2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[JPhillips]

Even if you think Bloomberg is basically GHWB, that's still miles better than Trump.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hillary Clinton has been for an ACA like expanded health care system (with public option) since 1996. She has been for climate change legislation for her entire Senate career. She has been for gun control and, especially the right to choose for decades.

Oh, for what it's worth, Clinton voted against the bill that would remove liability from gun manufacturers and dealers, while Sanders (who was a Congressman at the time) voted for it:

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- GovTrack.us

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll534.xml

Also Clinton in the Senate voted with Sanders 93% of the time:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...in-the-senate/

Once again, if that's a Republican to you, then you need to actually talk to real Republicans.

Seriously, you sound like the people who are calling Mitt Romney a Democrat these days.

Hillary spent the 2016 primary trashing universal health care. Saying it was a crazy idea that could never happen.

She supported fracking and offshore drilling. Opposed a carbon tax because it "didn't poll well". Said that environmentalists need to "get a life" when trying to woo a group of pro-pipeline people. Took millions from the fossil fuel industry for her campaign. Not as bad as a run-of-the-mill Republican, but pretty bad record.

You're right on the gun vote. My bad.

On the two issues of income inequality and our disastrous foreign policy, she has sided with Republicans. Two of the biggest issues I think this country faces today. Just don't know how anyone can support a Democrat who voted for the Iraq War and to de-regulate the financial industry. Both should be immediate disqualifiers for anyone who actually gives a shit about competency.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Even if you think Bloomberg is basically GHWB, that's still miles better than Trump.

Yes. I would vote for GHWB and Bloomberg ahead of Trump in a Republican primary.

I think Bloomberg would be disastrous for Democrats. A party that has rightfully pointed out Trump's racism for 4 years nominates a racist. A party that has attempted to make income inequality an issue nominating an oligarch.

And from a winning standpoint, he can't win the Midwest. I know early polls might be favorable because it's people who have just seen him in commercials. But he has a huge disdain for Midwest folks. Imagine this guy winning Wisconsin. Would like to hear what lungs thinks about his interpretation of farmers.

Bloomberg on why farmers can’t work in information technology

MB: “I can teach anyone how to be a farmer 1 dig a hole 2 put a seed in 3 put dirt on top 4 add water 5 up comes the corn”

The skill 4information technology is completely different you need more grey matter#farmers pic.twitter.com/HM13tA6goz

— Pete (@PeterMentes) February 15, 2020

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hillary spent the 2016 primary trashing universal health care. Saying it was a crazy idea that could never happen.

While she was basically the architect of the ACA. Run on the individual mandate in 2008, which Obama was against (and then was for when he won the Presidency). She ran on a public option and wanted to people to be able to buy into Medicare at 55.

On the two issues of income inequality and our disastrous foreign policy, she has sided with Republicans. Two of the biggest issues I think this country faces today. Just don't know how anyone can support a Democrat who voted for the Iraq War and to de-regulate the financial industry. Both should be immediate disqualifiers for anyone who actually gives a shit about competency.

Clinton ran on higher taxes on the wealthy, including a higher tax rate on millionaires (the Buffett rule) as well as increased taxes on corporations and capital gains. Also for undocumented immigrants to have a path to citizenship. She believes in climate change and supports cap and trade. Americans for Democratic Action rated her as 90% liberal and the American Conservative Union rated her as 8% conservative.

And on financial regulation, I think Paul Krugman had the right of it on Clinton's position: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/o...t-tycoons.html

Once again, I have to ask.. do you know ANY Republicans? Or is anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a Republican to you?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Clinton ran on higher taxes on the wealthy, including a higher tax rate on millionaires (the Buffett rule) as well as increased taxes on corporations and capital gains. Also for undocumented immigrants to have a path to citizenship. She believes in climate change and supports cap and trade. Americans for Democratic Action rated her as 90% liberal and the American Conservative Union rated her as 8% conservative.

This is wrong. She specifically told CEO's that she was for lowering the tax rate and giving them a bullshit repatriation (which she also voted for as Senator). Bill touted this on the campaign trail too. Her changes to capital gains were minimal and about extending the investment instead of changing the rate (it was revenue neutral). This leads to more passive investors which is bad. Her surcharge was a good idea but should have been at a lower income level.

