The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Bernie is much too old for the job as well, but his convictions are clear and I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that he would not, as President, try to make wholesale changes in a variety of areas for the betterment of the US. His ability to succeed is certainly in doubt, but at least he'd try.

Which is way more than I think Biden is going to do for anyone other than his buddies.

This has always been one of the more baffling anti-Bernie arguments that the centrist wing has been promoting. "Bernie can't get his policies passed." How is that supposed to make "Biden won't pass Bernie-like policies" more palatable?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think an even bigger problem for the Democrats to consider is, what are they going to do in the future now that the progressive wing of the party has woken up and realized their votes were being taken for granted all these years and that their concerns aren't really a priority for the party?

Which concerns? Health care is a priority for most Democrats. They just don't necessarily think Sanders plan is better or more practical. Platforms are just words. Getting legislation passed is something else entirely, and the more radical a plan, the less likely it is to get passed.

For voters who said health care was their most important issue, Biden outperformed Sanders, 38 percent to 30 percent

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rnout-patterns

As to the bigger question of whither now the progressive wing, I would think it should be obvious to a group that constitutes around one-third of Democrats and 15 per cent of the voting public that it can't achieve power on its own. It has to cooperate, tolerate, and compromise with people who hold different values and goals. Learn how to work in a coalition.

The problem is the political culture young progressives are accustomed to - the forums, media sources, and social media platforms of the progressive left - fiercely deter cooperation, toleration, and compromise with those who have different values. So a lot of people are going to have to foster skills and attitudes that they've been powerfully conditioned against if they hope to effect the change they want.

[rubecube]

As to the bigger question of whither now the progressive wing, I would think it should be obvious to a group that constitutes around one-third of Democrats and 15 per cent of the voting public that it can't achieve power on its own. It has to cooperate, tolerate, and compromise with people who hold different values and goals. Learn how to work in a coalition.

The problem is the political culture young progressives are accustomed to - the forums, media sources, and social media platforms of the progressive left - fiercely deter cooperation, toleration, and compromise with those who have different values. So a lot of people are going to have to foster skills and attitudes that they've been powerfully conditioned against if they hope to effect the change they want.

Yeah, I can't imagine why a group that is drowning in debt, lacking in economic opportunities, and facing down ecologic catastrophe would be so opposed to the "band-aid for a bullet hole" policies proposed by centrists.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, I think that's largely because when given a chance to govern, the centrists have shown they aren't actually going to fight for the progressive causes they campaign on.

I don't think it's necessarily a "No Sanders? #### you all then," attitude as much as it's a "Show me why I should actually vote for you" attitude. "At least he isn't Trump," isn't an inspiring movement to get behind.

If it was me personally, I'd still hold my nose and vote for Biden, but I understand the appeal of letting the Democrats get embarrassed in another election and hoping that forces them to move more to the left.

But it ####ing should be, shouldn't it???!!!

This second part is what drives me nuts about progressives. If you can't look at Biden vs. Trump and say, "okay, it's not really what I want, but the other option is totally unpalatable."...I mean, seriously. Letting Trump have another term with unlimited power and nobody willing to check his administration will literally kill democracy in the United States. This short term battle needs to be fought so that the long term war you are hoping for could actually be won! If Trump is re-elected, he will have survived both an in-house impeachment vote and a public vote on how he's doing so far. Then there will be a consolidation of power so extreme that it will be a full generation before anyone even close to Biden's policies could be elected, nevermind a Bernie revolution.

Again, cutting off your nose to spite your face. Be practical here. The first and only goal is getting Trump out of office. Whoever that is, I'm good with, even if it's Sanders. I don't like his policies and I think he's going to have a very unsuccessful term as president, but I will take that versus the active disintegration of democratic governance that Trump is trying to achieve.

Politics has always been a game of "lesser of two evils". That being said, Biden will bring the country a LOT closer to where you want it compared to Trump, so if he's the nominee, and you DON'T vote for him and stay home, your arguments become completely disingenuous, because you don't actually care about improving things, you just want your team to win. I think that's despicable.

[peter12]

The healthcare debate is pretty interesting to me and I am glad to see the Democrats move far away from a single-payer system as I do not believe it will scale well at all in a society/economy the size of the USA. That said, there does need to be significant reforms, just not sure what they would be at this point that involves the federal government.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because crappy centrist half-measures and compromises are what put Trump and the Republicans back into power in the first place. Biden has already committed to compromising with Republicans, which just means allowing them to drag any policy to the centre-right, and then move it further right if/when they win back power.

You say that, but you are completely ignoring how immensely difficult the logistics are to implement most of Bernie's policies.

