2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
This campaign is going to be a hilarious train wreck. I can't wait.
Warren might be 1000% better than Kamala but her issues will absolutely sink her campaign, unlike Harris.
There aren’t affirmative action programmes when you’re registering for a law license in Texas.
Anything divisive is a national security threat, apparently. Overturn Roe v. Wade or the Russians win.
Wasn’t Abrams a justice dem/our revolution endorsed candidate?
Particularly after the effects of the Trump election and the statistical rise of white nationalism, there should be zero (0) push back to the claim that civil rights are a national security issue.
If you define national security issue so broadly that it ceases to be a meaningful concept.
The existence of the human species is a national security risk to the United States
if you support abortion you're literally killing the troops of tomorrow
ask yourself - who would do that, and what side would they be on
Ill have to look more into Klobuchar but she doesn't seem anywhere close to the most progressive politician in the primary. However im all for anyone running who would allow Bernie or Warren to win the primary.
As long as Kamala acts like she is now it's hers to lose. Maybe it'll change in the future, but for now their chances are slimmer by her being there and she has the advantage in California - which is pushed up to March.
Don't forget the number of caucus states have been reduced.
Maybe Bernie fans are worried that Stacie Abrams might run for president after how well her SOTU response went?
Just guessing as to why they might start attacking her as a neoliberal grifter... if there's some other reason I'd love to hear it.
Also my question wasn't rhetorical: Are there acceptable American politicians besides Bernie and (as of half a year ago) AOC? Who else is worthy? Or are those two supposed to run the government by themselves, maybe with some assistance from Lee Carter...
I don't think Beto is running, or if he does his messaging is in the same lane as Biden.
This, and the fact that he didn't endorse a democrat in 2018 because he's friendly with the Republican Opponent (and he won by less than 1000 votes) should really make people question him.
This, and the fact that he didn't endorse a democrat in 2018 because he's friendly with the Republican Opponent (and he won by less than 1000 votes) should really make people question him.
She hasn't declared or even rumored to declared so bringing up Abrams in this thread is stretching it, especially when it seems like only one person is doing it. I don't think it's wise to extrapolate that to the entire left movement.
Anyway, I'd be down for her to run, though.
For some leftists, Bernie is the furthest right they want to go. Try to ook at things from their perspective. Imagine the furthest right you would want to vote on - that's basically how some leftists view it. In fact, Bernie is seen as a compromise among the left. To me, a compromise isn't really "worthy". Of course, this does not mean that all leftists think that way, that it's Bernie or Bust. Many will still vote for whoever gets the nomination, but we'll still gripe about it.
It was literally one wacky tweet. May I use tweets asking the death penalty for Sanders for colluding with the KGB to paint a broad generalization of Sanders-haters?
I wonder what percentage of "Bernie is the furthest right" folks would consider Nicola Maduro more worthy than Abrams or Warren... hopefully Pol Pot at least is "a bit too far"...
It's a free country, Jill Stein. You can do anything, even help your pals in Russia get Trump elected.
The left has numerous sections, it's quite fascinating. Helio is right about the left of the left being very extreme in their beliefs. They're the kind you'll never see running for office because they're living caricatures of what the GOP paints average Dems as. AOC and Bernie are centrists to them. lol
edit: There is a spectrum, however. They're not all caricatures as above, but they are much further to the left than mainstream politics is concerned.
Last edited:
I will reply to your amusing absurdity with love.
MOD EDIT: animated image removed
Last edited by a moderator:
She’s not Bernie.
All exaggerations aside, she was a state attorney general and federal prosecutor in California, so she was the worst of the good guys, or best of the bad guys dspending on how you look at it or on who you ask.
She didn't walk it back, she said that she'd be willing to sign multipayer legislation if that's what congress sent her.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html
Read this, and tell me what happens when you don't compromise.
She's not Bernie, very few politicians are going to drive to the left most policies because they know it's not passing in congress. Don't confuse her progressive ambitions being in doubt because she's not able to go to the highest politics extremes. For example, with the ACA Pelosi wanted Single Payer and the Public Option but she didn't have the votes for either, so she passed the most affective bill she could because that's better than all or nothing. How she feels about healthcare is not a factor in whether she can get the votes to pass it and Kamala is likely on a similar wavelength with her policies.
I understand how the ACA got formed in 2008 and I don't see how this relates to how things would happen differently with Bernie or Kamala being president. I'm sure you understand that the president doesn't personally write the bill.
It's all about compromise, Kamala's followers will have less reason to go ballistic for her doing this than Bernie's - who expect him to move the world. No compromises, no fence sitting, no weakness in defiance of the status quo. He's built his political career on that image. The last politician who faced those difficulties like that in having enormous dreams to fix America (Obama) got hammered because he couldn't deliver this though congress because they were held by the GOP. This depressed the progressive voters further and further and now many of those same people think he's a spineless sell-out. Kamala learnt that lesson, Bernie did not.
