Yes, the Republican Party is smarter at politics. It's why they always win. When they have a popular idea, you don't hear "oh how do we pay for it?" and "it can't be done". They hammer the other side over and over until they submit.

But it goes beyond intelligence. Democratic leadership also doesn't want a lot of these policies because it hurts their bottom line. Look at who their donors are. Many of them are wealthy individuals who benefit from the system in place. You think Nancy is going to make it harder for her investor husband to make money on insider trading? You think Joe Manchin is going to support a bill that doesn't let his daughter gouge prices on Epipens?

And again with the funding. No one talks about how much it costs when we start some bullshit war overseas. No one complains about the billions in welfare given to farmers. $47 billion covers free college tuition at public universities. That's less than we spend in Afghanistan each year doing squat. Using estimates available, we could pay for free college simply by negotiating with the drug companies for Medicare patients.

Find a popular position, find the wording that makes it really popular, hammer the other side over and over on it, win.

Then figure out which variation has the most support and go with it. That's your party's platform. We're going to offer those who want it a public option. It is popular. If you oppose it, we will destroy you.

It's what Republicans do and they win.

Also imagine the public support if the party establishment actually got behind these popular ideas instead of bending over for Blue Cross and the pharmaceutical companies. Bernie, Warren, and the others who support M4A should not be the outsiders, they should be the establishment view on this issue.

Not disputing this, but find politicians with enough integrity to push this restructure and maybe we get somewhere. Not a lot of that exists in Washington right now on either side.

And drug companies are held to rates for Medicare patients based on most recent AWP, the problem with drug companies is the bullshit patent laws that let them drive that AWP so they can gouge consumers until the drug hits the open market for generic branding.

Very few have the balls to stand up to the major lobbies because that is what keeps there palms greased, so they just get corrupted like most before them.

It is funny that supporters of Sanders (who is not a member of the Democratic party) gets to define who is a Democrat.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I think that's where Republicans are good at this. They bully their members into supporting popular party causes. Watch what happens to anyone who dares defy Trump or the party doctrine.

Now I'm not saying go that far, but someone like Obama should have bullied that party a lot more than he did. The party should be open to primary battles and not actively making it harder. But as long as leaders are fine with the status quo in the country, that's not going to change much.

ALSO STAY OUT OF THE FUCKING PRIMARIES AND LET THE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR SAY.

Its pretty clear that Hillary is a Democrat. I agree, its "third party" progressives (?), Bernie bros (?) trying to reinvent and redefine what a democrat is.

We know that political parties have to evolve to survive but this discussion re: Hillary is nonsensical.

Reinventing Democrat to mean candidates who support what Democrats want.

I don't know if it is what the Democrats want, but it is definitely what Trump and the GOP wants. Trump still championing Sanders on Twitter, and the South Carolina GOP is asking it's members to go and vote for Bernie in the primary. Wonder why they are doing that?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Here we agree. I don't think the problem is a particular ideology, it's the almost complete lack of an articulated ideology. The Dems don't stand for anything, or at least that's what the average voter believes. You're right, there's plenty they could stand for that is popular and in line with traditional Democratic goals. They don't, partly out of fear of being wrong, partly out of fear of donors, partly out of fear of purists who can't accept incremental change, etc.

The Dems could win on a very simple three point platform, going back to "normal" politics, no telemarketing on your cell phone, and cheap insulin. I know, just be for popular things sounds trite, but it would work. Instead we'll either get a new oligarch or a guy that can't fulfill any of his promises and gets killed in the midterms.

Run on popular, achievable things and get re-elected. Where's my seven figure consulting salary?

Who gives a shit what Trump wants? Vote for the person with the best ideas and roll the dice.

I should add that Trump was considered the worst choice for Republicans and was seen as having no chance. Believe the Hillary campaign was telling people how they were rooting for him.

And that will be determined by who Democrats nominate as their leader. No candidate is going to be 100% but the nominee will have the broadest support.

To an extent. But it's not exactly a level playing field. You have campaigns with $30 million of spending going against someone who will put $1 billion into their campaign. And the party goes out of its way to protect incumbents from challengers.

But I do agree that voting tells a story in the end. Nominating Hillary showed that Democrats really didn't care that much about the devastating Iraq War. And Bloomberg's growing popularity is a sign that a chunk of the party was just virtue signalling when they complain about Trump's racism.