Her individual tax stuff isn't bad from what I've seen. It's her coddling of big corporations and desire to deregulate everything at the expense of Americans which is the issue. Bailouts and giveaways to the wealthiest while acting as if something like universal health care is a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Once again, I have to ask.. do you know ANY Republicans? Or is anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a Republican to you?

I think the Iraq War and the repeal of Glass-Steagall are two of the biggest moments in modern American history. The first was a monumental foreign policy disaster that will likely resonate for the next century. The other led to one of the biggest financial collapses in economic history.

She was on the wrong side of history on both. How is that not a disqualifying factor for you? How many catastrophically bad decisions does one person have to make before they should no longer be considered for the highest office in the land? Decisions should have consequences.

[Vegas Vic]

This is just a snapshot in time, going into the Nevada caucus. Right now, Trump is a solid -175 to win re-election. With Sanders being the likely Democratic nominee (according to the market), it appears that he is a substantial underdog at +385. Uncle Joe has fallen to +3000.

[QuikSand]

In 2016, I did very well on PredictIt during the General Election playing the assumption that an (effectively) two-way race is forced back to being/seeming competitive, regardless of the issues of the moment. PredictIt has Trump at abou 55 right now, which seems closer to reality. I'd be willing to take the Field at +155 on that same logic, especially if you have the means to lay off some/all of that risk at some point (like after the Dem convention).

[panerd]

Biden seems like good odds at 30 to 1. (More like quicksand said for a counter play at some point not to ride out through the election) With these coming primaries he is either going to crash and burn (hence the 30 to 1) or pulls off some wins and significantly improves his odds. Seems worth a shot.

For sports reference the Cleveland Browns are right at 30 to 1 to win next years Super Bowl. At least Biden has a shot right?

Disclaimer: I believe one can find an old thread of me saying to lay money on everyone but Trump back in 2016 since "we know he has no shot".

[Vegas Vic]

Listening to the Trump operatives, I get the impression they'd like to see Sanders win the nomination. Buttigieg would be problematic for them. Personally, I think Steyer could beat Trump in the general election, although he has virtually no chance of getting the nomination.

[Ben E Lou]

Having trouble quoting via Tapatalk, but to pick back up on the convo with Imran about our real-life Bernie supporting friends and Bloomberg, this was just posted by a co-worker:



Based on other comments she has made, I think it's a fair characterization that she sees little/no difference between Bloomberg and Trump.

[Radii]

I'm obviously on the far end of the progressive spectrum - at least by this board's makeup - and that seems completely insane to me. I do think Bloomberg is the worst non-Tulsi choice, even over Biden who I strongly dislike. Issues with his policies like stop and frisk and the way he chooses to speak about that when he defends it are incredibly problematic and concerning, and I have less than zero faith that a billionaire would ever seriously push for any policy that hurts his own wallet. I will be severely disappointed if this man wins the democratic nomination.

That said, he's nothing like Trump and I'll vote for him in a heartbeat in the general if he wins.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'm obviously on the far end of the progressive spectrum - at least by this board's makeup - and that seems completely insane to me. I do think Bloomberg is the worst non-Tulsi choice, even over Biden who I strongly dislike. Issues with his policies like stop and frisk and the way he chooses to speak about that when he defends it are incredibly problematic and concerning, and I have less than zero faith that a billionaire would ever seriously push for any policy that hurts his own wallet. I will be severely disappointed if this man wins the democratic nomination.

That said, he's nothing like Trump and I'll vote for him in a heartbeat in the general if he wins.

And twice on Sundays,

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Listening to the Trump operatives, I get the impression they'd like to see Sanders win the nomination. Buttigieg would be problematic for them. Personally, I think Steyer could beat Trump in the general election, although he has virtually no chance of getting the nomination.

Tough to tell what they think because Trump seems to target people he just doesn't like. Like I can't tell if he's afraid of Bloomberg or just likes taking jabs at him out of jealousy.

I think Biden is what they were scared of the most. Holding up military aid and sending out goons to the Ukraine says it all. But his poor performances may have shifted it to Buttigieg.

Pete seems to be the establishment favorite now and has the lobbying money behind him. So that is a threat to Trump.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'm obviously on the far end of the progressive spectrum - at least by this board's makeup - and that seems completely insane to me. I do think Bloomberg is the worst non-Tulsi choice, even over Biden who I strongly dislike. Issues with his policies like stop and frisk and the way he chooses to speak about that when he defends it are incredibly problematic and concerning, and I have less than zero faith that a billionaire would ever seriously push for any policy that hurts his own wallet. I will be severely disappointed if this man wins the democratic nomination.

