Political Discussion

[RenegadeMonster]

I try not to be overtly political online, and really try to keep my views to myself. But I do have anxiety about this election.

I REALLY wish we could keep the DNC-conspiracy-against-Bernie shit down. As if they are the ones who are pulling strings to get Pete and Klobuchar to drop, after each had disastrously bad results in South Carolina (after poor showings in NV) - it was the right call to drop out, and certainly the Biden camp was lobbying them to do so before today; as Bernie should be doing for Warren. Also, the poster above who mentioned that delegates pledged to dropped candidates automatically go to whoever they endorse - that's simply not true and not how it works. Please don't spread disinformation to further a conspiracy theory. There's no "last ditch effort" to screw Bernie - everyone is playing by the same rules and there's nothing odd about candidates dropping days after a bad performance and endorsing a candidate they closely align with.

I'm repeating what I heard on the Today Show this morning. They stated that this is what happens. Though of course the delegates do have the choice to theoretically cast whatever vote they want to, but it just doesn't happened.

No, it's not conspiracy theory and it's not diss information. And I repeated how NBC described. Both Amy K and Pete B said there was no conspiracy and they came to the decision on their own.

But any electorate votes both of those Candidates receive today will go towards Joe Biden. It is true that the previous elections votes will not be changed to Joe Biden.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I try not to be overtly political online, and really try to keep my views to myself. But I do have anxiety about this election.

I REALLY wish we could keep the DNC-conspiracy-against-Bernie shit down. As if they are the ones who are pulling strings to get Pete and Klobuchar to drop, after each had disastrously bad results in South Carolina (after poor showings in NV) - it was the right call to drop out, and certainly the Biden camp was lobbying them to do so before today; as Bernie should be doing for Warren. Also, the poster above who mentioned that delegates pledged to dropped candidates automatically go to whoever they endorse - that's simply not true and not how it works. Please don't spread disinformation to further a conspiracy theory. There's no "last ditch effort" to screw Bernie - everyone is playing by the same rules and there's nothing odd about candidates dropping days after a bad performance and endorsing a candidate they closely align with.

With that said, I'll be clear that I am truly "blue no matter who". I will gladly vote for Bernie if he wins a majority of delegates or is nominated in a brokered convention. I'd also vote for Biden, or Warren, or even (gags) Bloomberg.

But I have far more electability concerns with Bernie than others. Mainly, I'm not convinced Bernie can win on the suburbs. I don't foresee him moderating his platform for the general, so that means he's going to tell millions of Americans who are lucky enough to have good employer backed HC (like myself) that we can't keep it. He's going to tell thousands of Pennsylvania workers in the fracking industry that he would work to ensure their jobs don't exist. Me, personally? I think a universal HC system is a good idea and a benefit to American society, and I think fracking is dangerous and harmful to the environment. But I don't like his proposed ways of achieving the goals, and I worry it will turn off moderates and suburban voters that were the sole cause of the 2018 blue wave. Yes, he will bring in a lot of younger voters, but the numbers I've seen aren't enough to offset what he might lose in the 'burbs.

So I need someone from the Bernie camp to really start defending his electability, backed with data, to ease my anxiety about this. Because the primary goal in 2020 - like it or not - should be to remove Donald Trump from office. Policy goals are going to be secondary. That may suck to hear, but it's reality. 4 more years of Donald Trump is far worse to the goals of the folks in the Bernie camp than a Biden centrist Presidency.

Okay, I've expended my political discourse capital here for the year and I'll shut up and listen now.

Finally, Can We All Agree? Everything We Were Told About Bernie Sanders Was Wrong

Let’s consider the nonsense that has passed for “reporting,” “commentary,” and “analysis” on Sanders over the past year or so.

theintercept.com

 

[RenegadeMonster]

538's latest projections would indicate that there is a spoiler in the race, but it's not Warren:

View attachment 35078

Bloomberg? I would assume he could be the spoiler for Biden.

 

[Btsvinylfarm]

But any electorate votes both of those Candidates receive today will go towards Joe Biden. It is true that the previous elections votes will not be changed to Joe Biden.

That is also not true. Are they very likely to, yeah. Are they required by any rule to do so? No.

