(its both)
And base turnout and enthusiasm is largely out of the party's control.
I mean it IS both, but more and more it's leaning on turnout being the bigger factor, especially in the current age of hyper partisanship.
(its both)
And base turnout and enthusiasm is largely out of the party's control.
Yes and its the factor the parties have the least direct control over.I mean it IS both, but more and more it's leaning on turnout being the bigger factor, especially in the current age of hyper partisanship.
But GOP leadership didn't even want Trump in power. It was ultimately voters that put him into power. So would those same voters be willing to vote for the type of candidate that you described over the inevitable Trump 2.0 candidate that will be in the race as well? Because we've already seen those types of Republicans bubble up. Someone like Roy Moore ultimately lost, but it wasn't because he's hateful. It wasn't because he actually said the last time America was great was when we had slavery. Something he said in response to a question from the lone black person in the crowd. No, he lost because he's an accused child predator. And even then he only barely lost. So the GOP could potentially find a candidate like you described. But they're going to have to get voters to pick him over the candidate calling him a cuck and pussy. They're going to have to get them to vote for him over the candidate that's openly railing against immigrants, minorities, women and those in the LGBT community. Because that's a type of messaging that works very well with the base that Trump has cultivated. It's not the one that those in charge of the GOP may want to get behind because he's so open with his hate, but it's one they have to get behind because it's where their base is now.
Another thing is that if the GOP wants that candidate and they at least make it somewhat clear that he's their choice, then you can be sure that Trump 2.0 candidate will use that to his advantage and position himself as being anti-establishment. And that's something that Trump supporters again will respond to. I think to some degree you can see how Trump has potentially fractured the party going forward. Because there are those that don't want that sort of extremist voice leading the party. At least for the immediate future they're going to have that extremist view working in their party and they're going to have to navigate that. So can the nominee you're describing actually pull enough voters to beat out those who're attracted to the extreme? Being vague is going to be a negative for those when the person on the other side is using profanity to describe someone, or making fun of someones appearance or calling for harsh laws against those in the LGBT community.
Yes and its the factor the parties have the least direct control over.
Yes, I'm keenly aware of history Kirblar.The Democrats have been losing socially conservative white voters since LBJ blew up the ruling party agreement permanently by endorsing Civil Rights. This shift has been THE thing underlying the past 50 years of American politics. Democrats have not won a majority of the white vote since. "Socially Conservative" Dems have been fleeing the party slowly over generations in the wake of this, starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy and resulting in the current nationalized political structure we have today. Voters in metropolitan areas have voted for the Dems more and more. Voters in rural areas, less and less. It's a tale dating back to Jefferson vs Hamilton.
Understanding this history is critical to contextualizing US politics. It's why both the '94 and '10 midterms were characterized as the "Revenge of the White Working Class" in newspaper articles. It's why Angus King (current Senator from NH) left the Democratic Party in 1993 and became an "Independent", dogwhistling that "The Democratic Party as an institution has become too much the party that is looking for something from government," in 1993. It's why Richard Shelby, current GOP Senator from Alabama left the Democratic Party in 1994 following the GOP takeover of Congress.
And these battles are still taking place inside the Democratic Party. We saw this in '08, we saw it again in '16. One candidate based a campaign focused on the (white) "working class". The other based it out of a coalition that relied heavily on African American voters. Both Obama-'08 and Clinton-'16 won their primaries off the back of gigantic margins among Black voters. (Though the composition of the rest of their coalition was not quite identical) And when that "(W)WC" candidate lost, both times you had VERY ANGRY SUPPORTERS about the whole thing who refused to vote for the nominee.
Because generally, in America, because of the racialized nature of our politics, swing voters are white voters. (If you've ever wondered why Dem candidates' general election ads are so milquetoast, focused on "economic" issues, and avoid social issues, this is the reason.)
There has never been a "true" socialist system achieved - the closest revolutions ever came to establishing it were the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution, but the first got crushed and the second got subverted. There have been a number of uprisings and movements with potential like Hungary '56, Prague Spring, maybe the Shanghai Commune, but they've all been smashed by state power.
Anarchists will point you towards revolutionary Spain.
There's a whole socialism OT in Hangouts if you're interested! The problem is socialists often wildly disagree with each other (hence why you will have other people claim the USSR really was truly socialist), so there's a lot of debate, but I think going by the proper definition (post-capitalist, post-market system where the workers control the means of production) it's never happened.