That said, he's nothing like Trump and I'll vote for him in a heartbeat in the general if he wins.

My issue is that if your party is running a racist, oligarch with disdain for the working class, what is the future of your party? Doesn't that do more damage to the Democratic Party than another Trump term?

I get that a middle-class white person would hold their nose and vote for him. But how could you expect any minority to? Are they going to be blamed for losing this election too?

Bloomberg on Black and Latino males between 16-25: pic.twitter.com/kaJpr46Tro

— ALX ���� (@alx) February 17, 2020

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Listening to the Trump operatives, I get the impression they'd like to see Sanders win the nomination. Buttigieg would be problematic for them. Personally, I think Steyer could beat Trump in the general election, although he has virtually no chance of getting the nomination.

Agreed.

Also of note:

Democrats fear Republican sabotage in key Senate race - POLITICO

[GrantDawg]

Rainmaker, the answer is "I don't know, but he is getting good minority support in the polls." Biden bragged about his working with segregationist, yet he is still the front runner among minorities. I believe you underestimate how conservative most of voting minorities are.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is wrong. She specifically told CEO's that she was for lowering the tax rate and giving them a bullshit repatriation (which she also voted for as Senator).

Yeah, that's not what that link actually says. The tax break is ONLY for repatriation that has a percentage investing in infrastructure banks. Which is a great idea. A good way to incentivize repatriation, which would at least get those funds taxed. Hell even the title of that article makes that clear (and The Intercept loooves to click bait).

I think the Iraq War and the repeal of Glass-Steagall are two of the biggest moments in modern American history. The first was a monumental foreign policy disaster that will likely resonate for the next century. The other led to one of the biggest financial collapses in economic history.

The Iraq War was a mistake, but I agree with Paul Krugman (the op-ed I linked) and other economists who say Graham-Leach-Bailey had very little to do with the 2008 Financial Crisis. After all the big collapses - AIG, Lehman Brothers - were among financial institutions that did not do commercial banking. Most Wall Street investment banks did not take advantage of GLB because it came with additional reporting requirements to the Federal Reserve. Not to mention the wall between commercial and investment banking was already coming undone due to Federal Reserve rulings in the 1980s and 1990s. GLB actually may have helped dealing with the crisis because commercial banks were able to purchase failing investment banks preventing their complete failure (Merrill Lynch was purchased by Bank of America, for example, rather than collapsing).

She was on the wrong side of history on both. How is that not a disqualifying factor for you? How many catastrophically bad decisions does one person have to make before they should no longer be considered for the highest office in the land? Decisions should have consequences.

So you are now moving goalposts. How does this make her a Republican? If you want to discuss whether she is a good candidate (and she is the candidate who has agreed with my positions more than any other candidate in my lifetime, so her incorrect Iraq vote doesn't sink the rest, and I'm sure that applies to a lot of your fellow lefties that you are befuddled went Hillary), that's another discussion entirely. But you have completely failed on your initial premise.

It's why I keep asking if you know any Republicans. And you keep failing to answer. Because you know that if you went to a Republican and claimed Hillary Clinton was a Republican they'd laugh in your face and would continue to laugh for a half-hour+.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Rainmaker, the answer is "I don't know, but he is getting good minority support in the polls." Biden bragged about his working with segregationist, yet he is still the front runner among minorities. I believe you underestimate how conservative most of voting minorities are.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Biden has been getting his ass kicked in primaries for 32 years. Like I said, I think Bloomberg polls well because all people have heard from him is his commercials.

There's so much stuff out there. He's done a good job paying off groups to be quiet about it, but a good opponent is going to hammer him with videos like these. Just not sure the best strategy is to out-racist Trump.

This is absolutely disqualifying. Bloomberg needs to drop out now!

New video:

"Mike Bloomberg Is A Racist" pic.twitter.com/HlwqdTG3Tb

— MikeUnleashed �� (@CaccioppoliMike) February 10, 2020

‘We disproportionately stop whites too much, and minorities too little.’ — Leaked video of Michael Bloomberg exposes the presidential candidate defending racist police tactics pic.twitter.com/47Zd0ugP9Q

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 12, 2020




[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Having trouble quoting via Tapatalk, but to pick back up on the convo with Imran about our real-life Bernie supporting friends and Bloomberg, this was just posted by a co-worker:



Based on other comments she has made, I think it's a fair characterization that she sees little/no difference between Bloomberg and Trump.

