• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 27, 2017
42,941
to be fair the person you quoted, "the left never liked X" is not the same as "democrats never liked X"
So only the Dems that didn't like her are considered the left?

USA needs someone, who is AT LEAST as much to the left on economical issues as bernie to solve its myriad problems
politicalspectrumeuvscrcb3.png
Who even created this? What was the methodology used? Seems to just be a way to say "Bernie's the only TRUE left candidate in the US!"
 

Alternade

Member
Oct 27, 2017
716
Oh God. Please can we set Bernie adrift into the sea? He is quite possibly the worst candidate to run in 2020. Bitter Hillary voters + skeptical independents + unenthusiastic POC bc another old white man = Trump 2020
 

Barzul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,965
Are any of these people from the Midwest? I think if you run someone currently popular in the Midwest, they'll snap up all those electoral college votes from Trump and it won't matter what he does in Florida.
Biden. Born in Scranton, PA. Trump can't win Pennsylvania on a Biden ticket. I'd hazard Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin are not winnable for him as well. Obviously he'll have Obama campaigning for him more wholeheartedly than he did with Clinton. I get that people want a massive shift to the left, ideally I'd want that to, but my immediate goal is taking trust away from this administration. I have zero trust or as close to zero as you can get in the American electorate doing the right thing and electing a left of Obama Democrat, not unless the economy is in shambles come 2020.
 

Chadtwo

Member
Oct 29, 2017
655
he should maybe be a bit more to the right compared to european liberal parties

the degree he wants to raise taxes and increase government spending would put him in line with centre-right european governments

no self-respecting european social democrat would do free education and universal healthcare and then call it a day

they wouldn't be happy with less than a year + parental leave per child, a month+ yearly paid vacation, massive spending on public transportation, day childcare heavily subsidized by the government, extensive government-run unemployment insurance, and sick pay, etc. etc.

Yeah I suppose that's true. I do think you have to contextualize the policies a bit within the political culture of the country, though. Not to say that those additional policies would be unfeasible. I get the sense from hearing Bernie talking about the Nordics that he's on board with all that stuff too, but his campaign is mediated to an extent by what policies are popular among working Americans and easy to understand/digest, i.e. single-payer and free public education.
 

Lothars

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,765
I'd wager Bern has about as good a chance as beating Trump in a head-to-head, and better policies to boot. In fact among certain white Midwestern working-class voters I'd wager Bernie has an even better chance than Biden if just for the fact that Biden's an establishment Dem who takes corporate money and is associated with Obama.
Bernie might have better policies but he's a worst politician and I definitely wouldn't want him running again. Biden would be better.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
Oh God. Please can we set Bernie adrift into the sea? He is quite possibly the worst candidate to run in 2020. Bitter Hillary voters + skeptical independents + unenthusiastic POC bc another old white man = Trump 2020

hillary voters aren't going to gamble on trump, he does well with independents, and he does well with minorities especially younger ones
 

Tribal24

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,384
Biden would be my choice out of all of them. Bernie I feel would get lost in the crowd.Biden will show Trump up
 

Chadtwo

Member
Oct 29, 2017
655
Bernie might have better policies but he's a worst politician and I definitely wouldn't want him running again. Biden would be better.

Trump is a terrible politician by any traditional standard (not even talking about policy, just his tone/leadership style) but he's still managed to do a fair deal of terrible things unilaterally and would be able to accomplish even more if not for an internally divided Republican Congress. I'm not convinced that how good one is as a politician carries as much weight these days since to an extent that seems like the precise thing that voters are tired of.
 

hydrophilic attack

Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,573
Sweden
So only the Dems that didn't like her are considered the left?


Who even created this? What was the methodology used? Seems to just be a way to say "Bernie's the only TRUE left candidate in the US!"
i created the picture

it's based on the well-established political science concept of separate economical policy and social policy axes

the main criterion i used to make placements on the left-right axis was likely outcome of polices on economical inequality and tax revenue per GDP ratio, as determined by budget proposals

this is how USA compared to other countries in tax/GDP ratio in 2016:
a07a3e211cc0970098b8c8errh.jpg

hillary ran on increasing taxes by roughly $200 billion per year which corresponds to a percentage point of GDP, which means the US under her (and most democratic party candidates') control would still be very much to the right compared to europe

bernie ran on increasing taxes by $1500 billions per year which corresponds to a tax increase of about 8 percentage points of GDP, which would move the US up to about the same level of tax/GDP ratio as the OECD average, which would make USA under bernie centrist on an economical left-right axis compared to europe

edit: updated the link for the bernie plan (had the wrong link) and changed to a more clear and reputable source for the hillary plan
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
42,941
i created the picture

it's based on the well-established political science concept of separate economical policy and social policy axes

the main criterion i used to make placements on the left-right axis was likely outcome of polices on economical inequality and tax revenue per GDP ratio, as determined by budget proposals

this is how USA compared to other countries in tax/GDP ratio in 2016:
a07a3e211cc0970098b8c8errh.jpg

hillary ran on increasing taxes by roughly $50 billionsper year (yes i know, the source is conservative, but if anything that would mean they overstate how much she would increase taxes) per year which is less than half a percentage point of GDP, which means the US under her (and most democratic party candidates') control would still be very much to the right compared to europe

bernie ran on increasing taxes by $1500 billions per year which corresponds to a tax increase of about 8 percentage points of GDP, which would move the US up to about the same level of tax/GDP ratio as the OECD average, which would make USA under bernie centrist on an economical left-right axis compared to europe