Ah, it makes the claim that Bernie isn't a socialist even more confusing then.
Ah, it makes the claim that Bernie isn't a socialist even more confusing then.
What's Biden's track record like? Seems like a few people would vote for him.
I say all this as someone who did vote for Bernie in the primaries. I was extremely enthusiastic when he first announced his run and grew less so over time. I was on the cusp of switching my vote right before the caucus.Why all the vitriol from you fine, fantastic people? Bernie seems genuine; he has good intentions--I just don't understand the ire after reading this article.
And as someone who voted for Hillary in the primaries, I'd happily give Sanders my vote in 2020 ;D
So, I'm not American and don't really have a horse in the Bernie Sanders status debate, but I wonder where your view on this is coming from. It seems to me like it's based more on a media narrative than his actual statements and platform. Sanders in 1991 talking about criminal justice reform: "Let's stop locking up poor people and disproportionately punishing blacks". In 2016: "What we have to do is end over-policing in African- American neighborhoods. The African-American community and the white community do marijuana at about equal rates. The reality is four times as many blacks get arrested for marijuana." In 2018: "Now is the time to remove the ridiculous federal prohibition on marijuana. I'm proud to co-sponsor the Marijuana Justice Act." (The act expunges convictions, allows convicted people to sue states and withholds funds from states that criminalise marijuana and have disproportionate incarceration rates for minorities.)Being better than your average American isn't a praiseworthy quality nor a high bar to have set. As I said, until he starts actively making those stances apart of his policy specifically for marginalized groups of people i really don't care that he's done the bare minimum to educate himself on something he should have already had an awareness of.
to be clear, this is the same Marijuana Justice Act introduced by noted neoliberal shill Cory BookerIn 2018: "Now is the time to remove the ridiculous federal prohibition on marijuana. I'm proud to co-sponsor the Marijuana Justice Act." (The act expunges convictions, allows convicted people to sue states and withholds funds from states that criminalise marijuana and have disproportionate incarceration rates for minorities.)
It's simple:Ah, it makes the claim that Bernie isn't a socialist even more confusing then.
As I'm not sure whether or not you're using neoliberal shill earnestly or sarcastically and don't know much about Booker, I'll simply note that the topic is one where you'd expect to see considerable overlap between liberals and leftists (and even libertarians).to be clear, this is the same Marijuana Justice Act introduced by noted neoliberal shill Cory Booker
love seeing transnational comparisons of where political parties stand on The Spectrum as if institutional inertia isn't practically the only reason most of Europe's center-left can still be called a "center-left"
there's a reason this says "transnational comparisons" and not "comparative-politics-based comparisons" and it's because the idea that the Democrats would be center-right while European center-left parties are still center-left flies in the face of literally every governing party's record since at least 1998
You may misunderstand. I dont want to save rural America. I want to beat white rural America to a pulp at the ballot box and stop them from destroying this country. The southern strategy has gone national. It is the dark racist, xenophobic heart of the GOP.Yes, I'm keenly aware of history Kirblar.
My father grew up in rural Oklahoma, and Missouri, and his father's first congregation was an all-black church in rural Oklahoma. He was in a graduating class of 60. His Father sent home checks to his family during WW2 during the Works Progress Administration, and his father's father helped run an abolitionist movement in rural virginia.
I'm keenly aware of the historical Political issues that continue to face rural areas in this country. I've studied american literature and political literature, economic history going back over two hundred years. Because you've read some new yorker/politico media pieces that talk about voters in the 90s doesn't mean you have anything related to 'receipts'. This is just conjecture yet again, Kirblar in an attempt to appeal to shitty political authorities of the current day.
But nothing can get in the narrative of 'urban democrat to save rural america' narrative.
I like the guy and don't care how old he is, but I'd rather see him as a VP candidate or not on the ticket at all so that a socialist without so much baggage can take a crack at it.
And if we're lucky it'll never happen again! :)There aren't any other self-declared socialists on the national stage yet.
There aren't any other self-declared socialists on the national stage yet.
lmao young people love socialism, maybe cause they see where the world is headed if we continue down the path we currently are? Capitalism is not looking good for us otherwise. (Anecdotally, everyone my age that I know professes some amount of socialist belief, probably helps we all come from working class backgrounds in a "low income" area).