Quoting with Tapatalk has been annoying for me as well.

I will say that I've heard Bernie people say similarly, but in the next breath they say they'll vote for him over Trump any day. Which... that's really extreme rhetoric for someone you'll definitely vote for if he wins the Dem nomination.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Biden has been getting his ass kicked in primaries for 32 years. Like I said, I think Bloomberg polls well because all people have heard from him is his commercials...


If African-Americans won't support him, then you have nothing to worry about. No one can win the Democratic nomination without strong AA support.

[GrantDawg]

This looks really good for Bernie.


Super Tuesday states where we currently have candidates projected to get at least 15% of the vote:

Sanders: All Super Tuesday states
Bloomberg: All states but VT
Biden: All states but VT, UT, MN
Buttigieg: OK, AR only
Warren: MA only
Klobuchar: MN onlyhttps://t.co/ufzEhLUuka

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 17, 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, that's not what that link actually says. The tax break is ONLY for repatriation that has a percentage investing in infrastructure banks. Which is a great idea. A good way to incentivize repatriation, which would at least get those funds taxed. Hell even the title of that article makes that clear (and The Intercept loooves to click bait).

If you know you are going to get a tax holiday every 10-15 years, you will store your money overseas and wait for it. It's why American businesses stashed over $2 trillion in profits there.

And it's not a good idea because it just starts the cycle anew. Corporations hoard money overseas and blackmail the country to let them repatriate it at a massive discount. It's a massive tax giveaway and awarding companies for evading taxes.

The Iraq War was a mistake

Millions dead, thousands of Americans dead or permanently wounded, and trillions wasted. Not to mention the damage it has done to ME relations that will last generations. That's a pretty big mistake that should disqualify you from holding the highest office in the land.

but I agree with Paul Krugman (the op-ed I linked) and other economists who say Graham-Leach-Bailey had very little to do with the 2008 Financial Crisis. After all the big collapses - AIG, Lehman Brothers - were among financial institutions that did not do commercial banking. Most Wall Street investment banks did not take advantage of GLB because it came with additional reporting requirements to the Federal Reserve. Not to mention the wall between commercial and investment banking was already coming undone due to Federal Reserve rulings in the 1980s and 1990s. GLB actually may have helped dealing with the crisis because commercial banks were able to purchase failing investment banks preventing their complete failure (Merrill Lynch was purchased by Bank of America, for example, rather than collapsing).

Krugman has been wrong about almost everything the past few decades. Globalization, the Euro, deflation, housing, the bailout, the dollar, US bonds, the recession, stimulus, etc.

This is a guy who said the internet was a fad that would be done by 2005. Who proclaimed a massive recession was on the way when Trump took office.

Honestly, if you had told me Krugman believed the opposite, it would help your viewpoint much more than sourcing a guy who is wrong about everything.

So you are now moving goalposts. How does this make her a Republican? If you want to discuss whether she is a good candidate (and she is the candidate who has agreed with my positions more than any other candidate in my lifetime, so her incorrect Iraq vote doesn't sink the rest, and I'm sure that applies to a lot of your fellow lefties that you are befuddled went Hillary), that's another discussion entirely. But you have completely failed on your initial premise.

It's why I keep asking if you know any Republicans. And you keep failing to answer. Because you know that if you went to a Republican and claimed Hillary Clinton was a Republican they'd laugh in your face and would continue to laugh for a half-hour+.

I just think on the biggest issues that have faced our country over the past few decades, she has sided with Republicans. Foreign policy, deregulation, economics, and even social issues.

[RainMaker]

In fairness to Krugman, at least he didn't blame it on black people like Bloomberg.

[tarcone]

I heard a couple weeks ago that Trump is expected to pull 16% of the black vote this time around. This is a dramatic leap from 2016 and devastating to the Dems if it happens.

[RainMaker]

More good Bloomberg nuggets. Here he is saying democracy is not as good as an oligarchy.