What you heard, or took away from the Today Show appears inaccurate. But you have the internet at your disposal and can dig in to investigate.

Votes earned either by election-day ballot or early voting are still votes for those candidates who have now dropped out, and go to the convention uncommitted. The only exceptions to this are in states like Nevada and Virginia, where the delegates are required to vote for the candidate pledge to (regardless of if they dropped out) in the first round of voting. So, for example, Pete's 3 NV delegates will still have to cast their first round vote for him.

 

[Btsvinylfarm]

Finally, Can We All Agree? Everything We Were Told About Bernie Sanders Was Wrong

Let’s consider the nonsense that has passed for “reporting,” “commentary,” and “analysis” on Sanders over the past year or so.

theintercept.com

Appreciate the link

It appears it was after NV but before SC. I think SC added to my anxiety about Sanders. Maybe I'm overreacting.

At the end of the day, my sole focus is on removing the incumbent. I just worry this intra-party bickering and claims of "DNC screwing Bernie" only aid Trump and worsen the chances of beating him. From where I stand, I just don't see anything the DNC has actively done to hurt Bernie. In fact, their only act to circumvent the rules was to allow Bloomberg to enter the debates without a donor minimum, and that hurt Biden/Pete/Klobuchar; not Bernie.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

That is also not true. Are they very likely to, yeah. Are they required by any rule to do so? No.

What you heard, or took away from the Today Show appears inaccurate. But you have the internet at your disposal and can dig in to investigate.

Votes earned either by election-day ballot or early voting are still votes for those candidates who have now dropped out, and go to the convention uncommitted. The only exceptions to this are in states like Nevada and Virginia, where the delegates are required to vote for the candidate pledge to (regardless of if they dropped out) in the first round of voting. So, for example, Pete's 3 NV delegates will still have to cast their first round vote for him.

Appreciate the link

It appears it was after NV but before SC. I think SC added to my anxiety about Sanders. Maybe I'm overreacting.

At the end of the day, my sole focus is on removing the incumbent. I just worry this intra-party bickering and claims of "DNC screwing Bernie" only aid Trump and worsen the chances of beating him. From where I stand, I just don't see anything the DNC has actively done to hurt Bernie. In fact, their only act to circumvent the rules was to allow Bloomberg to enter the debates without a donor minimum, and that hurt Biden/Pete/Klobuchar; not Bernie.

According to the Democratic National Committee, district-level delegates (those won at the congressional-district level) remain entitled to those former candidates, regardless of their status. However, typically, these ex-candidates release their delegates to vote their choice or encourage them to support the candidate they've endorsed.

The statewide pledged delegates (those won at the statewide level) are reallocated proportionately to the candidates who remain in the race.

However, all pledged delegates are actually not legally bound to their candidates, whether these candidates remain in the race or not. As a result, Buttigieg’s and Klobuchar’s delegates can technically act as free agents.

Pete Buttigieg endorses Joe Biden for president

The former South Bend mayor's backing came less than a day after he ended his own presidential bid.

www.nbcnews.com

Both Pete B and Amy K did release their delegates. These released votes typically go to support the candidate they have endorsed.

Yes, they are not legally bound and can act like free agents. But the assumption is all of their votes will end up going to Biden.

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

Appreciate the link

It appears it was after NV but before SC. I think SC added to my anxiety about Sanders. Maybe I'm overreacting.

At the end of the day, my sole focus is on removing the incumbent. I just worry this intra-party bickering and claims of "DNC screwing Bernie" only aid Trump and worsen the chances of beating him. From where I stand, I just don't see anything the DNC has actively done to hurt Bernie. In fact, their only act to circumvent the rules was to allow Bloomberg to enter the debates without a donor minimum, and that hurt Biden/Pete/Klobuchar; not Bernie.

Is it a conspiracy? No. But all of the moderates who want to maintain the status quo that created Trump and fails millions of Americans lining up behind Biden, who stands for literally nothing apart from advancing his career and protecting the insurance companies is not surprising at all. If you think moderates are the reason for the blue wave in 2018, hoo boy. Every national poll in the last several months has shown Bernie with the best chance over Trump in a federal election. I can't believe you've even tried looking at numbers. If the DNC trot out Hillary 2.0 this fall they will get destroyed and they will deserve it.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I almost hope he is the nominee so we can finally put this to the test once and for all.