Edit: Sorry, misread the article
 

hydrophilic attack

Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,573
Sweden
The article you posted said 500 billions, not 50, which would be 1/3 of Bernies and correspond with a 2.67% increase wouldn't it?
500 billions over ten years

which is 50 billion per year

actually i may be mistaken, it's not super clear whether they mean 500 more over a decade, or a decade from now it will be 500 more per year
 
Last edited:

Chrome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
378
Biden and Warren both seem like long shots due to how big they are. Given Obama and Sander's rise to popularity, I would be more willing to put money on some of the more lesser known people running to become the nominee. Maybe 2020 will be a thunderdome like 2016 was for the Republicans where just a shit ton of people try to get the nomination.
 

Saganator

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,217
I'm pulling for Biden. I think he's the perfect counter to Trump, especially if they debate. I don't care that he's old, he can pick a younger VP and we'll be fine. As other posters have said, controlling congress is more important.
 

gcubed

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,794
Biden is just a political loser, not sure why people like him besides that they have an assumption that he's old and white and can charm the racist Democrats back into the fold. That's not a reason to pick.
 

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
Please, no to Bernie. No more vapid rhetoric devoid of any practical strategy for implementation. His campaign is sus, too. Especially in light of some of the stuff coming out in the Manafort docs with his campaign strategist.

A lot of people felt betrayed when she endorsed Hillary even though it was clear she waited til the very end to endorse the clear and obvious winner.

These same people who thought Hillary was not liberal enough for them, then wonder how we ended up with Central American kids getting drugged in cages.
 

Taki

Attempt to circumvent a ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,308
Dont tell me that, I agree! Tell that to the idiotic US voter population. Sadly when it comes to them anything thats not a white man (preferably old) is a bold move, cotton.

Actually I'd say now is a better time for women to run than 2016 was. The progressives are fired up now, and women voters have significantly trended Democrat in the last two years.

Democrats lost 2016 because they played it too safe. Now is not the time to play it safe.
 

hydrophilic attack

Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,573
Sweden
500 billions over ten years

which is 50 billion per year

actually i may be mistaken, it's not super clear whether they mean 500 more over a decade, or a decade from now it will be 500 more per year
i updated my post (#208) with a better source so that i linked the TPC for both hillary's and bernie's plan so it would be an apples to apples comparison

hillary's plan would increase taxes by $200 billion by year, corresponding to about 1% of 2016 GDP

sanders would increase taxes by $1500 billion by year, corresponding to about 8% of 2016 GDP

my main point stands, bernie would bring the US to centrist economical policy by international comparison, while hillary would keep the country firmly right wing on the economical policy axis by international standards
 

Deleted member 10551

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,031
Biden and Warren both seem like long shots due to how big they are. Given Obama and Sander's rise to popularity, I would be more willing to put money on some of the more lesser known people running to become the nominee. Maybe 2020 will be a thunderdome like 2016 was for the Republicans where just a shit ton of people try to get the nomination.

I think it's going to be a thunderdome, but the centrist and socialist party cadres are going to go all in one candidate early just to try and win at any cost. We're going to see a very vicious primary. Bernie and Hillary punched above the belt, this won't be the case in 2020 with each side thinking their way is the only way to save democracy. I'm going to predict the centrists fall into line around Biden or Harris, and the socalists around Jeff Merkley.
 

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
C'mon now this is such a tired narrative.

Didn't know it was a narrative. This is just my personal feelings watching him give the same speech with vague moral platitudes over and over again. The fact it's a narrative gives me hope, though, that other people felt like I did.
 

Gyro Zeppeli

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,289
I'll vote for any Democrat nominated. Sanders' policies resonate with me profoundly. Yes, his debate techniques and elaboration on his policies can use significant improvement, but his message has been consistent for decades: Attacking the wealthy. That's what we need right now in this country. If not him, then I'd also approve of Warren. Biden, Booker, Gillibrand, and Harris are centrist Democrats that I don't care for, but will support if any one of them is nominated. I don't know anything about Garcetti or Gabbard. I'll have to research their platforms.
 

Chadtwo

Member
Oct 29, 2017
655
Didn't know it was a narrative. This is just my personal feelings watching him give the same speech with vague moral platitudes over and over again. The fact it's a narrative gives me hope, though, that other people felt like I did.

I mean I think that's maybe just a function of political speeches in general, which tend to be light on the specifics of implementation. There are a good deal of actual hypothetical plans online which tend to focus on cuts to our exorbitant defense budget and higher corporate tax rates, and I know single-payer healthcare for example would actually save like 2 trillion dollars or something like that (over 10 years).

