanders, I understand that Sanders' economic policies might be disqualifying, but for the love of god he is not a communist. In no era of American history would he be considered a communist. It is flat out not what communism is. I hold him responsible for stupidly branding himself as a democratic socialist, but even at that, you have to mistakenly equate democratic socialism with traditional socialism and then mistakenly equate socialism with communism to get there all the while not looking at any actual policies he espouses. He has put forward zero communist policies.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sanders is a communist.

Trump is a nazi.

Politics as stupid play acting.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


...

2. The Republicans being the party of states rights is a bullshyte conservative talking point left over from segregation and the civil rights era. Let me explain a little something about the Constitution. You know those first words called the preamble? The first three words are "We the people". If you cut out all the modifiers, it says "We the people establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That was very intentional. The federal government derives its rights from the people not the states. That was in response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution grants certain rights to the individual. It is the federal government's job to protect those rights.

What I find is that whenever someone like you claims Republicans are for states rights, it is always for states rights to infringe on the rights of the individual. State's rights to have slavery. States rights to have segregation. States rights to discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc.

But suddenly, when a state wants to do something that they don't like, the state's rights issue seems to disappear. So I'm sure you as a big states rights guy are deeply concerned that the Trump administration wants to interfere with how states like California wish to deal with immigrants. I'm sure you are very concerned about the Trump administration trying to block California from regulating vehicle smog emissions or enforcing fuel efficiency standards. I'm sure you were wholeheartedly against the Defense of Marriage Act which was a clearly unconstitutional federal government grab of one of the most sacred rights of the states. I'm sure as states decriminalized marijuana and the federal government went out of their way to amp up enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in those states, you were outraged by the federal government overreach.

Actually, I'm sure not.

As for cities, whatever, my friend. Go ahead and hide in your little paradise with your bizarre visions of what it is like in the big city. We have all the money and all the people with money are trying to move here. Must be doing something right. Take away the raging economies, industries, tech, entertainment and universities that are almost entirely in Democratic urban and urban adjacent areas and the United States would be a two bit economy that couldn't afford a substantial military and that the rest of the world would see as being behind Canada in importance.

A lot of it is the consequence of neoliberal policies that have gutted out the American industrial base. Open borders has also eroded the purchasing power and size of the working class. In Canada for example construction workers wages haven't been as depressed as in California (that's why Bernie for example was strongly opposed to open borders before 2016, until he's recently flip flopped on that issue and fallen in line with the 2020 Democrat identity politics zeitgeist.)

You're ideologically, economically and geographically isolated from those basic shifts, which are being reduced to an us-vs-them culture war that is fed by corporate media outlets, where you are looking down on people from Sydney. Nebraska as unimportant flyover hicks without understanding what is really going on, and how scumbags like Romney that you seem to prefer over real patrots like Gabbard have been sucking the heartland's economy dry.

If you want to start understanding how Romney made his fortune at Bain Capital at the expense of viable local economies, this case study, a great piece of journalism, is a good start:

OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

OaktownBear said:


...

2. The Republicans being the party of states rights is a bullshyte conservative talking point left over from segregation and the civil rights era. Let me explain a little something about the Constitution. You know those first words called the preamble? The first three words are "We the people". If you cut out all the modifiers, it says "We the people establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That was very intentional. The federal government derives its rights from the people not the states. That was in response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution grants certain rights to the individual. It is the federal government's job to protect those rights.

What I find is that whenever someone like you claims Republicans are for states rights, it is always for states rights to infringe on the rights of the individual. State's rights to have slavery. States rights to have segregation. States rights to discriminate by race, gender, religion, etc.

But suddenly, when a state wants to do something that they don't like, the state's rights issue seems to disappear. So I'm sure you as a big states rights guy are deeply concerned that the Trump administration wants to interfere with how states like California wish to deal with immigrants. I'm sure you are very concerned about the Trump administration trying to block California from regulating vehicle smog emissions or enforcing fuel efficiency standards. I'm sure you were wholeheartedly against the Defense of Marriage Act which was a clearly unconstitutional federal government grab of one of the most sacred rights of the states. I'm sure as states decriminalized marijuana and the federal government went out of their way to amp up enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in those states, you were outraged by the federal government overreach.

Actually, I'm sure not.

As for cities, whatever, my friend. Go ahead and hide in your little paradise with your bizarre visions of what it is like in the big city. We have all the money and all the people with money are trying to move here. Must be doing something right. Take away the raging economies, industries, tech, entertainment and universities that are almost entirely in Democratic urban and urban adjacent areas and the United States would be a two bit economy that couldn't afford a substantial military and that the rest of the world would see as being behind Canada in importance.

A lot of it is the consequence of neoliberal policies that have gutted out the American industrial base. Open borders has also eroded the purchasing power and size of the working class. In Canada for example construction workers wages haven't been as depressed as in California (that's why Bernie for example was strongly opposed to open borders before 2016, until he's recently flip flopped on that issue and fallen in line with the 2020 Democrat identity politics zeitgeist.)