But if he loses, I don't want to hear a peep out of all the folks who spent the last 4 years tsking about "Russiagate" being a scapegoat for Clinton's poor showing in 2016. If Clinton can't acknowledge external contributors to her loss, then Bernie can't blame anyone else if he loses either.

538 looks at the 2016 election and points to Comey as a deciding factor in the small margins that led to Trumps election.

While with Bernie there are two dynamics there is the hard power of the DNC aligning against him and there is the soft power of left leaning cooperate media. How measurable these things are is highly subjective. And does anyone listen to you when your present a data driven narrative now a days anyway.

I will say that a lot of what people say when they have lost is pointing out factors and frustration they have had with the system that they are up against. Dismissing them do not improve the system and only seeks to alienate them further. If this is the route that Dem establishment takes, they hare gonna have a long time without power in the future.

 

[Btsvinylfarm]

Every national poll in the last several months has shown Bernie with the best chance over Trump in a federal election. I can't believe you've even tried looking at numbers.

A) national polls are meaningless, B) RCP aggregates show Biden performing better nationally than Sanders (+5.4 for Biden vs +4.9 for Bernie), and C) Biden is currently performing better in state polling in FL, they are running even in PA, and Bernie has a 0.1% advantage over Biden in MI.

But my concern is more about states like VA where Biden is +6 while Bernie is just +1.5, or in NC where Biden is +3.4 and Bernie just +0.7.

And then you have downballot concerns. Biden is running mostly even with Trump (+0.3) in AZ, while Bernie trails by 5%. There's a huge Senate opportunity there to take McSally's seat. No wonder why Mark Kelly (astronaut husband of Gabby Gifford's) who is running has endorsed Biden.

So yeah, I've been looking at the numbers. That's why I have concerns about Bernie and what it means for beating Trump as well as down ballot.

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

We know a moderate is more of the same. But we know they are more likely to find a willing coalition if elected.

A willing coalition? No, we don't know that. Biden thinking that he can get Biden to "play nice" and cooperate again is infinitely more "pie in the sky", to use his terminology, than implementing universal health care. And even if we did know that, a willing coalition for what? To going back to the status quo? Who does that serve?

The people who have unwavering faith in Sanders frighten me a little, to be honest. There are good, GOOD arguments against nominating him (just as there are some great arguments in favor of him, certainly).

I don't think most supporters have unwavering faith in him. But he's the only one who's been working to improve their lives and his country for his entire career, and young people especially can spot phony. He's not that.

Warren and Biden are decent people who have dedicated their lives and careers to public service. But #PrimaryWarren? Biden is just an empty vessel for corporate interests? Is that the conclusion we must arrive at?

Highlights of Biden's career include championing the Iraq War and the war on drugs. On his campaign trail, he was dismissive of anyone who asked substantive policy questions about improving their lives. Are we sure that he's a decent person who's dedicated his life to serving Americans? Warren, despite finishing fifth in every primary so far, has continued to punch left and attack the only other progressive candidate on stage with her, the person she allegedly shared policy with and the person who encouraged her to run in the first place.

Think Bernie is a man of integrity? Wonderful, I think that's great. But why does it mean that his opponents must be completely devoid of it?

It doesn't necessarily mean that, of course. But in your example it absolutely does mean that. Buttigieg doesn't suck because he was Bernie's opponent; he sucks because he has no good policy and faked endorsements from black leaders and groups. Oh, and also for fixing my bread prices.

Making ideological purity the first and only litmus test of our allies seems to me to be the only strategy that is doomed to fail.

Uh, sure. But this is the primary when people can vote for the person whose policy is most attractive to them. Why settle?[/QUOTE]

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

Oh it is moderates fault now for Trump? That's new...

That's...not new. The DNC believing they were entitled to working peoples' votes led in part to Trump, yes. Decades of the DNC doing nothing for those people led many of them to vote for Trump or to stay home.

 

[ayayrawn]

So I need someone from the Bernie camp to really start defending his electability, backed with data, to ease my anxiety about this. Because the primary goal in 2020 - like it or not - should be to remove Donald Trump from office. Policy goals are going to be secondary. That may suck to hear, but it's reality. 4 more years of Donald Trump is far worse to the goals of the folks in the Bernie camp than a Biden centrist Presidency.