Did you follow the 2016 primaries at all? One of Hillary and her supporter's main talking points had to do with the practicability of Sanders' plans, and lately it's been all the Republicans talk about re: Ocasio-Cortez. I didn't mean to accuse you of not expressing your true feelings, but yeah there are quite a few people who say similar things.
 

Pet

More helpful than the IRS
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,070
SoCal
These same people who thought Hillary was not liberal enough for them, then wonder how we ended up with Central American kids getting drugged in cages.

Hopefully now they're going to be able to put aside their personal moral grandstanding superiority complex to vote for someone who won't support trapping and drugging minority children in literal cages.

She did

She bet on being a party/team player to get a VP spot on some sort of role in a would be Clinton administration and lost

She should have just endorsed Sanders like she wanted to

She should have endorsed Sanders in the beginning like she wanted to, and after he lost the primary she should have endorsed Clinton.

Being a team player/party player is how you get that fucking party in power. See: Republicans. Bunch of shiteating soulless fuckfaces that control all three branches of government because they know how to play the game.
 

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,448
God, Biden would be awful. The rising tide of anti-Trump rhetoric is growing from everything he's not - young, progressive, diverse. He'd be another Hillary, and we've already shown that establishment can't win against Trump.

The left is agitated and passionate. Take advantage of that. Don't trot out the old shit and try to win back an audience that's already gone.
 

ianpm31

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,558
Give me Bernie.

Worst case I would still vote for anybody outside of Trump at this point.
 

Dr. Feel Good

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,996
Garcetti is white and also can claim minority status, speaks spanish, is young, looks the part, has a career in politics, seems forwards thinking about digital outreach, has billionaire friends, seems to have progressive ideas on race, environment and the role of government.

What am I missing? He seems tailored made to be the front runner

His track record in Los Angeles for one is garbage.
 

gogosox82

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,385
I think Gillibrand is the front runner right now. NY senator, has name recognition, and can raise money.
 

Luchashaq

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
4,329
Biden? Sure. Booker? Maybe - I like him a lot as a person but I'm afraid of how much he will appeal to others.

Booker is a legit piece of garbage.

He would put on a klan hood before he worked towards fixing American health care. He's 100% owned by NJ based pharm corps.

hillary voters aren't going to gamble on trump, he does well with independents, and he does well with minorities especially younger ones

Are you sure? Many more Clinton primary voters voted for McCain in 08 than Sanders voters voted for Trump in 16.

No matter their policies I have no desire to vote for anyone 70+ running, the job takes fucking stamina and energy unless you're going to waste half your presidency doing nothing/golfing like Trump.
 

Vas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
I mean I think that's maybe just a function of political speeches in general, which tend to be light on the specifics of implementation. There are a good deal of actual hypothetical plans online which tend to focus on cuts to our exorbitant defense budget and higher corporate tax rates, and I know single-payer healthcare for example would actually save like 2 trillion dollars or something like that (over 10 years).

Did you follow the 2016 primaries at all? One of Hillary and her supporter's main talking points had to do with the practicability of Sanders' plans, and lately it's been all the Republicans talk about re: Ocasio-Cortez. I didn't mean to accuse you of not expressing your true feelings, but yeah there are quite a few people who say similar things.

I followed it, thank you.

I read detailed plans with surprising transparency on Hillary's site and found similar resources for Bernie's campaign quite lacking. But, that's just my personal take. You can feel however you want about Bernie, as virtually all of my friends were rabid phonebanking supporters of his and I do respect them and their opinion.
I'm sure they followed the election just like me, and they made their choice which is their right.

I happened to think Hillary was the better choice and her apparent concern and promises about helping Appalachia move forward in the face of vitriolic opposition from Coal-Slaves made me very pleased and optimistic. I found Bernie was good at making specific threats, but only vague promises in return.

]And if we're being honest, I think his campaign should have taken more responsibility to quell falsehoods about Hillary. Many were young and new to politics. Bernie was the first candidate they ever got excited about, so they went all-in. But, when you find yourself teaming up with alt-right and white supremacist groups to push false news stories, you need to slow down and think that you might just be being manipulated. You have your progressive integrity, but you also have the Supreme Court now stacked in such a way to effectively destroy any hope Bernie's vision for America starting to manifest itself during his lifetime. Ironic, really.
 

gogosox82

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,385
Not a bad list, except for Bernie. My god man give up already.

I don't get the Biden thing. Like he's more conservative than Hillary is and he's run twice before that and wasn't even close to winning. I feel like he's only popular because he was Obama's VP and didn't say much for 8 years.

I don't think Warren wants to run and has no plans on running so I don't get why she is on the list.

Not enough people know who Tulsi Gabbard is and frankly she has pissed off too many people in the establishment to make a run.

The rest, including Bernie, seem like fine candidates.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
Are you sure? Many more Clinton primary voters voted for McCain in 08 than Sanders voters voted for Trump in 16.

No matter their policies I have no desire to vote for anyone 70+ running, the job takes fucking stamina and energy unless you're going to waste half your presidency doing nothing/golfing like Trump.

no I'm not sure

but trump sure as hell ain't mccain
 

GameAddict411

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,584
Bernie needs to seriously fuck off. I don't want another old man in the office, and certainly someone who isn't racist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.