Dems are in trouble. If they nominate Bloomberg, they lose the Sanders supporters. Because why would a socialist base vote for a Billionaire.

And there is no way Sanders beats Trump.

Is this a case of giving up? Waiting until 2024?

How can you say that so definitively when Bernie has been leading Trump in head-to-head polls for 5 YEARS NOW...?

Take Sanders seriously, he's led Trump in national polls for 5 years

Yeah Trump is going to cream Sanders in the general :banghead:

You mean like Hillary did?

National polls mean jack and squat. Show me state battleground polls (Midwest, NH, VA, NC, AZ, etc). Trump will probably loss the popular vote again, but he knows he doesn't need it. I wonder if the Democrats do.

Most political consultants will tell you that while Trump himself a nightmare candidate, what he does have is a top-flight analytics and technical department. They use the numbers better than anyone else, and direct social media with a laser-like precision. Sanders running up huge leads in California and New York is not going to win him the Presidency. You can't just claim victory because you have the most votes.

Is there any doubt that if Bernie didn't call himself a socialist he'd be running away with the general election? I kind of admire his stubborn honesty, but it's a huge anchor around his neck.

The honeymoon in Moscow and clips of him speaking glowingly about the Soviets and Sandinistas are going to follow him around all fall. The ads write themselves.

Do they even matter after all the shit trump has said. I mean, if trump can be vindicated by saying that he is a saved sinner, surely some shit from the 70s and 80s can be too?

I'll be shocked if there isn't much worse out there.

People who aren't going to vote Democrat will believe Trump is innocent while agreeing with everything bad about Sanders.

The reverse will be true of people who aren't going to vote Republican.

The number of people who are actually 'undecided' is fairly slim in my opinion, most will still have a 'preferred' news outlet regardless of if they view themselves as 'undecided' ... if you're watching Fox News then they'll end up voting Republican, if they're reading Huffington Post they'll vote Democrat.

The big thing in my opinion is how they motivate their base to get out and vote - Trump WILL motivate his, Sanders WILL motivate his .... if the Democrats end up with Biden then Trump will win for the same reason he beat Hilary imho.

A significant number of people vote funny. Like the 12% who voted Sanders in the primaries in 2016 but then voted for Trump in the general election. Clinton supporters defected in even higher numbers to McCain in 2012. Kasich supporters went Clinton in even greater numbers than that in 2018 (though that one's not too surprising).

That's a lot of voters who can swing close states. I don't know who those people are, I don't know what ultimately impacts their decisions, I don't understand how someone could be on the fence between Trump and Sanders on election day, but they do exist in big numbers.

I think a lot of people just don't think about this as much as we do. Maybe these are the people reached by campaign spending blitzes leading up to election day.

That's not how it worked in 2016. Trump is going to be focused on saying how terrible his opponent is. In polling, independents (whether they are or aren't) tend to really not like the label 'socialist' (if Sanders hadn't ever self-labeled him that way while doing exactly what he has been doing, he'd have a much easier time).

Trump is going to go nuclear negative and Sanders video clip praising Cuba, Honeymooning in the USSR, is going to be a gold mine.

I seriously doubt Sanders can beat Trump. I know a lot of liberal people who say they'll vote for whoever the Dems nominate but they REALLY don't want it to be Sanders and they'll hold their nose and vote for him.

I hear this, but Sanders couldn't motivate his base enough to beat Clinton in 2016. And older African-American voters, who were the key to Obama's wins in 2008 and 2012 (and Doug Jones' win for Alabama Senate, for that matter) aren't that keen on Sanders.

I completely agree with you across all fronts on this. The opposition to t-rump will strong, and if they have their shit together there's a gold mine of incredible, horrible shit from him out there. I agree with molson too, that most of it won't matter, and all that anyone over say 65 will care about is that someone said "Socialist".

I'm just talking about polling right now. I bet he'd be in better shape than Biden in head to heads if he only never labeled himself a socialist.

Instead, we get volumes of arguments about what type of socialist...

Socialism favorables are in the low 20%. In a poll that showed Sanders winning, still had "socialism" as disqualifier for a president at a near 70% mark. The ads do write themselves. I would wager some who are voting for him now aren't paying attention enough to know that he isn't a Democrat, and he is proudly a socialist. Everyone will know it by the time the general comes around.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It's just a word thing. This country loves itself some socialism. Just that farmers in Iowa cashing welfare checks don't consider that socialism.