This is just my perspective, but selecting a middling candidate in an attempt to appeal to a wide range of people and tout the status quo failed in 2016, failed in 2004, and failed in 2000, and will more than likely fail again this year. Obama ran under the guise of a progressive but once that faded, he lost the entirety of congress.

On another point, I'd certainly vote Biden over Trump in the general, but if he somehow wins, I won't be surprised when he starts trying to meet the republican congress halfway like "the good ole days" and we end up even further right than we are now.

 

[jaycee]

Bernie is in trouble in PA no matter what. The fracking jobs issue is a major hurdle... and he's going to need to backtrack to overcome that hurdle.

I don't believe 2016 (aka Trump) is solely because of DNC incompetency and conspiracy although those things exist. Everyone can argue all day whether Bernie would've had a better chance than Clinton but no one knows and it's just as likely he would've performed the same or worse than Clinton. It's a moot point anyway and it's bothersome that 2016 is still being used as an argument for Sanders in 2020. They 'vote for us because we got screwed' thing doesn't resonate with most people.

Working class white voters, and union workers, are not monolithic but they have generally bought into the long-term propaganda campaign that 1. government cannot be trusted 2. the bootstraps narratives 3. they have something to lose
This made the weaponization of their northern racism easy pickin's for the Roger Stones of the world

Other folks were not excited about Clinton but still voted for her.
Wealthy Purple suburbs voted for Trump because they are pro capitalist, pro business first.
These things remain true in America today.

Is Bernie more palatable than he was in 2016 - absolutely.
Is the youthful vote important to anyone going against Trump - absolutely.
Is Bernie electable - of course but is the hill steeper to climb than for Biden - almost certainly.

I don't think the Sanders campaign has done a good job of building anything but the under 30 vote. That vote is vital and maybe turnout will be so high that the other people that are not comfortable with Sanders won't matter come general election time but that's a big gamble imo. If Sanders does well today and becomes the clear popular candidate then there is time to bring those other groups into the fold. If this drags out to and thru the convention there isn't time.

What is disappointing and sad to me beyond the current political, social, and economic system that's in place is the implication that people (individuals) are dumb or brainwashed or part of a conspiracy because they are afraid of not beating Trump and they're afraid of what social policies mean to their lives. Those are not unreasonable thoughts and opinions. I personally disagree with those fears but really that fear is understandable when you stop viewing people as a vote or party member and start viewing them as people.

It's understandable why every person graduating with less and less opportunity is pissed off and sticking up a middle finger at the establishment. They're not wrong either.

But what we keep getting to is people saying no I'm right and fuck you if you disagree. I feel that way internally all of the time. I've convinced myself of a lot of things that almost everyone around me in my daily life is not fully on board with. If these campaigns can't find a way to move beyond party politics and beyond their own egos to actually be compassionate about the fears, frustrations, and reasonable disagreements people have then we are assuring another 4 years + of Trump. We may get that anyway because the majority of the American landmass has fully bought in on MAGA... and we are all fooling ourselves if we think that the majority of the American landmass is suddenly going to look at any Dem candidate and say to themselves "hey, you know what my hatred for those idiots is unjustified."

 

[jaycee]

This is just my perspective, but selecting a middling candidate in an attempt to appeal to a wide range of people and tout the status quo failed in 2016, failed in 2004, and failed in 2000, and will more than likely fail again this year. Obama ran under the guise of a progressive but once that faded, he lost the entirety of congress.

On another point, I'd certainly vote Biden over Trump in the general, but if he somehow wins, I won't be surprised when he starts trying to meet the republican congress halfway like "the good ole days" and we end up even further right than we are now.

I get it but who is middling? or did you mean middle of the road?

Biden isn't middling and Bloomberg (hopefully) isn't middling so much that Biden runs away with the Dem party 4eva crowd

Gore lost in 2000 because he was viewed as uninventive and boring... and really he lost because FLA can't count votes
Kerry lost because the anti-war propaganda, social and communist propaganda, that Karl Rove laid on them resonated with a lot of voters during the middle of the Iraq war. Can someone say swiftboat veterans for peace? - anyone? and incumbents always have a huge advantage. The last incumbent to lose was George dubs because he raised taxes.