Say somehow Bernie got the Senate and House to back his universal health care plan. Is he going to ban private health insurance? If he doesn't, then too many doctors will opt out of the government insurance and the government insurance will be terrible. If he does, he puts 2 million people out of work and the law is caught up in lawsuits from state AGs all across the country, and probably doesn't even survive. If it does somehow survive, and more people have access to health care, and no copays to discourage from going to the dr for every little thing, where do all the extra health care workers come from? There are so many other potential pitfalls as well. It just doesn't seem plausible that it would be successful enough out of the gate to not have the democrats wiped out in the next midterms.

Does shutting down nuclear plants and natural gas production help climate change or hurt it? My bet is on hurt it unless we suddenly stop caring about having reliable electricity.

Does a min wage that is the same in San Francisco, New York and some small town in Alabama make sense? A $15 min wage in some small towns with low cost of living would definitely have negative effects to the local economy, while not having any effect or even being a minimum wage for other cities.

Does a wealth tax really bring in as much money as he promises or will it have the same pitfalls as it did in Europe?


To me, everyone of Bernie's ideas may be nice thoughts, but they are mostly overly simple solutions to very complex problems, and they all have opportunities to backfire in a way that makes things worse for the people they are trying to help.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Not really....

Of course they do.

I'm just not convinced that the voter turnout will be in full force in such states when the underlying base isn't happy about who is at the top of the ticket.

If you are using Virginia as an example. Yesterday's turnout doubled 2016, and they went 53-23 for Biden over Bernie. That seems pretty solid evidence that at least that state in your example will turn out in full force for Biden, and might not for Sanders.

Your combined 48% figure for Biden presumes that many of the voters for those "other candidates for Biden" would have voted for Biden had the candidate that they actually voted for did not exist.

That is quite a presumption.

I have to think Bloomberg's support goes at least 90%, probably more for Biden if Bernie is the only other choice. In the states that didn't have as much early voting, Bernie stayed close to his poll numbers, and Biden picked up Pete, Amy, and Mike's votes.

Bernie is much too old for the job as well, but his convictions are clear and I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that he would not, as President, try to make wholesale changes in a variety of areas for the betterment of the US. His ability to succeed is certainly in doubt, but at least he'd try.

Which is way more than I think Biden is going to do for anyone other than his buddies.

Is trying and not accomplishing anything worth something? I struggle to see why.

There has to be some realism here. There are all sorts of risks of going with Bernie, and very little likelihood of some tangible rewards.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

The healthcare debate is pretty interesting to me and I am glad to see the Democrats move far away from a single-payer system as I do not believe it will scale well at all in a society/economy the size of the USA. That said, there does need to be significant reforms, just not sure what they would be at this point that involves the federal government.

I've always wondered why the Dems don't try to go state by state, go with a Federal State partnership for universal healthcare system in the solid blue states, Washington etc and so both chip away at the problem while proving the concept, pretty much like legalising weed

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You say that, but you are completely ignoring how immensely difficult the logistics are to implement most of Bernie's policies.

Say somehow Bernie got the Senate and House to back his universal health care plan. Is he going to ban private health insurance? If he doesn't, then too many doctors will opt out of the government insurance and the government insurance will be terrible. If he does, he puts 2 million people out of work and the law is caught up in lawsuits from state AGs all across the country, and probably doesn't even survive. If it does somehow survive, and more people have access to health care, and no copays to discourage from going to the dr for every little thing, where do all the extra health care workers come from? There are so many other potential pitfalls as well. It just doesn't seem plausible that it would be successful enough out of the gate to not have the democrats wiped out in the next midterms.

Does shutting down nuclear plants and natural gas production help climate change or hurt it? My bet is on hurt it unless we suddenly stop caring about having reliable electricity.

Does a min wage that is the same in San Francisco, New York and some small town in Alabama make sense? A $15 min wage in some small towns with low cost of living would definitely have negative effects to the local economy, while not having any effect or even being a minimum wage for other cities.

Does a wealth tax really bring in as much money as he promises or will it have the same pitfalls as it did in Europe?


To me, everyone of Bernie's ideas may be nice thoughts, but they are mostly overly simple solutions to very complex problems, and they all have opportunities to backfire in a way that makes things worse for the people they are trying to help.

Ran out of thanks, so just want to say this is such a good post.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I've always wondered why the Dems don't try to go state by state, go with a Federal State partnership for universal healthcare system in the solid blue states, Washington etc and so both chip away at the problem while proving the concept, pretty much like legalising weed

Exactly. Great point.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Politics has always been a game of "lesser of two evils". That being said, Biden will bring the country a LOT closer to where you want it compared to Trump, so if he's the nominee, and you DON'T vote for him and stay home, your arguments become completely disingenuous, because you don't actually care about improving things, you just want your team to win. I think that's despicable.