While I don't disagree with anything you are saying I can think of 3 or 4 anecdotal undecided "party switches" of people I know right off the top of my head.

1) My buddy was a fairly big Obama/Democratic party supporter who met his now wife whose father is filthy loaded. The father-in-law has explained both the actually true and "Fox News" truths about taxation and the Democrats proposals. He voted Trump in 2016 and almost certainly will in 2020.

2) My sister was a conservative "values" voter who supported Bush/McCain/Romney etc. Her kid has epilepsy and has seen the good parts of Obamacare and the terrible parts of Trump's outlook on Obamacare. So she voted Hillary 2016 and likely Democratic nominee in 2020.

3) Another friend was a big liberal, Black lives Matter guy after Ferguson here in St. Louis. Was robbed at gunpoint a year ago downtown and is now big on the GOP's view on law and order and Trump. Clinton 2016, for sure Trump 2020.

4) I have voted Libertarian since at least 08, I think 04 even. Trump is awful will likely vote Democrat unless Sanders get nominated.

Again all anecdotal but certainly examples of how people's minds can change fairly easily and could be changed again before the elections. And the craziest part of all is most of what I said had nothing to do with the sitting president or their policies or federal policies in general. Will my parents ever vote Democrat? No way. My sister-in-law Republican? No way. But I think the swing vote/undecided is not a tiny fraction of the electorate either.

Of course, that's not Socialism. That's just taking care of the hard working, red blooded Americans who are putting food on your table! Shouldn't they be taken care of too?



Farm bills have been very successful in keeping farmers afloat, keeping fields healthy, you can't really have a healthy ag system without it.

It is a "word thing", but the problem is words matter. People don't think of farm bills, or even Social Security when they think about socialism. They think about the government taking farms from farmers. They think nationalizing the oil industry. They think about extremes. Any good GOP candidate is going to make sure those extremes are underlined with exclamation points at the end.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

An editorial from last year in North Dakota of all places. But he's right, North Dakota is one of the most socialized states in the US with a state owned bank and elevators.



Not socialism but a national community | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

Every single person running for the nomination will be labeled a socialist. That's if they're lucky. I think Obama was labeled a Marxist by Fox News despite being center-right economically.

Not much you can do with people who are either that stupid or just using the term in bad faith.

How was Obama "center-right" economically?

Globally speaking, he is without question, center-right. As is most of US politics.

Free trade, laissez faire attitude to the financial industry, and even a bit of a deficit hawk at times.

This is exactly why the Sanders crowd doesn't seem to live in US political reality. They see Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as center-right economic politicians, where 90% of everyone else sees them as center-left at least.

There is a world outside the United States. Obama's economic policies would not be considered center-left anywhere but here where the Overton Window has shifted so far.

Reading is fundamental. US Political Reality

Where exactly is Sanders running for President?!

We are talking about how people will label any Democrat as a socialist, Marxist, whatever despite evidence to the contrary. By definition, Obama's economic policies are center-right. He was labeled all those things.

We should go by what the real definitions are and not what some smooth-brained dolts on Fox News tell us to think. Don't buy in to their game to shift the window.

Sanders would up R turnout much more than someone like Bloomberg would.

And in the US, Obama is center-left. Hell, in most of North America, Obama is center-left. He has the same positions as Justin Trudeau.

Going around saying BuT oBaMa Is CeNtEr RiGhT iN eUrOpE just makes you sound like an idiot in US politics. Especially if your game is to call half the Democratic Party 'center-right'.

But only Sanders honeymooned in the USSR, and praised Cuba. It is not going to have the same affect on the others.

Not to mention that Sanders labels himself a socialist.

Ezra Klein famously referred to Obama as a 90s era moderate Republican before the 2012 election. This is hardly a new sentiment.

Edit: Even better...https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision...ry?id=17973080

Bonus since this is a response to being called a Socialist.

Well if Ezra Klein thinks so...

LOL, my thoughts exactly. Obama was definitely further to the left, economically, of Bill Clinton. George H.W. Bush was a moderate Republican in the 1990s. His health care plan was a tax credit. I would remind you that the lowest the top marginal tax rate has ever been since the 1920s (28%) was in the late 80s, on a bill supported by a good deal of moderate Republicans.

I think people dramatically overstate how 'moderate' the moderate Republicans were in the 80s and 90s.

Hitler called Trump soft on immigrants.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk