• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
Where the supporters for the top candidates would go second:

L7b7JCv.png


https://morningconsult.com/wp-conte...ng-Consult_Political-Intelligence_2.12.19.pdf

Everything about Biden's coalition continues to be weird and Harris is the clear anti-Bernie/Warren candidate.

I believe Harris' base of support is among minority women at the moment. Minorities aren't so much anti-Sanders/Warren, as polling has indicated before. I would surmise that those voters just think that those particular candidates speak to their issues better, namely the civil rights and immigration ones.

Bernie Sanders is doing the right thing in trying to make sure that his campaign leadership is as diverse and as full of women as possible, if what is being reported is true.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
How long before Bernie bros stop defending Omar and start digging up dirt on her not being a true progressive?



https://twitter.com/neoblackout/status/1095744548016246784

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/20/is-ilhan-omar-donald-trumps-worst-nightmare/


love Bernie but that is one of the most reasonable takes possible. thinking we need some new blood after 2016, warren is great, harris is great, booker.....

Where the supporters for the top candidates would go second:

L7b7JCv.png


https://morningconsult.com/wp-conte...ng-Consult_Political-Intelligence_2.12.19.pdf

Everything about Biden's coalition continues to be weird and Harris is the clear anti-Bernie/Warren candidate.

this still just feels like name recognition with everyone having biden or sanders as 1st or 2nd
 

Kitsunelaine

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,382
You're aggressively insistent that I disagree with your assessment of leftists re: their support/lack thereof of Bernie while I'm clearly not, but yeah "Bernie bros" literally is the definition of a pejorative. Using the word as some nebulous boogieman to refer to people left of oneself, whether or not they are actually the type of people to believe "Bernie and his fans are perfect," is a very common practice.

and my point is that people who say that it is a prejorative overwhelmingly say it's just a prejorative in order to avoid the often very legitimate criticisms levvied via implication or statement alongside the word which makes me incredibly weary of people who dismiss that phrase because in doing so they also dismiss the context within it and treat it as simple name-calling in order to avoid any substance

anyway this isn't an argument i'm really interested in continuing when i've said my point, just know: heavy side-eye here
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
I'd say Harris is my 1st choice with Sanders as my 2nd, currently. I'm not sure if I should be surprised that no one else seems to share that sentiment. I'm mostly going for confidence that the candidate can beat Trump mixed with not sacrificing important goals like M4A and Green new deal. In that regard Harris seems to be a clear #1. I guess Warren would be my 3rd choice at the moment, she has the left-leaning bonafides but I don't have as much faith in her ability to beat Trump. I'd have to see what an O'Rourke presidential campaign looks like before figuring out where I'd place him. Either way, I'm surprised Harris has neither Sanders nor Warren in their second choice rankings.

I would bet money that if we broke out male Harris supporters from female supporters, that the data would reflect your thinking. Sanders and Warren would probably be top 3.
 

GiantBreadbug

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,992
and my point is that people who say that it is a prejorative overwhelmingly say it's just a prejorative in order to avoid the often very legitimate criticisms levvied via implication or statement alongside the word which makes me incredibly weary of people who dismiss that phrase because in doing so they also dismiss the context within it

anyway this isn't an argument i'm really interested in continuing when i've said my post, just know: heavy side-eye here

And my point is that using an smear that hasn't had context since 2016 to levy implications through disingenuous association is the literal definition of using a pejorative, is intellectually dishonest, and liberal use of the term as an insult to a person based on their proximity to one's idea of "the left" rather than based on anything actually having to do with Bernie Sanders is basically worthless as a point of contention and is the argumentative equivalent of, well, a side eye.

So mission accomplished on your part I guess.
 
Jan 15, 2019
4,393


Yikes. It would be one thing if most of those listed were actually 2020 Democrats to watch, but literally everyone there not named Biden, Bernie and Beto are complete non-starters. You could maybe argue a case for Sherrod Brown, too, but that's it.
I would bet money that if we broke out male Harris supporters from female supporters, that the data would reflect your thinking. Sanders and Warren would probably be top 3.

You might be right. Not to mention Biden's popularity as a 2nd choice at this point is mostly name recognition. I wouldn't be surprised if this same polling looks a lot different by June or maybe even April.
 