Obama won because no one was excited by Clinton, he spoke the language of a progressive person, and represented something that every white person who remotely viewed themselves as liberal wanted to feel about themselves. A vote for Obama meant they weren't complicit in American racism. That the plight of black and brown folks truly could be overcome because 'hey, look who's in the white house' Also the right was in the midst of tea party fiascos and McCain picked Sarah Palin as a running mate.

Obama didn't lose the congress because people weren't excited about him. He lost because seeing a black progressive man in the white house, who was 'coming after your way of life', was enough to get people on board with a lot of conservative nut jobs in those purple districts and state elections.

Obama conceded on far too many policies imo and those concessions are one of the reasons that national healthcare is such a mess for so many people... but I also think he was doing what he thought he needed to do to get something done.

I guess I don't get this argument that Dems loose elections solely because they are not progressive enough - not that it isn't a legit argument. Many people, including myself, have been saying forever that embracing social principles would build a stronger coalition and be good for the country, but saying that elections, particularly presidential elections, are won or lost based on those ideals alone or even mostly seems to ignore so many other important factors.

 

[BjorgenFjorgen]

I guess I don't get this argument that Dems loose elections solely because they are not progressive enough - not that it isn't a legit argument. Many people, including myself, have been saying forever that embracing social principles would build a stronger coalition and be good for the country, but saying that elections, particularly presidential elections, are won or lost based on those ideals alone or even mostly seems to ignore so many other important factors.

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

 

[jaycee]

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

I think this is true

 

[ayayrawn]

I get it but who is middling? or did you mean middle of the road?

Biden isn't middling and Bloomberg (hopefully) isn't middling so much that Biden runs away with the Dem party 4eva crowd

Gore lost in 2000 because he was viewed as uninventive and boring... and really he lost because FLA can't count votes
Kerry lost because the anti-war propaganda, social and communist propaganda, that Karl Rove laid on them resonated with a lot of voters during the middle of the Iraq war. Can someone say swiftboat veterans for peace? - anyone? and incumbents always have a huge advantage. The last incumbent to lose was George dubs because he raised taxes.

Obama won because no one was excited by Clinton, he spoke the language of a progressive person, and represented something that every white person who remotely viewed themselves as liberal wanted to feel about themselves. A vote for Obama meant they weren't complicit in American racism. That the plight of black and brown folks truly could be overcome because 'hey, look who's in the white house' Also the right was in the midst of tea party fiascos and McCain picked Sarah Palin as a running mate.

Obama didn't lose the congress because people weren't excited about him. He lost because seeing a black progressive man in the white house, who was 'coming after your way of life', was enough to get people on board with a lot of conservative nut jobs in those purple districts and state elections.

Obama conceded on far too many policies imo and those concessions are one of the reasons that national healthcare is such a mess for so many people... but I also think he was doing what he thought he needed to do to get something done.

I guess I don't get this argument that Dems loose elections solely because they are not progressive enough - not that it isn't a legit argument. Many people, including myself, have been saying forever that embracing social principles would build a stronger coalition and be good for the country, but saying that elections, particularly presidential elections, are won or lost based on those ideals alone or even mostly seems to ignore so many other important factors.

All of this stuff may be true, but the commanality the I see, and many others see, is that the only democratic presidential nominee that has won an election this century touted progressive "change" and had an enthusiastic and passionate base of support. The others did not. I can't see Biden being the one the change that trend.

 

[ayayrawn]

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

This

 

[ayayrawn]

I don't think most people are saying that's the only factor in winning elections. Obviously it's not. But there are far more people who haven't historically been voters that could be persuaded to vote for someone who actually represents their interests than there are "moderate Republicans" who could be convinced to vote for a moderate Dem. And the Dems time and time again ignore those people and leave those votes on the table. The populace as a whole is much more progressive than their institutions suggest. The party should take advantage of that.

An add to this: this strategy at this point in time risks alienating an entire generation of voters. By having their votes "left on the table" not once, but twice, a lot of enthusiastic, progressive first-time voters aged 18-35 are going to feel really burned and jaded after all is said and done.

 

[gouis]

NOT GREAT