That's why I made the distinction of "some amount", overwhelmingly, most people aren't going to be bothered to actually figure out where they stand ideologically, they want to see real solutions that actually benefit them and the ones they care for (And that is completely fine to me at least). In this extremely broad category, I have personally found that people tend to edge towards "socialist" policy that is probably more accurately described as socially democratic (Free medicare, Free University). Also for context I'm from Australia where it's not as bad as America I guess????I'm still skeptical as to what percentage of Millennials and Gen Z think socialism means "tax the rich" vs. "collectivize MoP" whenever I see those polls saying the kids love socialism. But the higher the percentage, the more likely a good number of them are using the term correctly.
(But they're still probably mostly socdems)
It's not a dirty word, Socialism's just bad and ignores all history and data about how people actively behave in the real world. (note: Do not confuse w Social Democracy, which is perfectly fine. Its capitalist!)lmao young people love socialism, maybe cause they see where the world is headed if we continue down the path we currently are? Capitalism is not looking good for us otherwise. (Anecdotally, everyone my age that I know professes some amount of socialist belief, probably helps we all come from working class backgrounds in a "low income" area).
If socialism is still a dirty word to you, maybe it's you who has to move on with the times.
Lol yeah, true.
You may misunderstand. I dont want to save rural America. I want to beat white rural America to a pulp at the ballot box and stop them from destroying this country. The southern strategy has gone national. It is the dark racist, xenophobic heart of the GOP.
It's not a dirty word, Socialism's just bad and ignores all history and data about how people actively behave in the real world. (note: Do not confuse w Social Democracy, which is perfectly fine. Its capitalist!
I want to believe that the Bernie stuff is just a fight over the direction of the Democratic Party. They gotta stop chasing the center and being concerned with decorum.They're still trying to appeal to centrists and still believe in the idea of compromise. So whatever.
No, in a "The GOP is a unholy alliance between racist white people and mustache twirlin' high polutin' big business caricatures" way. The racist white people are where they get their votes. They are the base that supports the otherwise unpopular GOP shit. To take out the tripod, take out the legs.I really hope you don't mean this in an Urban Archipelago way
Kirblar no offence but I have never seen a take from you that wasn't 100% in line with the whole low level NoVa internet lanyard class who imo are the people who got us here in the first place
If human nature were really so fickle, we never would have made it out of the stone age. If human nature were as self serving as you say, nobody would form human relationships for anything other than their own personal benefit.It's not a dirty word, Socialism's just bad and ignores all history and data about how people actively behave in the real world. (note: Do not confuse w Social Democracy, which is perfectly fine. Its capitalist!)
Capitalism works because people are self interested. Because its impossible for any one person to know what every person wants and needs at any time. Because you need a system that rewards you for providing things to other people that they desire. Because you need a system that rewards innovation and punishes stagnation. Because people are usually good at only a few things and you want them to be able to specialize. Because on the flip side, most people are trash at many, many things and you want to keep them out of decisionmaking in areas they know nothing about.
It's not that capitalism is perfect, you absolutely need to regulate it and provide social benefits via taxation. But you dont need "Socialism" for that.
No, in a "The GOP is a unholy alliance between racist white people and mustache twirlin' high polutin' big business caricatures" way. The racist white people are where they get their votes. They are the base that supports the otherwise unpopular GOP shit. To take out the tripod, take out the legs.
I'm sorry that people in my area have desk jobs where they use their brain for a living offends you? Where on earth is "here" that we got us to. Modern America is service-economy based. It's why the gulf between large cities and small ones has been growing and growing.
And this is why you are what will destroy the democrats.A complete lack of attempt at understanding the problem.You may misunderstand. I dont want to save rural America. I want to beat white rural America to a pulp at the ballot box and stop them from destroying this country. The southern strategy has gone national. It is the dark racist, xenophobic heart of the GOP.
People wanting to do things for their kids and such is self-interest. But people are tribalistic. It's doing things for people they don't know that becomes the problem.If human nature were really so fickle, we never would have made it out of the stone age. If human nature were as self serving as you say, nobody would form human relationships for anything other than their own personal benefit.
Capitalism is set to destroy the Earth and yet you keep trying to defend it, though, it's not like you'll receive the brunt of the damage from climate change like people my age will. We're growing into an increasingly grim future and I honestly can't say whether or not you even understand that.