Deleted member 15440

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
i do always appreciate that bernie is sometimes jewish ("racist rural voters will never go for a jew president") and sometimes a white guy ("ugh another old white guy, step aside")
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
i do always appreciate that bernie is sometimes jewish ("racist rural voters will never go for a jew president") and sometimes a white guy ("ugh another old white guy, step aside")
Those two aspects of his identity are not mutually incompatible. (The first argument is ridiculous mostly because he's got a billion other things that would be issues before that.)
 

Iloelemen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,323
We saw people coming for AOC yesterday after she put out a pitch-perfect statement on the Omar tweets that should have just put it to bed and let people on the left half point their pitchforks back at horrible people like McCarthy and Trump, but instead she was attacked by certain virulently awful types on the "left" like Michael Tracey. Whatever you want to call them, they're a thing.

Attacked?
She was criticized 'cos they were disappointed in her response because her response is safe and weak.

Now, it might've been the perfect response at the time (after all, she needs to focus on Domestic issues like the Green New Deal) but by being designed to be as inoffensive as possible towards everyone's that's non-Republican, it ultimately lacked in the support for Omar at the time when she's being smeared by basically everyone and the media and in that regard, it's weak.

She's not being cancelled (except for the types who've already hated her before). People were disappointed, but she's not being cancelled. She's being criticized because there's a want for her to further improve her grasp on issues, especially foreign policy related ones which are her weak points. Doubly so after the whole Jeremy Corbhn kerfuffle.

Wishing your lawmakers were better, what a concept!
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
She was criticized 'cos they were disappointed in her response because her response is safe and weak.
No, she wasn't. That's not disappointment, that's anger, and people accusing her or the people she referenced that she spoke to privately of being dishonest, and the first three names are all RT-adjacent. Which isn't an accident. And this crap will continue to escalate now that we're in Presidential election season.
 

Snowy

Banned
Nov 11, 2017
1,399
Attacked?
She was criticized 'cos they were disappointed in her response because her response is safe and weak.

Now, it might've been the perfect response at the time (after all, she needs to focus on Domestic issues like the Green New Deal) but by being designed to be as inoffensive as possible towards everyone's that's non-Republican, it ultimately lacked in the support for Omar at the time when she's being smeared by basically everyone and the media and in that regard, it's weak.

She's not being cancelled (except for the types who've already hated her before). People were disappointed, but she's not being cancelled. She's being criticized because there's a want for her to further improve her grasp on issues, especially foreign policy related ones which are her weak points. Doubly so after the whole Jeremy Corbhn kerfuffle.

Wishing your lawmakers were better, what a concept!

As a friend said - a little bad can overshadow even a lot of good, and commenting at all on the Omar situation if it was going to be anything other than a rousing condemnation of the bad faith and myopia of the whole thing was a bad move.
 

Iloelemen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,323
No, she wasn't. That's not disappointment, that's anger, and people accusing her or the people she referenced that she spoke to privately of being dishonest, and the first three names are all RT-adjacent. Which isn't an accident. And this crap will continue to escalate now that we're in Presidential election season.
People were disappointed. People were disappointed that her support for her colleague who is being attacked by all sides including the President and the media was weak and lacking.And since emotions were high that time, there was misplaced anger and Paranoia too ( probably came from the Corbyn thing. It's an excuse that's not excusable since it ultimately puts the Jewish community under the bus, but it's a reason) BUT, she isn't being cancelled, people are disappointed but people are gonna push her to do better.
 

element252

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
719
So is the DNC and Democrats in the primaries going to vote in a progressive candidate this time such as Sanders or Warren to be the Rep. for the Democratic Party in 2020 or we will see another safe pro-corporate candidate like Hilliary.

I see Harris and Booker as the center-left candidates or the candidates who will be running, primarily Super-PAC corporate funded campaigns.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
So is the DNC and Democrats in the primaries going to vote in a progressive candidate this time such as Sanders or Warren to be the Rep. for the Democratic Party in 2020 or we will see another safe pro-corporate candidate like Hilliary.

I see Harris and Booker as the center-left candidates or the candidates who will be running, primarily Super-PAC corporate funded campaigns.
Harris has the second most progressive voting record in the senate, and is running very left in her primary race so far in policy.

Oh and she is refusing PAC support.


So uh, what?
 
Jan 15, 2019
4,393
So is the DNC and Democrats in the primaries going to vote in a progressive candidate this time such as Sanders or Warren to be the Rep. for the Democratic Party in 2020 or we will see another safe pro-corporate candidate like Hilliary.

I see Harris and Booker as the center-left candidates or the candidates who will be running, primarily Super-PAC corporate funded campaigns.
Both Harris and Booker have disavowed using corporate PACs. I think you're trying to dilute this into an "establishment" vs "anti-establishment" paradigm that can't really be applied to the candidates.
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
Harris has the second most progressive voting record in the senate, and is running very left in her primary race so far in policy.

Oh and she is refusing PAC support.


So uh, what?

Booker is also refusing corporate PAC support and also votes to the left.

element252 You're going to have to give a really clear explanation on where your perception of these candidates comes from.
 

Deleted member 10551

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,031
I think Harris is the favorite now because she's the one candidate I can see being acceptable to enough progressives and moderates, and being the first choice of enough to make it to that point.
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
I'm rooting for Jared Kushner to jump in the fray just so someone can ask him about his marijuana consumption
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
And my point is that using an smear that hasn't had context since 2016 to levy implications through disingenuous association is the literal definition of using a pejorative, is intellectually dishonest, and liberal use of the term as an insult to a person based on their proximity to one's idea of "the left" rather than based on anything actually having to do with Bernie Sanders is basically worthless as a point of contention and is the argumentative equivalent of, well, a side eye.

So mission accomplished on your part I guess.

If you want to work out a shitlib/Bernie bro deescalation treaty I would follow your progress with interest but frankly I'm disinterested in tone policing from the people who invented the "dirtbag left" otherwise
 

element252

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
719
Booker is also refusing corporate PAC support and also votes to the left.

element252 You're going to have to give a really clear explanation on where your perception of these candidates comes from.


Well in the case of Booker his previous campaigns for the US Senate, he took a bulk of campaign funding from the real estate industry as well as the banking and investing industries from companies such as Goldman Sachs. https://www.opensecrets.org/races/contributors?cycle=2014&id=NJS2&spec=N

Booker changed his stance recently but in the past he catered more towards the center on issues. I see he stances on issues as pandering and would not seriously implement things like Medicare for All.

Harris isn't as bad as Booker and leans more progressive on issues than he does. But Kamala Harris has already walked backed her support of Medicare For All by saying nothing is off the table. So is open to more simple reform.

Here is her campaign funding history. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00036915&cycle=2018
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Well in the case of Booker his previous campaigns for the US Senate, he took a bulk of campaign funding from the real estate industry as well as the banking and investing industries such as Goldman Sachs. https://www.opensecrets.org/races/contributors?cycle=2014&id=NJS2&spec=N

Booker changed his stance recently but in the past he catered more towards the center on issues. I see he stances on issues as pandering and would not seriously implement things like Medicare for All.

Harris isn't as bad as Booker and leans more progressive on issues than he does. But Kamala Harris has already walked backed her support of Medicare For All by saying nothing is off the table. So is open to more simple reform.

Here is her campaign funding history. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00036915&cycle=2018
No serious candidate has ruled out passing compromise measures that aren't their preferred position. Not even Bernie. Because they would be insane to do so.
 

element252

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
719
No serious candidate has ruled out passing compromise measures that aren't their preferred position. Not even Bernie. Because they would be insane to do so.

But you do not compromise and walk back out of support for Single Payer, especially before the primary election season has officially started.

Sanders has a long record in the House and Senate backing things such as Medicate for All and also more recently bringing back Glass-Steagall. Something Warren also supports. He was of the few who called out the forth coming disaster that would occur from passage of the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodites-Futures Act which overturned Glass-Steagall and ultimately lead to the 2008 market crash.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
But you do not compromise and walk back out of support for Single Payer, especially before the primary election season has officially started.

Sanders has a long record in the House and Senate backing things such as Medicate for All and also more recently bringing back Glass-Steagall. Something Warren also supports. He was of the few who called out the forth coming disaster that would occur from passage of the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodites-Futures Act which overturned Glass-Steagall and ultimately lead to the 2008 market crash.
She did not do that. We can dig up the posts. Her staff reached out to CNN trying to clarfiy it was her preferred position but she wasn't opposed to alternatives, but somewhere in the telephone game it got REAL botched and had to be corrected a second time.