You're ideologically, economically and geographically isolated from those basic shifts, which are being reduced to an us-vs-them culture war that is fed by corporate media outlets, where you are looking down on people from Sydney. Nebraska as unimportant flyover hicks without understanding what is really going on, and how scumbags like Romney that you seem to prefer over real patrots like Gabbard have been sucking the heartland's economy dry.

If you want to start understanding how Romney made his fortune at Bain Capital at the expense of viable local economies, this case study, a great piece of journalism, is a good start:


I don't like Romney. I like him better than Gabbard. We obviously disagree on Gabbard. If the Democrats nominated her, I would not vote for her against Trump. That is how much I despise her. I came up with a Romney - Gabbard match up as a never going to happen situation where I would vote Republican. I would vote for Bush, Bush, McCain, Dole, - lots of Republicans over Gabbard. Not because I like them but because I think turning over the White House to Gabbard would be a dangerously negligent thing to do. In other words, I would never vote for Gabbard and I would vote for a Republican I vehemently disagree with over her as long as they were competent. It is not a real concern since she is not a real Democrat and would not ever get a nomination.

Tucker Carlson? Seriously?

I do not look down on people from "fly over" country. Nor do I ever use that phrase. I will, however, smack down anyone like hell who wants to claim Democratic cities are the root of all evil compared to the wonderfully non-productive other areas.

Neoliberal politics did not gut out the American industrial base. Reality did that. What you are arguing is the modern day equivalent of espousing Jeffersonian economics over Hamiltonian. We can pretend like the world hasn't changed in the last 100 years or we can rise to meet the modern economy. The primary reason that Democratic urban centers developed economically vs. other areas is that they were in the forefront of higher education developing a highly educated workforce that fueled industries that made a lot of money and drove innovation and that were hard to replicate in other parts of the world that do not have the knowledge base. The manufacturing industries that you are blaming neoliberal policies for "gutting" have been hurt primarily by technology and automation that make their jobs obsolete (and wait until artificial intelligence gets going in earnest) and secondarily by the fact that industries that do not require highly trained/specialized workers are easy to replicate anywhere and given that most of the world is poorer than we are, at a much lower cost. So you can either damage the economy by holding back innovation or by putting in protectionist policies.

I find nothing particularly noble or not noble about going to college or not, or getting specialized training or not. I don't think my way of life, dependent on years of higher education, is better than a way of life dependent on getting a job out of high school. I don't think tech is more noble than manufacturing. But what is an absolute fact is that in today's world economy, industries based on high levels of education drive the economy and are essentially subsidizing the rest of the economy. And those high levels of education come at a high cost in dollars, time and effort. I do not think that makes us better, but hell if I'm going to put up with being called worse.
Blue Moon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Bernie Sanders' pipe dreams - Axios


https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-big-2020-ideas-odds-92b2f712-4562-4758-b34e-eaf6486064d9.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
A centrist journalist who also wrote similar articles for Axios about Warren doesn't like Sanders? The hell you say!
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

OaktownBear said:

tequila4kapp said:

I'm not going to go election by election. Infer what you will from my posts and don't believe me if that's what you chose.
I'm sorry, but given that it isn't a hard question to answer, I think you answer it by not answering it. If you don't think you can consider any Democrat in this field, including the moderates when the alternative is Trump, I infer there is no way you will vote for a Democrat. Which is fine, but if you want to play independent, give some reason to believe that, because I'm going to bet like many conservatives, you independently vote Republican every time.

General Election: Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton

Primaries: Jackson, Brown, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton.

Wasn't hard to do. I'm a Democrat. That's my voting record. I don't agree with Republican policies. While I could come up with situations like a Gabbard v. Romney matchup where I would probably vote Republican, I've never voted Republican and probably never will. I come at that judgment honestly, but I don't pretend that my judgment is neutral

Should we make this easy and just ask what Democrats you have voted for in the general? That will save some key strokes for you. Nothing wrong with being conservative or center right. Just own it.
I have been registered "Unaffiliated" for maybe 20 years ("Independent" is an actual political party in Oregon, or at least was one years ago). I have voted for Dukakis, Perot and Bush 2. I have sat many out - living in deep blue state diminishes the value of an individual vote, the result is foretold. If Bill Clinton ran today I'd give serious thought to voting for him. IMO the current version of the Democratic party couldn't nominate a Clinton because it has moved so far left. That drastic move left alienates me from the party; IMO current 'moderates' are only moderate in relationship to Communists. I'm currently more of a Drain the Swamp type person. Trump and Sanders have appeal to me because of that but Trump is a pompous ass who disgustingly slept with a porn actress and Sanders is a Communist, which disqualifies him for me.

It is a bit more complex than what you guys think from reading my posts. I like Trump's use of economics to realize foreign policy instead of using the military, I like that Trump is for the working American and enacts policies to benefit them, I like that he is doing something about illegal immigration (my g/father LEGALLY immigrated here from the Iberian peninsula...I don't have a WASP last name). In many ways those policies were D party positions about 10-20 years ago. There are other things I dislike about Trump. The only person who believes everything I believe is me and I'm not running.

Trump says he's for "draining the swamp" and for working-class Americans, but I can't see any evidence that he actually is. In fact, quite the opposite.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.