Michael Bloomberg in 2010 on government: He begins with, "I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have democracy, BUT...," lamenting the lack of qualifications required to seek public office. Then he says progress depends on executives having "far and away" more power than legislatures. pic.twitter.com/1HlPsmtMuz

— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) February 17, 2020

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I heard a couple weeks ago that Trump is expected to pull 16% of the black vote this time around. This is a dramatic leap from 2016 and devastating to the Dems if it happens.

Uhhh, no. The last time the GOP had more than 15% of the black vote was in 1960. And, polls have shown blacks more motivated to vote than in 2016 and Trump's approval rating is often under 10% with black voters.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

More good Bloomberg nuggets. Here he is saying democracy is not as good as an oligarchy.

Where does he say that?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Where does he say that?

The first part where he advocates for a "democracy" like Singapore.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you know you are going to get a tax holiday every 10-15 years, you will store your money overseas and wait for it. It's why American businesses stashed over $2 trillion in profits there.

No one knows how to make corporate repatriation of already deferred money work. Offering a benefit if they invest in a social policy, while taking steps to prevent it going ahead is probably the best way so far to go about it. It was far better than the Republican plan that taxed them at 15% for cash and 8% for other assets.

Krugman has been wrong about almost everything the past few decades.

I never thought I'd see the day when progressives would turn on Krugman. Not to mention there are a ton of other economists who don't believe GS had much effect on the Great Recession. And I discussed reasons for it... but I guess you were too busy with ad hominems?

I just think on the biggest issues that have faced our country over the past few decades, she has sided with Republicans. Foreign policy, deregulation, economics, and even social issues.

All those womens' right to choose Republicans out there.

Once again, do you know any Republicans. You keep refusing to answer this question. I bet its is because you don't - because you'd know how utterly ridiculous you sound when you say Hillary Clinton is a Republican. The person real Republicans call far to the left.

Since you won't answer if you know any Republicans, let's see if you'll answer this: Do you believe that the following Democratic nominees for President are Republicans: Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg?

[cuervo72]

Hell, these days Republicans don't think John McCain or Mitt Romney are Republicans.

(And also, go back to my mention of my aunt's FB thread, where folks in her circle don't consider any of the Dem entrance to be even moderate.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Hell, these days Republicans don't think John McCain or Mitt Romney are Republicans.

(And also, go back to my mention of my aunt's FB thread, where folks in her circle don't consider any of the Dem entrance to be even moderate.)

Right. It's where I think the similarities between the Sanders fans and the Trump fans coalesce. No one is a true party member except someone who agrees with them 99%. And if you disagree even that 1% too much, then you are a member of the opposition party.

[RainMaker]

You create a permanent solution or none at all. You don't continue to let them skirt on taxes. Especially when the last time you voted for it the companies lied and just pocketed the cash. This is a corporate handout plain and simple. There is a reason she said this behind closed doors and didn't promote it publicly.

She's better than most Republicans on social issues. But she still opposed gay marriage. Ran a racist campaign against Obama. People don't forget that.

And yes, I know a lot of Republicans. Mostly moderate ones who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't think she'd be out of place in that group. Hillary is a hawkish neo-conservative that is center-left on a lot of issues. Mostly fine with the status quo and letting corporations call the shots.

I don't find her politics terrible different than people like Lincoln Chafee or Susan Collins. Although at least Chafee had the guts to vote against the war in Iraq.

[PilotMan]

I don't agree with Sanders policies. I think he should have dropped out after the heart attack, and I'm way beyond over septuagenarians as leaders of the country. I think his policy ideas area a mixed bag at best. However, if he wins the nomination, he will be the right choice.

[PilotMan]

This pretty much sums up the entire system.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Right. It's where I think the similarities between the Sanders fans and the Trump fans coalesce. No one is a true party member except someone who agrees with them 99%. And if you disagree even that 1% too much, then you are a member of the opposition party.

It's not about what percent, it's about what issues are important and what the party wants to be.

The Iraq War should be a big deal to Democrats. Making a person who sided with Dick Cheney and George Bush on it should be disqualifying.

Racism should be a huge issue for Democrats when running against an open white supremacist. People remember what she did in the 2008 primary.

Income inequality should be a huge issue for Democrats as real wages stagnate for another decade and more people fall in debt. Her history of supporting handouts to banks and financial institutions should matter. Same for her support on welfare reform to take aid from the most vulnerable.