The reason she and literally every other candidate except maybe Bernie don't want to talk specifics on this, with a shiny new non-KFF graph:
Per other polling, this is not an anomaly.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
No serious candidate has ruled out passing compromise measures that aren't their preferred position. Not even Bernie. Because they would be insane to do so.
True but i think you can talk about how far to the left a candidate will be willing to push based on their back ground. Booker inspires little confidence while Kamala for me at least inspires slightly more.
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
She did not do that. We can dig up the posts. Her staff reached out to CNN trying to clarfiy it was her preferred position but she wasn't opposed to alternatives, but somewhere in the telephone game it got REAL botched and had to be corrected a second time.

The reason she and literally every other candidate except maybe Bernie don't want to talk specifics on this, with a shiny new non-KFF graph:

Per other polling, this is not an anomaly.

Man that's not good data viz
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
True but i think you can talk about how far to the left a candidate will be willing to push based on their back ground. Booker inspires little confidence while Kamala for me at least inspires slightly more.
The truth is that it really doesn't matter. Pelosi is going to push the bill as far leftwards as she can get, and then we have to a) get the Senate, b) nuke the buster, c) get it through a body that's more conservative than the House even w a nuked buster because we won't have the 59-60 seats we did for flex room back in 2009.

And on top of that, Hillary laid out lots of specifics in her plan and Obama bashed her with them in the primary.
Man that's not good data viz
Yeah, I couldn't find the source poll yet, it may not be fully public. It was more a "add it to the pile" at this point since KFF showed the exact same problem.

edit2: Here it is, this is actually a giganto polling set https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/190211_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_ML-1.pdf
 

Iloelemen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,323
If you're gonna subtweet just tag people.

I legitimately have a big issue with statements shes made on Foreign Policy while shes been good in other areas. Fixing those is possible but if they aren't it will make it hard to trust her overall if she's sourcing info from propaganda mills.
It's for the best if she really improves and becomes better.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
The truth is that it really doesn't matter. Pelosi is going to push the bill as far leftwards as she can get, and then we have to a) get the Senate, b) nuke the buster, c) get it through a body that's more conservative than the House even w a nuked buster because we won't have the 59-60 seats we did for flex room back in 2009.

And on top of that, Hillary laid out lots of specifics in her plan and Obama bashed her with them in the primary.

Yeah, I couldn't find the source poll yet, it may not be fully public. It was more a "add it to the pile" at this point since KFF showed the exact same problem.

edit2: Here it is, this is actually a giganto polling set https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/190211_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_ML-1.pdf
I disagree, why even bother arguing about the presidential primary if the results are going to be the same. The truth is that stronger and more outspoken the president is on a issue the more space is created to push left. You can present polling data showing the current support breakdown for M4A, but what about the polling before Bernie entered the scene. Its the jobs of dems and the dem party to sell good policy and the president plays a large role in that
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
I disagree, why even bother arguing about the presidential primary if the results are going to be the same. The truth is that stronger and more outspoken the president is on a issue the more space is created to push left. You can present polling data showing the current support breakdown for M4A, but what about the polling before Bernie entered the scene. Its the jobs of dems and the dem party to sell good policy and the president plays a large role in that
To push left you need to reform the Senate, starting with killing the buster, expand the House and kill the E.C.

With 3 veto points in the legislative process the furthest right one will always be the most important one on legislation. And that's the Senate.
 

UberTag

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
15,340
Kitchener, ON
Meanwhile on @TheSimpsons official Twitter account...



Almost looks like they put the same head on Sherrod Brown and Michael Bloomberg. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
(The snow cloud above Klobuchar is a nice touch.)
 
Last edited:

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
To push left you need to reform the Senate, starting with killing the buster, expand the House and kill the E.C.

With 3 veto points in the legislative process the furthest right one will always be the most important one on legislation. And that's the Senate.
Ok how does that refute my point? Does electing some one more principled or historically supportive of m4a stop that, especially given Booker came out against killing the filibuster.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Ok how does that refute my point? Does electing some one more principled or historically supportive of m4a stop that, especially given Booker came out against killing the filibuster.
I'm saying electing someone hellbent on pushing it leftward won't be successful no matter how hard they try.

And when you have a massive disconnect between a President and the legislative caucus of their party, bad things can result. We saw this with Carter being completely misaligned with the Dems in his era, and you're seeing it again with Trump now to a degree where nothing got done despite having a lock on all the branches.
 

GiantBreadbug

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,992
If you want to work out a shitlib/Bernie bro deescalation treaty I would follow your progress with interest but frankly I'm disinterested in tone policing from the people who invented the "dirtbag left" otherwise

Not really interested in policing anything. Just pointing out how the term has become borderline comical from its incessant use by some as a strawmanish punching bag to strike out against people who criticize the Democrats from the left. People are free to continue using the term as they like, obviously.

