Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Electability. Most are like reruns of Hillary Clinton without the qualifications, another is a Jewish socialist in Trump's America, and there's two billionaires with no real selling points.
Well, we'll see. "socialist" isn't half as much a bogeyman as it used to be. And the people who would vote against Sanders for being a Jew probably mostly aren't voting Democrat regardless. At least Sanders has energy and a clear vision that excites people, and his grassroots fundraising machine is a wonder to behold. His combination of strong youth support, strong labour/working class support, and strong Latino support could be a winner as well. My biggest concern is that bitter ex-Clinton supporters will stay home in large numbers if he's the nominee, which is part of why I initially backed Warren- but subsequent events have made it clear Sanders is the stronger candidate.Gandalf wrote: ↑2020-02-12 03:23pmElectability. Most are like reruns of Hillary Clinton without the qualifications, another is a Jewish socialist in Trump's America, and there's two billionaires with no real selling points.
A lot of them would make passable presidents, Sanders would be fantastic, but after 2016 I'm less than confident that people would turn out for him in the numbers needed.
Certain. They're doing it right now. They just blocked bills to stop foreign interference, and the DOJ instituted a new policy prohibiting any investigation of campaigns, including foreign aid, without Barr's personal assent.Tribble wrote: ↑2020-02-12 06:31pm Since GOP Senators have essentially given Trump the go ahead to do whatever it takes to win the election as its "in the public interest," how likely do you think that Trump / Republicans will:
continue to invite / threaten / coerce foreign governments to influence the election?
See above.use state assets to influence the election?
Republicans do this as a matter of course. They've had some legal set-backs, but the Supreme Court seems to help them more than it reigns them in. Fortunately, all of this can be overcome by a sufficiently strong Democratic campaign and high turnout.continue and/or escalate voter suppression?
I wouldn't put it past them, not for a second, but this is harder to do and get away with it, or at least it has been up to now.rig the results as needed?
100% guaranteed Trump does this. For fuck's sake, he did it in 2016 when he won (his ego couldn't stand losing the popular vote). He'll probably try to tell the Electoral College they have to approve him because the outcome was fraudulent (which thanks to the perversity of the American Electoral system, they can constitutionally do).declare massive voter fraud if they lose?
Trump will probably do this (his own former attorney seemed to think as much)- the only question is how many (particularly, ultimately, in the military) will back him.refuse to step down even if recount shows that they lost?
It'd be really interesting to see how Roberts would go in that situation. He's a Republican, clearly not big on voting rights, but he tries to at least appear to not be blatantly partisan. In the impeachment trial, he could mostly just sit back and, citing precedent, let the Senate decide (even if that defacto meant siding with Trump). In this situation, he'd have no such out. He'd have to personally be the deciding vote, likely, on whether American remains a Republic. That's probably his worst-case scenario, on a personal level.refuse to step down even if SCOTUS rules against them (not likely given the present makeup)?
Depends how much of the Congress, state governments, judiciary, and military side with him. If the answer is "a lot", then its dictatorship or civil war. If we get miraculously lucky and Trump is quickly removed, there will be a spike in domestic terrorism and probably some rioting, maybe a stand-off or two, but probably no worse, at least in the short-term.For that matter, how would Trump / Republican supporters react to a loss, especially if Trump refuses to concede?
Agreed.Somehow I feel this election isn't going to end well no matter who wins, though obviously the worst case scenario is Trump staying in office (legitimately or otherwise).
No matter what, its going to be likely the dirtiest race in living memory, there will almost certainly be some violence, and around a third to a half of the electorate will likely believe the outcome is fraudulent (Democrats have better reason for that belief, but its in both parties). Bloomberg isn't a Centrist. And he's not a hypocrite. He's opportunistic Republican. One who is lying his pants off about his record.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-02-11 01:17am Bloomberg has a resume that seems tailor-made to piss off as many people as possible. Progressives hate him for being a Centrist and a billionaire. Conservatives hate his "nanny state" policies. Black voters are unlikely to look kindly on his tough policing policies as Mayor of New York. His appeal is... he's a rich centrist who's not Biden, and some Dems are still really scared of (or in the case of some Clinton supporters, bitter toward) Bernie.