Good article. Though that's going to be the primary concerns of any bill that gets put up through the 117th congress. We're going to be dealing with, hopefully, a more progressive democratic house. A compartively centrist democratic senate majority (hi2u manchin) with a republican base that will absolutely hold their line again any bill democrats propose. And much more conservative judicial system.
I'm extremely worried about any bill making its way through in 2020 regardless of the candidate.
Obama's deals with republicans would have never worked. The man offered to gut out social security but the tea party absolutely refused anything from the man.
I can't imagine this scenario changing in the post-trump era of politics.
The GOP controlled congress for the 6 out of 8 years in congress because of this attitude from voters. He's weak, he can't do anything let's vote in less Democrats in congress to shore up his support than get shocked when he can't close Guantanamo like he promised. It's a death spiral that Dems constantly want to re-live.
Would I have liked him to be more aggressive in negotiations, sure. But this is missing my point - putting Bernie in there will get the same results.
The reason I bought up Pelosi is because it's not solely about Republicans, Dems first need to compromise with the coalition to get bills because Team Bernie in congress can't do this all themselves.
This is about leadership and compromise, and Bernie's weaker than both against Obama.
You can tell whom that guy got the grifter take from: Lee Fang and Zaid Jalini, Intercepts Worst.
But then wouldn't that failure fall upon the house leadership because they couldn't get their base around a bill to pass a simple majority. Bernie as the president will likely set the policy goals but the only actual will he will except on the bill will be whether or not to veto it.
The issue you're bringing up with GOP control wasn't because the democrats couldn't pass anything. The reason why GOP took over as effectively as they did was because of their massively successful misinformation campaign that attacked every facet of the Obama's government accomplishments with things like ACA death panels and did everything in their power to stop bills from being passed which became insanely easy once Nancy lost the gavel which compounded the issue.
You're blaming things on a supposed Bernie presidency that were caused by Republicans Ichthyo.
Why did Bernie have to be such an idiot by having a tantrum and not letting Abrams have a dem response. He just had to go after her to white knight his way to give his position didn’t he...
He seems to be gearing up to be a dem nominee and pulls out this act ? Will he think voters are dumb ?
He seems to be gearing up to be a dem nominee and pulls out this act ? Will he think voters are dumb ?
You're not wrong but that's not the whole picture. Bernie's relationships with the leadership is very important, and he's never been one to leave a big impact on the Senate according to various colleagues of his, like Tammy Baldwin, or have a prominent presence to direct the party there to go with policies he has or direct the government economic policies when he had the chance. Being POTUS requires him to get everything right as soon as possible for as long as possible, how he handles this will severely impact how much his policies are enacted in congress. The leadership does have partial responsibility in this but they won't be the face of the administration when it fails - he would be. Setting policy goals is another which will be hindering if they are given impossible tasks to accomplish, when as leaders they're more inclined to safer routes to the same destination. He's not simply going to sit it out, and let congress do the work for him. Obama had troubles with congress, as well. I dread how Bernie would react to that scenario as POTUS.
Because the Dems got disillusioned with what Obama was able to get done, which became a death spiral they couldn't get out of. The GOP played them like a fiddle with this and they bought it hook, lie and sinker - even today. The Democratic voters fell into that trap and stayed there his entire presidency, a fate awaiting any Democratic POTUS which is why it's crucial they find solutions to prevent this from happening.
Being president means the buck stops with him, which is going to hurt Bernie like it did with Obama. This goes for any candidate who lands the presidency, they're not going to stop because Bernie's president.
I think he thinks that most voters will (correctly) not care that he gave a damn livestream after a network-televised response. I certainly don’t, and roll my eyes at anybody that does.
It's the people who don't like it which will affect Bernie. He needs more people to join his cause if he wants to win the presidency, can't just do that with the true believers.
I am betting that the people who care are not a statistically significant enough contingent that he DOES need them.
For this, sure. What needs to concern you is this is a symptom of a larger problem. It's fucking hard to build a coalition when you're a controversial candidate.
His message and policies will build his coalition, or they won’t. That he’s a bit of a bristly dude matters to a maybe single-digit percent of the vote. It’s like saying Shawn Michaels couldn’t draw because people won’t like that he was a terror backstage - most are not in a position to care. A personality-driven Left movement gets us absolutely nowhere, a lesson we SHOULD have learned with Obama yet somehow have not.
He’s got a high floor, but if Kamala consolidates the large pool of establishment and mainstream media-following types early, he’s probably fucked. It’s a relatively simple narrative, here, no need to complicate it.
- Status