It really is that simple

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

To me, everyone of Bernie's ideas may be nice thoughts, but they are mostly overly simple solutions to very complex problems, and they all have opportunities to backfire in a way that makes things worse for the people they are trying to help.

I agree with what you're saying. The problem is that Bernie is the only one who's starting from a position of "this entire system is screwed and largely only benefits the wealthy," so a compromise on his part would hopefully still move the needle in a meaningful way. Biden's position of "we only need a few minor tweaks," means his compromises likely end up doing dick all.

The other problem is that on some of these issues there just isn't a reasonable middle position. If the question is "should everyone have equal access to health care?" the only two positions are "yes" or "no." You can have nuance and debate how best to get to each position but that's ultimately what it comes down to. Simply providing a public option is not a centrist option, it firmly falls into the "no" category.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I've always wondered why the Dems don't try to go state by state, go with a Federal State partnership for universal healthcare system in the solid blue states, Washington etc and so both chip away at the problem while proving the concept, pretty much like legalising weed

What makes you think the House and Senate would support huge tax transfers from the Federal to certain State governments but not others? Because the only way universal health care can work is with federal money being behind it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

What makes you think the House and Senate would support huge tax transfers from the Federal to certain State governments but not others? Because the only way universal health care can work is with federal money being behind it.

Well you make it available to all, but you don't force states to do it, its not that far removed from Obamacare now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Rube, why do you keep ignoring the point about Bernie's inability to drive the youth vote either? You're acting like he's bringing in a monumental amount of young voters, yet the early primary numbers don't suggest that even slightly. Maybe it's possible Bernie's pull with young people isn't as unstoppable as thought?

If anything the exact opposite is happening.

The popularity of Sanders is completely overblown.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree with what you're saying. The problem is that Bernie is the only one who's starting from a position of "this entire system is screwed and largely only benefits the wealthy," so a compromise on his part would hopefully still move the needle in a meaningful way. Biden's position of "we only need a few minor tweaks," means his compromises likely end up doing dick all.

The other problem is that on some of these issues there just isn't a reasonable middle position. If the question is "should everyone have equal access to health care?" the only two positions are "yes" or "no." You can have nuance and debate how best to get to each position but that's ultimately what it comes down to. Simply providing a public option is not a centrist option, it firmly falls into the "no" category.

But of course that isn't completely true.

The system might benefit the wealthy more than the poor, but there are a lot of people in the US who do very well even if they come from lower classes.

Honestly I've been a big fan of Sanders for a lot longer than most here have paid attention to him, and his schtick is getting old. He literally only goes negative on everything and then presents himself as 'hey I can fix this by spending trillions of dollars on social programs.'

My guess is the common American thinks he's full of garbage and that his fairly tale policies are never going to happen anyways.

You literally have the strongest economy the world has ever seen, and then you have a Presidential candidate who runs around telling everyone the whole country is screwed.

Massive disconnect and detachment from reality. There is a lot that needs to be fixed, but lets not kid ourselves. Many Americans are doing very well.

[CliffFletcher]

Record-High Optimism on Personal Finances in U.S.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/...-finances.aspx



Millennial progressives act as though they're the first generation to feel discouraged and resentful about the economy. But note how in '82, when the median Boomer was 27 years old, only 23 per cent of Americans felt better off than in the past, versus 59 per cent today.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Azure

But of course that isn't completely true.

The system might benefit the wealthy more than the poor, but there are a lot of people in the US who do very well even if they come from lower classes.

Honestly I've been a big fan of Sanders for a lot longer than most here have paid attention to him, and his schtick is getting old. He literally only goes negative on everything and then presents himself as 'hey I can fix this by spending trillions of dollars on social programs.'

My guess is the common American thinks he's full of garbage and that his fairly tale policies are never going to happen anyways.

You literally have the strongest economy the world has ever seen, and then you have a Presidential candidate who runs around telling everyone the whole country is screwed.

Massive disconnect and detachment from reality. There is a lot that needs to be fixed, but lets not kid ourselves. Many Americans are doing very well.

So the strongest economy in the history of world can't solve rampantly growing income disparity?

Pretty depressing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Record-High Optimism on Personal Finances in U.S.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/...-finances.aspx



Millennial progressives act as though they're the first generation to feel discouraged and resentful about the economy. But note how in '82, when the median Boomer was 27 years old, only 23 per cent of Americans felt better off than in the past, versus 59 per cent today.

In a real sense, I obviously would prefer 2020 to 1982. That said, this doesn't negate the need for structural changes to the way certain generations benefit from income tax or housing policy.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So the strongest economy in the history of world can't solve rampantly growing income disparity?

Pretty depressing.

If I and most of my fellow proletariat are doing ok, have a decent life, food a place to live etc why do I care if Bill Gates has 99% of the wealth, as long as the 1% left over looks after everyone else who gives a ####?