He's also an utter flip-flopper (he's been a Dem, Republican, and Independent) which pretty much everybody hates.
Some cynical or desperate people seem to think that we can only win by "playing Trump's game" and running a wealthy businessman, and that he can be a "Democratic Trump" (I've seen this sort of comment on occassion online). But the thing is, the Democratic party is not the Republican party, no matter how many times the Greens and the Kremlin bots behind them insist that it is. The obsession with business, and running a businessman, holds far less appeal for the Democratic base, I suspect. And unlike Trump, Bloomberg isn't quite shameless enough to openly flaunt his worst qualities, turning them into a monstrous, perverted form of credibility. He's just a centrist hypocrite.
Yeah, about that bolded part...The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-02-12 10:14pmAt least Sanders has energy and a clear vision that excites people, and his grassroots fundraising machine is a wonder to behold. His combination of strong youth support, strong labour/working class support, and strong Latino support could be a winner as well. My biggest concern is that bitter ex-Clinton supporters will stay home in large numbers if he's the nominee, which is part of why I initially backed Warren- but subsequent events have made it clear Sanders is the stronger candidate.
Contested convention, and nobody emerging as a clear leader early, were always plausible outcomes with so many big names running. I'm still hopeful we can avoid a contested convention (which is likely to be so divisive, and so delay the start of general election campaigning, that its the next worst thing to simply throwing in the towel and crowning Trump King now). But it was always going to take a while for one person to emerge from the pack. And while you can say Bernie hasn't managed to solidify the bulk of the party behind him yet, well... neither have anyone else.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: ↑2020-02-12 09:30am So I think the takeaway from NH and IA is that ... the Democratic electorate is suffering from a profound case of FOBO (fear of a better option.) Except for Andrew Yang, everyone who participated in the most recent debate (as well as some who did not) has found some justification to continue to exist until Super Tuesday comes to bury their moribund campaigns under Bloomberg's Infinite Cash Machine; except for Tulsi Gabbard, who will simply become the future Libertarian candidate for President (seriously, Gary Johnson has been reaching out to her lately) and continue to be the darling of Russian trolls and secret Trumpers; whose only interest in the world of Democratic politics is seeing it burn.
Joe Biden looked and sounded very much like a man who just got beat up for his lunch money, fleeing for supposed the safety of South Carolina and the warm embrace of its African American-heavy electorate (who are actually starting to take a shining to Tom Steyer, according to the latest polling.) Although it seems pretty clear that if you like your Biden medium-well done, you could probably get away with sticking your fork in him now.
Elizabeth Warren didn't sound like a candidate who just got solidly shellacked in the second most friendly state in the nation to her. She has the organization to keep going, and the promise of a better showing the more liberal Super Tuesday states, but her rhetoric of being a unity candidate rings about as hollow as a champagne glass during the proverbial fat lady's signature high-note. She keeps giving shout-outs to Amy Klobuchar, though; so maybe she's auditioning for a post in Klobuchar's cabinet.
Amy Klobuchar surprised, well, everyone. She's found her stride as a debater, and she's found a way to go negative against her fellow contenders without falling into the "any attention for my opponent is good attention" trap. Voters who made up their mind in the week leading up to the NH primary broke heavily for her (and Buttigieg.) However, I can't yet visualize a future where her candidacy survives beyond Super Tuesday, but I also can't really think of anything snarky to say about her.
Pete Buttigieg, on the other hand ... his three qualifications for being President are being 1) a white person in possession of 2) a penis, who is 3) not Donald Trump. Some would say that being in possession of two penises will ultimately hurt his chances with more conservative Democrats; but in a world where the alternative for moderate and conservative Democrats is Bernie Sanders, it may just mean his nine qualifications for being President are being 1) a white person, who is 2) not Donald Trump, and who has the power of 3) penis2. Yes, in the wholly-unrepresentative microcosm that is IA and NH, he's succeeded in beating up Joe Biden for his lunch money; and yes, he has the attention of big donors. But, will he survive once he leaves the kiddie pool?
So, this leaves Bernie Sanders; who seems to be less the candidate of revolution and more the candidate by default. Nationally, he's been at roughly 25% forever. But that works to his advantage; since it's a solid 25%, he's been able to get his solid quarter of the vote share and his Bernie Bros can spin it as a glorious victory when they're not busy mainlining Kool-Aid ... it's just that the "anyone but Sanders" lane is so overstuffed that its members are practically in quantum superposition. Fortunately for Sanders, the laws of physics at the macro-level prohibit the fusion of his opponents into the Lovecraftian horror known as Joetethmy Klowaridigeig; whose campaign slogan is "Donald Trump will be eaten first!"
Mind you, I recognize that the candidate by default can easily become the candidate by snowball effect, but that depends on the "anyone but Sanders" lane continuing to not converge on a candidate (those of you among the Sandernistas ought to be worried about his sphincter-clenching, razor-thin, margins of victory here,) while continuing to decline going hardcore attack mode on Sanders; and ignores the big unknown that is the effect of Mike Bloomberg and his Infinite Cash Machine will have, when people will actually get the chance to vote for him ... so contested convention (1 in 3 odds, according to FiveThirtyEight,) here we come?
And I say all this as a guy who ended up voting for Sanders yesterday; so I'm, at least, complicit in the chaos to follow ...
Because due to the bizarre way American elections work, it is very unlikely that someone who placed lower than second in both Iowa and New Hampshire will be able to build the momentum to become nominee. At this point, its looking more and more like Sanders or Bloomberg (I am assume Buttigieg goes nowhere due to his abysmally low numbers nationwide, particularly with minority voters), and Warren dropping out and endorsing Sanders would be the fastest way to wrap this up, ensure a progressive nominee, and avoid a contested convention.Knife wrote: ↑2020-02-15 08:51am I'm not sure why you think the 3rd place person should drop out after only 200-300k primary votes between two states. Warren is well funded, has good infrastructure in Nevada, South Carolina, and other states. In 2016 alone, there were over 5 million votes in California for the Dems primary. Why the hell would someone drop out after such a small percentage of the Dems have voted and the candidate still have money to burn?
Now I get it if the candidate has been polling ~1-3 percent for the last year and was hoping for hail marry from NH or IA to jump start them but it didn't. But I don't see why Warren, or even Biden would drop right now. Biden has always had SC as his firewall. Biden has known for a while now that IA and NH wasn't going to break his way. But again, why would he drop when those two states are less than 300k votes and SC has almost 400k votes by itself and is more diverse and represents more of the democratic base.
If he loses SC, or gets 3rd or 4th or worse, then yeah. He should drop if he does not have the support he thought he does. He might limp through a week for Super Tuesday to make sure, but if his 'base' does not turn out like he thinks it will, he should drop. But the same with Warren. If she places high in SC or Nevada, she could wait for Super Tuesday. I'm thinking she's actually going to do very well in California. There is just no reason for any of the top 4-5 to drop right now, unless someone has serious money problems not known by the general public, which I don't think is the case.
Full disclosure, I'm a Warren person, plan to vote for her in the primary. I have nothing against Sanders, voted in the 2016 Primary for him, though ultimately held my nose and voted Clinton in the General Election. If Warren does not make it, Sanders is my strong second choice.
This isn't a 'Both Sides are just as bad' narrative. This is a more nuanced narrative that recognizes that while the Democratic party, writ large, is fundamentally better than Trump in a number of key ways Mike Bloomberg is a piece of shit who is arguably worse than Trump in many real and quantifiable ways and the Democratic Party nominating him is a repugnant notion that should be opposed.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-02-13 12:16am I won't equate Bloomberg to Trump, who is a special kind of monster even by the standards of American politics. I also stand by my view that "Both Sides are just as bad" narratives are lazy and disingenuous and simplistic, and serve to normalize and legitimize the worst players.