I know she is a Democrat on other issues. But I do think falling on the Republican side of the aisle for those other should be a mark in the Democratic Party.

[ISiddiqui]

And yes, I know a lot of Republicans. Mostly moderate ones who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't think she'd be out of place in that group. Hillary is a hawkish neo-conservative that is center-left on a lot of issues. Mostly fine with the status quo and letting corporations call the shots.

I don't find her politics terrible different than people like Lincoln Chafee or Susan Collins. Although at least Chafee had the guts to vote against the war in Iraq.

And what do those moderate Republicans say when you call Clinton a Republican? One of my coworkers is a moderate Republican who calls himself fiscally conservative and socially liberal - he voted Libertarian in 2016 because he couldn't vote for Trump and thought Hillary was waaay too liberal.

Hillary's voting record is, of course, far more liberal than Chaffee's or Collins'. I posted some voter ratings above. Of course that's accounts for far more than one or two votes.

For the record "center-left on a lot of issues" doesn't equal a Republican. It's basically the definition of a Democrat.

So tell me, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg - Republicans as well? Half the Democratic Party Republicans?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't agree with Sanders policies. I think he should have dropped out after the heart attack, and I'm way beyond over septuagenarians as leaders of the country. I think his policy ideas area a mixed bag at best. However, if he wins the nomination, he will be the right choice.

I know this is turning into Sanders vs Clinton but there were a lot of good candidates running I think. I think Warren is great and has a good track record on the issues. Liked Brown too. And even with a few misgivings, could definitely have gotten behind Harris or Booker.

Only issues I have is with Biden who is incredibly dumb. Pete who is a fraud. And Bloomberg who is a racist Republican trying to buy an election.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know this is turning into Sanders vs Clinton but there were a lot of good candidates running I think. I think Warren is great and has a good track record on the issues. Liked Brown too. And even with a few misgivings, could definitely have gotten behind Harris or Booker.

Only issues I have is with Biden who is incredibly dumb. Pete who is a fraud. And Bloomberg who is a racist Republican trying to buy an election.

You don't mind that Warren used to be a Republican and used her white privilege to pretend to be an Indian?

[JPhillips]

The problem is that the country isn't as liberal as the progressive wing wants it to be. Center-left is where the Dems have to be based on the ideology of the electorate.

Now if Bernie wins big, that may change, but all the data says the people who actually vote don't go very far to the left.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And what do those moderate Republicans say when you call Clinton a Republican? One of my coworkers is a moderate Republican who calls himself fiscally conservative and socially liberal - he voted Libertarian in 2016 because he couldn't vote for Trump and thought Hillary was waaay too liberal.

Hillary's voting record is, of course, far more liberal than Chaffee's or Collins'. I posted some voter ratings above. Of course that's accounts for far more than one or two votes.

For the record "center-left on a lot of issues" doesn't equal a Republican. It's basically the definition of a Democrat.

So tell me, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg - Republicans as well? Half the Democratic Party Republicans?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Hillary has been labeled a far-left socialist for so long that I don't think any Republican would consider her one of their own. It's wrong and part of the deep-rooted sexism and stupidity in that party.

But on paper, I'd take Chafee over Clinton. I know million or so innocent dead Iraqis may mean nothing to you, but means something to me. I will never support another candidate who uses our troops as cannon fodder and treats other human beings as less than human. Fuck her and that vote that she knew was wrong.

[ISiddiqui]

The problem is that the country isn't as liberal as the progressive wing wants it to be. Center-left is where the Dems have to be based on the ideology of the electorate.

Now if Bernie wins big, that may change, but all the data says the people who actually vote don't go very far to the left.

Especially African-Americans, who tend to have a lot of white Progressives who want to speak for them and tell them they are wrong about what they want for themselves. Namely because they tend to back center-left over their progressive champions. And they can't comprehend how black voters voted overwhelmingly for Clinton over Sanders and are throwing support behind Biden and Bloomberg.

As if they can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Sounds far more like what right wingers think about black folk, tbh.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You don't mind that Warren used to be a Republican and used her white privilege to pretend to be an Indian?

I think going from Republican to Democrat was part of her evolution. As she saw how things operated in the world, she changed her views. I used to be much more right-leaning when I was younger too.