I happen to think it's repellent to folks on the left who are discontent with a lot of what the Democratic Party is and how it operates when they are sometimes blanketed with the term, but it is what it is.
 

element252

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
719
She did not do that. We can dig up the posts. Her staff reached out to CNN trying to clarfiy it was her preferred position but she wasn't opposed to alternatives, but somewhere in the telephone game it got REAL botched and had to be corrected a second time.

The reason she and literally every other candidate except maybe Bernie don't want to talk specifics on this, with a shiny new non-KFF graph:

Per other polling, this is not an anomaly.

This is based on getting rid of private insurance. Plenty of countries have Universal Health Care and also have a private insurance option. It does not have to be one or the other.

Bernie does not waver on this issue because he is passionate about it and has been in favor of this for most of his life.

I am not convinced Harris is sincere about her position on this issue. She and Booker are strategizing and are trying to take support away from Warren and Sanders early in the election cycle. I do not believe that they are willing to go up to bat for Medicare for All.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
I'm saying electing someone hellbent on pushing it leftward won't be successful no matter how hard they try.

And when you have a massive disconnect between a President and the legislative caucus of their party, bad things can result. We saw this with Carter being completely misaligned with the Dems in his era, and you're seeing it again with Trump now to a degree where nothing got done despite having a lock on all the branches.
Im not familiar with why Carter was ineffective, but i could point out the disastrous outcomes of not addressing these systemic issues in the future. We should be pushing left candidates across the board so they arent misaligned and its a good a time as any. I dont get whats achieved by arguing we shouldnt push as left as possible when so much is at stake. The only real issue i see is wall street being hostile to people like Bernie and Warren, but if it comes to that its the job of people on the left to push back and not aquiesce.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
This is based on getting rid of private insurance. Plenty of countries have Universal Health Care and also have a private insurance option. It does not have to be one or the other.

Bernie does not waver on this issue because he is passionate about it and has been in favor of this for most of his life.

I am not convinced Harris is sincere about her position on this issue. She and Booker are strategizing and are trying to take support away from Warren and Sanders early in the election cycle. I do not believe that they are willing to go up to bat for Medicare for All.
Single Payer systems have supplementary private insurance. Multi payer uses private insurance as one of multiple baseline insurance options, usually alongside public options.

It's a very big distinction and the reason this causes a lot of anxiety is that half the US population is currently covered via employer-sponsored health plans.

No one is going to be passing single payer, not even Bernie, because the votes are not there for it.
 

element252

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
719
Single Payer systems have supplementary private insurance. Multi payer uses private insurance as one of multiple baseline insurance options, usually alongside public options.

It's a very big distinction and the reason this causes a lot of anxiety is that half the US population is currently covered via employer-sponsored health plans.

No one is going to be passing single payer, not even Bernie, because the votes are not there for it.

If the American people would be willing to vote for more U.S. Senators who support Medicare for All then the votes would be there.

But you cannot have a defeatist attitude when the battle is truly starting to begin for Medicare for All, in this country.

I am 40 years old and I remember when Universal Health Care was never talked about by sitting politicians or the National Media in the scope it is now. And that is because public support has increased for it to be implemented despite what center-right stance the corporate media wants to shove down our throats on this issue.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
If the American people would be willing to vote for more U.S. Senators who support Medicare for All then the votes would be there.

But you cannot have a defeatist attitude when the battle is truly starting to begin for Medicare for All, in this country.

I am 40 years old and I remember when Universal Health Care was never talked about by sitting politicians or the National Media in the scope it is now. And that is because public support has increased for it to be implemented despite what center-right stance the corporate media wants to shove down our throats on this issue.

The question is - do we have it yet? Unless we get those politicians MfA is not passing congress.

This isn't about having defeatism attitude, it's being realistic. A lot of voters have been burnt continuously by politicians failing to do the impossible, because it was impossible or they weren't given the necessarily politically backing and/or time to achieve their goals. Obama being the modern poster boy for this, which the left insists of forgetting. The battle is starting, which is crucial for you note to get your hopes up because it's a very slow process for things like this. It's nowhere near the end.