When Trump's winning those areas 80/20...they kinda are.Well, sure. But racist white people aren't congruous with "rural America."
I'm not talking about office workers in general. I'm talking about the current vanguard (such as it is) of extremely online process-oriented West Wing loving Democrats.
And what problem is that.And this is why you are what will destroy the democrats.A complete lack of attempt at understanding the problem.
As if being 1984 weren't enough, it's also the 25th anniversary this year of C. P. Snow's famous Rede Lecture, ''The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,'' notable for its warning that intellectual life in the West was becoming increasingly polarized into ''literary'' and ''scientific'' factions, each doomed not to understand or appreciate the other. The lecture was originally meant to address such matters as curriculum reform in the age of Sputnik and the role of technology in the development of what would soon be known as the third world. But it was the two-culture formulation that got people's attention. In fact it kicked up an amazing row in its day. To some already simplified points, further reductions were made, provoking certain remarks, name-calling, even intemperate rejoinders, giving the whole affair, though attenuated by the mists of time, a distinctly cranky look.No, in a "The GOP is a unholy alliance between racist white people and mustache twirlin' high polutin' big business caricatures" way. The racist white people are where they get their votes. They are the base that supports the otherwise unpopular GOP shit. To take out the tripod, take out the legs.
I'm sorry that people in my area have desk jobs where they use their brain for a living offends you? Where on earth is "here" that we got us to. Modern America is service-economy based. It's why the gulf between large cities and small ones has been growing and growing.
This is the kind of garbage i'd expect to hear a high school student belch in opposition to socialism or socialist policies.It's not a dirty word, Socialism's just bad and ignores all history and data about how people actively behave in the real world. (note: Do not confuse w Social Democracy, which is perfectly fine. Its capitalist!)
Capitalism works because people are self interested. Because its impossible for any one person to know what every person wants and needs at any time. Because you need a system that rewards you for providing things to other people that they desire. Because you need a system that rewards innovation and punishes stagnation. Because people are usually good at only a few things and you want them to be able to specialize. Because on the flip side, most people are trash at many, many things and you want to keep them out of decisionmaking in areas they know nothing about.
It's not that capitalism is perfect, you absolutely need to regulate it and provide social benefits via taxation. But you dont need "Socialism" for that.
capitalism would work just fine if we didn't have corrupt politicians. We've never seen true capitalism. That's why it's so odd people hate it since they don't actually hate IT, but the symptoms of a broken capitalistic system.lmao young people love socialism, maybe cause they see where the world is headed if we continue down the path we currently are? Capitalism is not looking good for us otherwise. (Anecdotally, everyone my age that I know professes some amount of socialist belief, probably helps we all come from working class backgrounds in a "low income" area).
If socialism is still a dirty word to you, maybe it's you who has to move on with the times.
I do not believe we're ever getting off this rock- I don't believe Space Travel will ever happen. Everything will eventually burn. So we should enjoy it while we can while trying to make it last as long as possible.
And if the fillbuster isn't nuked the next time we have a trifecta I'm going to have one hell of a voicemail to leave Chuck Schumer. It was obvious during '09 that it needed to die and that Dems needed to play hardball w/ process stuff (Make PR/DC states, kill the 1929 reapportionment act, etc.)
It's not garbage. It's the foundation of why the system works. Netflix killing Blockbuster is an example of the "reward Innovation, punish Stagnation" thing.This is the kind of garbage i'd expect to hear a high school student belch in opposition to socialism or socialist policies.
Your healthcare system would like a word.It's not garbage. It's the foundation of why the system works.
It's not garbage. It's the foundation of why the system works.
The (terrible) US healthcare system emerged out of WWII wage regulation (wages were capped, benefits were not, Health insurance became a norm as a result as firms competed for workers and maintained itself even after the WWII wage caps were lifted), was a complete accident, and is pretty universally agreed upon by virtually any economist/healthcare professional to be in need of massive reform. We almost had near-universal coverage under Nixon w/ a similar setup to the ACA, Kennedy scutttled the deal, and we then paid for it for 3 decades because of Carter's incompetence and because the Dems at the time didn't see the rising, angry white tide coming/ And so we only got the ACA step done in '09, and even then it was incomplete and missing the Public Option because they didn't nuke the filibuster.