The Native American thing is bad. It is something that has to be weighed against the other candidates. I'd consider Biden's championing of the Iraq War far more egregious than her lying on an application.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Especially African-Americans, who tend to have a lot of white Progressives who want to speak for them and tell them they are wrong about what they want for themselves. Namely because they tend to back center-left over their progressive champions. And they can't comprehend how black voters voted overwhelmingly for Clinton over Sanders and are throwing support behind Biden and Bloomberg.

As if they can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Sounds far more like what right wingers think about black folk, tbh.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

People should make their own decisions on what's important to them. I'm not saying any black person shouldn't vote for Bloomberg if they feel he is the best candidate. I'm just saying I don't view black people as a criminal element that needs to be inspected by authorities at any given opportunity like Bloomberg does. I would hate to see the party go down that path.

As for Hillary's support among the black community, it was the first time since 2000 that participation had declined. She lost a significant percent of the minority vote from 2012. In an election decided by like 40,000 votes, she's probably President if she does better there.

[ISiddiqui]

Almost as if there was a black President running in 2012...

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

John Kerry wasn't black and got a higher turnout rate. Then again he didn't run a racist primary campaign against a black candidate. Maybe there is a lesson in that.

[ISiddiqui]

Well shit if Sanders got destroyed by black voters against such a racist maybe he's that terrible of a candidate!

(FWIW, African-American turnout in 2004 was 60.3% compared to 59.6% in 2016. Not exactly a massive difference there)

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem is that the country isn't as liberal as the progressive wing wants it to be. Center-left is where the Dems have to be based on the ideology of the electorate.

Now if Bernie wins big, that may change, but all the data says the people who actually vote don't go very far to the left.

This is a myth. Medicare for All, a public option, free college, breaking up the banks, lowering prescription drug prices, and a bunch of other progressive ideas have broad support in this country. They are also issues the Democratic establishment pushes back on.

This is financially motivated in some ways. The leadership in the party is filled with grifters, lobbyists, corporate shills, and altogether dumb people who don't want to see progress in those areas. So they'll tell you it can't be done besides broad public support.

Republicans do the opposite. They find an issue that plays and run with it hard. But that's why they control the country and the Democrats power is relegated to tearing up speeches on TV. The DCCC makes it harder for primary challengers to bring new ideas forward.

[Edward64]

Will have to catch this debate and see how Bloomberg performs. I'm sure the others will gang up on him and his past comments that have come out recently. Biden is in real trouble if Bloomberg catches on.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/polit...ada/index.html

Michael Bloomberg has qualified for Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, paving the way for the former New York mayor's first appearance on stage with his 2020 rivals.

Bloomberg met the Democratic National Committee-mandated polling threshold on Tuesday with a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey finding the former New York mayor at 19% nationally. The result is Bloomberg's fourth poll at or above 10% nationally, which was the requirement from the DNC to qualify.

Bloomberg is second in the poll behind Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who is well ahead of the rest of the field with 31% support.

Bloomberg's presence on the debate stage injects a significant new variable into the event that falls just days before Nevadans caucus on Saturday. But the former New York mayor is skipping the first four contests, including Nevada, instead hoping to make his mark when several states vote on March 3, also known as Super Tuesday.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is a myth. Medicare for All, a public option, free college, breaking up the banks, lowering prescription drug prices, and a bunch of other progressive ideas have broad support in this country. They are also issues the Democratic establishment pushes back on.

This is financially motivated in some ways. The leadership in the party is filled with grifters, lobbyists, corporate shills, and altogether dumb people who don't want to see progress in those areas. So they'll tell you it can't be done besides broad public support.

[/url]

So basically the republican grifters are just smarter.

Free college and healthcare (medicare for all) do have support of the majority, but the issue is still how to pay for all this, plus climate change without crippling the American economy. Cut military spending? Not with the GOP in control of the senate. Restore higher corporate tax rates? Good luck getting that done easily.

You can always raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco like Canada to pull in some extra money for healthcare and legalize and tax weed nationwide, but that is far from enough to sustain the costs without major cuts elsewhere.

[JPhillips]

At least with Medicare for All, support varies depending on how you ask the question. Leave it open and it draws majority support, but if you add that it means losing your current insurance support drops quite a bit. That makes sense, because polling also shows most people are happy with their own insurance. People want to make sure that access to healthcare is broad, but they don't want to lose their current coverage.

The support, then is more for an option to buy into Medicare, which polling shows very strong support for.