The counterargument, of course, is that we have to vote for whoever the nominee is, because if we lose to Trump, it won't matter what people think of the Democrats, because the US won't be a Republic any more and there won't be another election (other than the kind where the Dear Leader gets 90%, anyway).Straha wrote: ↑2020-02-15 06:06pmThis isn't a 'Both Sides are just as bad' narrative. This is a more nuanced narrative that recognizes that while the Democratic party, writ large, is fundamentally better than Trump in a number of key ways Mike Bloomberg is a piece of shit who is arguably worse than Trump in many real and quantifiable ways and the Democratic Party nominating him is a repugnant notion that should be opposed.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-02-13 12:16am I won't equate Bloomberg to Trump, who is a special kind of monster even by the standards of American politics. I also stand by my view that "Both Sides are just as bad" narratives are lazy and disingenuous and simplistic, and serve to normalize and legitimize the worst players.
The notion that anyone, anywhere, would look at him and think "Yo, that guy! That guy is our saviour from a billionaire promoted out of his depth because of monetary and cultural connections." is offensive, and the fact that people will, during the primary, smile and say "Well, you know, if it's him I'll take him." is more ammunition for the accusation of the Democratic party being fucking gutless and unwilling to take a stand for anything.
Meanwhile, Texas centrists are shitting themselves.A new Las Vegas Review-Journal/AARP Nevada poll shows Sen. Bernie Sanders leading the Democratic presidential field in Nevada, where the third contest of the Democratic primaries will be held in one week.
The poll found 25 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers support Sanders, 18 percent back former Vice President Joe Biden, 13 percent favor Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and 11 percent support former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. Both former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar have the support of 10 percent of likely caucus-goers, and 8 percent of respondents said they were undecided.
Republican polling firm WPA Intelligence conducted the telephone survey on behalf of the Review-Journal and AARP Nevada in the days after the New Hampshire primary, February 11 to 13; the poll has a margin of error of 4.8 percentage points.
It is important to note that this poll, while professionally conducted, should be taken with some caution. The results are certainly in line with recent trends — Sanders has surged in a number of national and state polls, and ahead of the Nevada caucuses, many have noted that he’s made strong investments in the state and has unrivaled support from Latino voters. But, that margin of error means Biden could actually top the field in the state; and broadly, Nevada is a state that is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
It is so difficult that according to RealClearPolitics’s polling aggregator, there have been only three major Nevada surveys in 2020 (in contrast to more than 20 conducted in advance of the New Hampshire primary).
In both previous 2020 Nevada polls, the state seemed to be torn between Biden and Sanders. A Suffolk University/USA Today poll from early January showed Biden in the lead with 19 percent support, Sanders with 18 percent, and their nearest competitor — Warren — 8 percentage points behind. A Fox News poll taken at the beginning of January showed Biden coming in with 23 percent support and Sanders at 17 percent, with Warren and Steyer 5 percentage points behind the senator from Vermont.
After the 2004 election, the state switched from holding primaries to caucuses, and was pushed much earlier on the primary calendar as part of an effort to make the primary system more inclusive of the Democratic Party’s demographic make-up. (Nevada’s population is almost a third Latino.)
While this change did make the Democratic primary more diverse, it also introduced new uncertainties into the polling and candidate selection process. This has made pollsters’ work more difficult in that respondents aren’t always familiar with the ins-and-outs of caucusing, and because decades of caucusing data isn’t available to help build models or make assumptions.
And as FiveThirtyEight’s Clare Malone has reported, part of the difficulty of Nevada polling is that’s it’s simply harder to talk to people. The state has a disproportionate amount of people who work odd hours, and a relatively transient population.
That all being said, the poll’s findings don’t seem surprising given how Sanders is trending across the nation, and given the demographics of the Democratic electorate in Nevada.
A recent national poll conducted by Morning Consult, for example, shows Sanders is dominant among Latino voters, with more than double the support of any other candidate. In 2019, Sanders received more financial support from Latino donors than any other 2020 hopeful, snagging up over a third of the roughly $24 million that Latinos donated to Democratic presidential candidates.
Following his New Hampshire win, Sanders is on the rise in other polls as well
Sanders has leaped from third place to second place in the past month in South Carolina, according to an East Carolina University poll released Friday. The university’s pollsters found Biden has 28 percent support in the state, Sanders has 20 percent, and Steyer has 14 percent. South Carolina has been considered Biden’s “firewall” in the primaries — his path to the presidency relies on heavy support from black voters — but his support there has been declining.
Sanders also has been looking strong in key states that will vote on Super Tuesday, a day when more than 33 percent of the race’s national delegates will be up for grabs.
In particular, as Vox’s Dylan Scott reported on Friday, Sanders is surging in Texas and in California, the most delegate-rich state to vote on March 3:
A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll shows a Sanders surge, with the Vermont senator increasing his support by 12 points since last fall, up to 24 percent and ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden at 22 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is in third place at 15 percent in the poll, which was taken January 31 to February 9 and has a margin of error of 4 percent. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets 10 percent. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota are in single digits.
Earlier this week, a Capitol Weekly poll of California taken February 6 to 9 gave Sanders a healthy 13-point lead over Warren, well beyond the margin of error, with 29 percent of the vote. Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg were clustered below 15 percent in the poll.
The Sanders surge in the polls is a pretty clear phenomenon, and a victory in Nevada seems quite possible. The key question there — and in other states where he’s leading — is whether he can pull off the sorts of decisive victories needed to ensure he’s positioned to win a majority of pledged delegates before the Democratic National Convention in July. And as of right now, that’s far from a sure thing.
AUSTIN, Texas — Bernie Sanders’ staying power atop the 2020 field has Democratic insiders in Texas on edge: They’re worried nominating the Vermont senator would kneecap their hard-fought campaign to flip the Texas state house.
Putting a self-proclaimed democratic socialist at the top of the ticket would squander a prime opportunity to seize statehouse seats — and congressional districts — that have long been out of reach, robbing the party of a hand in next year’s crucial redistricting process, more than a half-dozen Democratic candidates, activists and political consultants said in interviews.
"There is overall uncertainty which is growing. The real fear for Texas D’s remains Sanders," Bill Miller, a longtime Austin lobbyist who has worked with both Democrats and Republicans, said of a Sanders ticket. “'We’d be fucked' — that’s what they’re saying. The drain at the top goes down to the bottom.”
Texas may not be a presidential battleground, but a wave of GOP retirements in Congress, shifting demographics and Donald Trump’s lightning-rod presidency offer Democrats a shot at real power after two decades of Republican dominance. And to insiders like Miller, plans to nationalize the health care and electricity sectors will spook voters and weigh down local Democrats who are trying to thread a needle in this still deeply conservative state.
“The R’s are on their knees praying every day for Bernie,” Miller said.
The real fear for Texas D’s remains Sanders. We’d be fucked' — that’s what they’re saying. The drain at the top goes down to the bottom.”
- Bill Miller, a longtime Austin lobbyist
State-level Democrats across the country are also starting to weigh what each contender will mean for down-ballot races in the aftermath of the first two Democratic contests, which saw Joe Biden's star power wane, Pete Buttigieg notch a muddled first place finish in Iowa and Sanders eke out a victory in New Hampshire — a place he dominated four years ago. The uncertainty also clouds the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee's $50 million effort to flip state chambers in places like Arizona and North Carolina, where operatives have to fine-tune the party's message in swing states.
Sanders’ rising progressive agenda and the leftward march of Democrats like Elizabeth Warren has divided the party here about how to succeed and what lessons to divine from years of electoral losses born out of deploying untested strategies they hope will transform Texas into a battleground state.
“Sanders is a complete disaster and Warren is a complete-disaster-lite,” said Texas-based campaign consultant Jeff Hewitt, who has been working in Democratic politics since he served on Clinton-Gore’s campaign team in the 1990s. “At the end of the day, most of us want to win.”
A Buttigieg victory is “not helpful” to the party's goals in Texas, he said. But “he doesn’t hurt them as much” as Sanders.
While Democrats lost all statewide elections in 2018, they notched modest gains down ballot. They were able to flip two congressional seats and more than a dozen state House and Senate seats, putting them just nine seats away from taking control of the state House.
“For control of the state legislature and how the congressional delegation is drawn over the next decade, it’s very important that we do all we can to win the statehouse now so both parties have a seat at the table,” said state Rep. Chris Turner, chair of the Texas House Democratic caucus and who has endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden.
But progressive activists argue that bold ideas like those championed by Sanders and Warren will bring out new voters, and others say ideology matters less than ground game. It’s a debate that’s playing out across the country, but the stakes are especially high in Texas this year where Democrats at the state level have a shot at redrawing the election maps that will keep them competitive.
“You gotta be realistic and practical about issues that are facing people in rural areas,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Democrat whose district stretches from the Southern border to San Antonio. If Sanders is at the top of the ticket, he said, Democrats in Texas will have to distance themselves from his far-left ideas to win over moderate voters in potential swing districts.
“Can you please name all the liberal seats that Republicans are in so we can go after that?” Cuellar said.
The party divide in Texas has also become even wider as Democrats still chew on Beto O’Rourke’s ill-fated 2018 Senate campaign against Ted Cruz, drawing a litany of different lessons about whether his 2.5-point loss was a victory or a missed opportunity.
Hewitt said O’Rourke’s loss reveals that far-left ideas don’t bring out enough people to flip seats. “The idea that more people will come out to vote if a progressive is on the ballot, that’s fools gold,” he said.
But some Democratic operatives in Texas point to two decades of Republican dominance and argue O’Rourke's popularity in the state as proof the party needs to differentiate itself from the right.
“We should be more worried about a moderate candidate in a highly polarized environment,” said Tory Gavito, co-founder and president of Way to Win, a group that organizes progressive donors and strategists. “We have the deepest well of young voters and voters of color — who is the best candidate that can turn them out?”
Texas Republicans, facing competitive elections for the first time in decades, say that regardless of who wins the nomination, Sanders candidacy puts Democrats on the defensive.
“The reality is that every Democratic president candidate has happily endorsed socialist policies,” Texas GOP Chairman James Dickey said.
Polls have offered little guidance. Biden is still a favorite among establishment figures and led a poll of Texas voters before Iowa but Sanders surged after the caucuses and Michael Bloomberg is on the rise.
“It’s still a very fluid race,” said Joshua Blank, research director for the Texas Lyceum poll. Blank believes that most voters in the state are still making up their minds, but that given the state’s sheer size and diversity Democrats need to focus on building a party infrastructure that’s been lacking.
“It would be silly to say that it doesn’t matter who is at the top of the ticket, but I’m not sure what we’re seeing isn’t more structural than about any individual candidate,” he said.
Some progressive entrants to Texas politics agree, saying it’s more about packaging ideas in a way that appeals to the state’s voters.
“When we are introducing these policy ideas, I don’t start off with Medicare for All,” said Jessica Cisneros, a progressive who is challenging Cuellar in the Democratic primary. We talk about “this idea of having health care as a right, so we wouldn’t have to lose a loved one.”
Despite their clashes over ideology, Democrats in Texas do agree on at least one point: the top of the Republican ticket will motivate many voters.
“Texas is obviously not the Bronx,” said George Shipley, a Democratic operative in Austin, who was once an adviser to Gov. Ann Richards. “Texas is very resistant to the type of social programs Bernie offers, but the devil is not Bernie, the devil is Trump.”
So let me get this straight. Bloomberg is a fucking shitbag who is arguably worse than Trump, but if he ends up being the Democrat nominee y'all have a duty to vote for him because he isn't Trump. Are you serious?The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-02-16 01:02amThe counterargument, of course, is that we have to vote for whoever the nominee is, because if we lose to Trump, it won't matter what people think of the Democrats, because the US won't be a Republic any more and there won't be another election (other than the kind where the Dear Leader gets 90%, anyway).Straha wrote: ↑2020-02-15 06:06pm This isn't a 'Both Sides are just as bad' narrative. This is a more nuanced narrative that recognizes that while the Democratic party, writ large, is fundamentally better than Trump in a number of key ways Mike Bloomberg is a piece of shit who is arguably worse than Trump in many real and quantifiable ways and the Democratic Party nominating him is a repugnant notion that should be opposed.