Which is great to get the ball rolling, but that's all it does. Get the ball rolling. Now what? It's important for the right things to get in place to implement MfA and that's going to be tougher than simply talking. Anyone can talk, the hard part is backing it up.

I'm saying electing someone hellbent on pushing it leftward won't be successful no matter how hard they try.

And when you have a massive disconnect between a President and the legislative caucus of their party, bad things can result. We saw this with Carter being completely misaligned with the Dems in his era, and you're seeing it again with Trump now to a degree where nothing got done despite having a lock on all the branches.

This.

But you do not compromise and walk back out of support for Single Payer, especially before the primary election season has officially started.

This is politics, compromise is the number one rule. You don't do that, you get nothing - which Bernie never seemed to figure out. It's early yet, the primaries don't officially start for months and many things can change until then, including Single Payer being popular.

Sanders has a long record in the House and Senate backing things such as Medicate for All and also more recently bringing back Glass-Steagall. Something Warren also supports. He was of the few who called out the forth coming disaster that would occur from passage of the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodites-Futures Act which overturned Glass-Steagall and ultimately lead to the 2008 market crash.

Bernie has a record of saying everything and very little record of getting it through congress, you're confusing him with candidates like Warren and Klobuchar who get shit done. Bernie's also the guy who had no idea how to break up the banks or how damaging shadow banking was.
 
Last edited:

Artdayne

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
5,015
If you all are so interested in compromise just vote for Amy Klobuchar then, I've known quite a few Republicans and Democrats that like her.

Amy "gets shit done" while also thinking Medicare for All is far too optimistic. Please. I'm not sure I want done the things that she "gets done".

Bernie has moved the overton window substantially to the left and has paved the way for people like AOC, he's DONE a lot more than Klobuchar for people who actually want to accomplish true change. Across the country you have places raising the minimum wage substantially, I think it's pretty inarguable that Bernie has done a lot to make that happen. He's brought M4A to public attention and now the majority of Americans want it.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
If you all are so interested in compromise just vote for Amy Klobuchar then, I've known quite a few Republicans and Democrats that like her.

Amy "gets shit done" while also thinking Medicare for All is far too optimistic. Please. I'm not sure I want done the things that she "gets done".

That's the thing with getting shit done, they happen in reality. Are they all we want? No, but this politics and this is where Bernie fail. This isn't an issue as far as goals, there are many, many opinions I agree with him on but agreeing with him on those things won't somehow make them any easier to get through congress which end up helping people n the real world. Which is what matters. Do you want things to get done at all, or a lame duck who won't accomplish anything?

Bernie has moved the overton window substantially to the left and has paved the way for people like AOC, he's DONE a lot more than Klobuchar for people who actually want to accomplish true change.

Across the country you have places raising the minimum wage substantially, I think it's pretty inarguable that Bernie has done a lot to make that happen.

This is about pushing bills through congress, the end game of Bernie's pushing the Overton window left, which won't mean much without politicians like Klobuchar, doing the job he should be putting more effort into. That's accomplishing true change, true change is what it says - change - it's not moving just outside congress its impacting what's in it and his field is outside not inside. Which he only got going from '16, it's not like he's spent his life getting these results.

AOC is drinking his milkshake as a wonk in congress, right now! lol First month in congress and she knows more about implementing laws and working on financial adjustments in government programs than he did in his entire career. He gets credit for launching an environment for her to thrive, but he was not involved in creating the JD's, recruiting her or mentoring her. He doesn't do that shit with anybody. Right wing media did more to prop her up than Bernie did, and right after that boost she lifted herself up to a leftist political icon rivalling Bernie himself by her own two hands, inside and outside congress.

It's odd how too many leftists attribute "real change" with being outside the government, while it's true that is vital in getting change happen it is useless without shifting the wheels in congress which produce bills that affect everybody's lives. It's not on twitter, You Tube or interviews on tv shows. That is where the true power in America lies. It works alongside, not a means unto itself because by itself it does nothing. Look at Occupy Wall Street, they did all that and without congress backing them up they accomplished nothing significant because all they wanted was a conversation, not making laws.

His voting record barely has a gap with progressivism than Kamala Harris. The majority of his career he's been an obscure nobody he didn't move a damn thing left, which occurred over decades, well, aside from threatening to challenge Obama once. Thankfully he didn't go though with that bullshit.

He's brought M4A to public attention and now the majority of Americans want it.