The notion that anyone, anywhere, would look at him and think "Yo, that guy! That guy is our saviour from a billionaire promoted out of his depth because of monetary and cultural connections." is offensive, and the fact that people will, during the primary, smile and say "Well, you know, if it's him I'll take him." is more ammunition for the accusation of the Democratic party being fucking gutless and unwilling to take a stand for anything.
I get that Bloomberg is a pile of shit. And the bit about him altering term limits really does give me pause. But there is a reason why people say "Vote Blue no matter who", and its not just mindless party loyalty. Its because we saw what Bernie or Bust's "principles" cost us three years ago, and we know that the country can't stand four more years (and neither, frankly, can the world, especially given the Climate Crisis).
Bloomberg is scum. Yes. But I do not say that he is "arguably worse than Trump". That's Straha's argument, not mine. And while I would have deep misgivings about Bloomberg, I would also be very, very hesitant to choose Trump over him (which is what not voting amounts to, in practice), because we have been down this fucking road before. I heard the exact same arguments from every Bernie or Buster in 2016: "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils", "Both Sides are just as bad (but really we mean that the Democrats are worse)", "You're part of the problem". It was stupid and infuriating then, but now, when we've had three years to see just how vile and destructive Trump is? Its evil. You want to tell people that the highest priority is the destruction of the Democratic Party? Okay. Australia burning? That's on you. Heather Heyer run over in Charlottsville? That's on you. Dead little children in cages? That's on you. And everything that comes after will be on you too. And yeah, you can say you're not American, you can't vote, its not your fault, blah blah blah- but when you advocate an action that you know will have destructive results, you bear partial responsibility for those results.aerius wrote: ↑2020-02-16 01:25amSo let me get this straight. Bloomberg is a fucking shitbag who is arguably worse than Trump, but if he ends up being the Democrat nominee y'all have a duty to vote for him because he isn't Trump. Are you serious?The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-02-16 01:02amThe counterargument, of course, is that we have to vote for whoever the nominee is, because if we lose to Trump, it won't matter what people think of the Democrats, because the US won't be a Republic any more and there won't be another election (other than the kind where the Dear Leader gets 90%, anyway).Straha wrote: ↑2020-02-15 06:06pm This isn't a 'Both Sides are just as bad' narrative. This is a more nuanced narrative that recognizes that while the Democratic party, writ large, is fundamentally better than Trump in a number of key ways Mike Bloomberg is a piece of shit who is arguably worse than Trump in many real and quantifiable ways and the Democratic Party nominating him is a repugnant notion that should be opposed.
The notion that anyone, anywhere, would look at him and think "Yo, that guy! That guy is our saviour from a billionaire promoted out of his depth because of monetary and cultural connections." is offensive, and the fact that people will, during the primary, smile and say "Well, you know, if it's him I'll take him." is more ammunition for the accusation of the Democratic party being fucking gutless and unwilling to take a stand for anything.
I get that Bloomberg is a pile of shit. And the bit about him altering term limits really does give me pause. But there is a reason why people say "Vote Blue no matter who", and its not just mindless party loyalty. Its because we saw what Bernie or Bust's "principles" cost us three years ago, and we know that the country can't stand four more years (and neither, frankly, can the world, especially given the Climate Crisis).
Let me be blunt here. If the Democrat party nominates Bloomberg as its presidential candidate, it's so completely fucking broken that it must be destroyed. And if you're not willing to do so then you are part of the problem.
You mean preferential voting for selecting the democrat candidate for POTUS?
I assume so?mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2020-02-16 04:32amYou mean preferential voting for selecting the democrat candidate for POTUS?
Or just generally, really.mr friendly guy wrote: ↑2020-02-16 04:32amYou mean preferential voting for selecting the democrat candidate for POTUS?
It won't help with the my candidate or no candidate crowd though. I heard some of Andrew Yang's base has this attitude and we can't forget the Bernie or bust people either.