If he did more of this my opinion of him would be higher, but he doesn't. He's good at getting the public talking and doing opinion to the left, I agree, but that seems to be the plateau of his congressional influence. He gets others to do the actual work, and gets all the credit when they succeed but none if they fail. Why would you support a lazy politician like that? Maybe he'd better off as an activist, because his track record as an active congressman isn't that spectacular.

Wanting it isn't enough, his job isn't to be a cheer leader its to be politician and the biggest influence they have is passing laws in congress. That's something he can do, but it's not the whole job by any stretch. Which he has a shit record with, at least Warren is out there in congress paving the way for it to occur, Bernie can't be bothered to work on his own niche in economics when that was he was elected to do. Warren may be a capitalist but she's more of a left wing hero fighting for your causes in congress than he ever was.
 
Last edited:

Jas

Member
Oct 28, 2017
201
This is about pushing bills through congress, the end game of Bernie's pushing the Overton window left, which won't mean much without politicians like Klobuchar, doing the job he should be putting more effort into. That's accomplishing true change, true change is what it says - change - it's not moving just outside congress its impacting what's in it and his field is outside not inside. Which he only got going from '16, it's not like he's spent his life getting these results.

His voting record barely has a gap with progressivism than Kamala Harris.

True Change...




 

Iloelemen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,323
That's the thing with getting shit done, they happen in reality. Are they all we want? No, but this politics and this is where Bernie fail. This isn't an issue as far as goals, there are many, many opinions I agree with him on but agreeing with him on those things won't somehow make them any easier to get through congress which end up helping people n the real world. Which is what matters. Do you want things to get done at all, or a lame duck who won't accomplish anything?



This is about pushing bills through congress, the end game of Bernie's pushing the Overton window left, which won't mean much without politicians like Klobuchar, doing the job he should be putting more effort into. That's accomplishing true change, true change is what it says - change - it's not moving just outside congress its impacting what's in it and his field is outside not inside. Which he only got going from '16, it's not like he's spent his life getting these results.

AOC is drinking his milkshake as a wonk in congress, right now! lol First month in congress and she knows more about implementing laws and working on financial adjustments in government programs than he did in his entire career. He gets credit for launching an environment for her to thrive, but he was not involved in creating the JD's, recruiting her or mentoring her. He doesn't do that shit with anybody. Right wing media did more to prop her up than Bernie did, and right after that boost she lifted herself up to a leftist political icon rivalling Bernie himself by her own two hands, inside and outside congress.

It's odd how too many leftists attribute "real change" with being outside the government, while it's true that is vital in getting change happen it is useless without shifting the wheels in congress which produce bills that affect everybody's lives. It's not on twitter, You Tube or interviews on tv shows. That is where the true power in America lies. It works alongside, not a means unto itself because by itself it does nothing. Look at Occupy Wall Street, they did all that and without congress backing them up they accomplished nothing significant because all they wanted was a conversation, not making laws.

His voting record barely has a gap with progressivism than Kamala Harris. The majority of his career he's been an obscure nobody he didn't move a damn thing left, which occurred over decades, well, aside from threatening to challenge Obama once. Thankfully he didn't go though with that bullshit.



If he did more of this my opinion of him would be higher, but he doesn't. He's good at getting the public talking and doing opinion to the left, I agree, but that seems to be the plateau of his congressional influence. He gets others to do the actual work, and gets all the credit when they succeed but none if they fail. Why would you support a lazy politician like that? Maybe he'd better off as an activist, because his track record as an active congressman isn't that spectacular.

Wanting it isn't enough, his job isn't to be a cheer leader its to be politician and the biggest influence they have is passing laws in congress. That's something he can do, but it's not the whole job by any stretch. Which he has a shit record with, at least Warren is out there in congress paving the way for it to occur, Bernie can't be bothered to work on his own niche in economics when that was he was elected to do. Warren may be a capitalist but she's more of a left wing hero fighting for your causes in congress than he ever was.
If you want to look at real change, look at what's been accomplished by the fuckery that is the Republican party. For the past 5 decades, they've succeeded in moving the overton window way to the right and in implementing they're agenda, they've continuously lower taxes and privatise everything, thanks to them we have Fox News, they've succeded in putting racist policies and voter suppression laws, they've succeded in instilling a culture of blind loyalty to the military and have waged havoc on whatver country with brown people and hey, they're almost there in removing abortion rights.

By the number of times that they've got closer to their agenda, they've continuously managed to play the Democrats in the Republicans' game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.