Game Day Thread: Iowa Caucuses

[Genx87]

I also think he's the most honest, but that is not enough to win the presidency and be effective unfortunately.

And I know he's a socialist (nothing wrong with that), but the spin that Fox and the right will put on it will be "but Venezuela!!!!!".

Of course they will but so what? Bernie seems capable of debating his positions and eager to have that debate. Foxnews is Foxnews, nothing is going to change them.

 

[Blackjack200]

This shit is just as bad as any shit that comes from the conservative media bubble. Spreading disinformation makes you part of the problem.

I didn't spread anything but go off.

 

[Genx87]

The idea that socialism is bad is the FUD.

I wouldnt say it is totally fud. The 20th century is littered with socialist experiments that ended very badly. Bernie is more than capable of having that debate to prove the naysayers wrong.

 

[mect]

^^^This, damn it, all of this!

That's not particularly true. I'm a "liberal" and fiercely proud of it. What we have a problem with is the more angry, immature and "out there," conspiracy-loving Bernie Bros.

I love and deeply respect Bernie. He's, hands down, the most honest and forthright candidate for Pres. on either side, on any side. It's not even close. But, PLEASE, he would be slaughtered in a general Pres. election.

Once Lyin' Donnie and the Repub/Faux News Smear and Fear machine got done with this JEWISH COMMUNIST LEFTIST ELITIST, he'd be toast and anathema with that broad spectrum of the "low information" American electorate that simply outnumbers us "woke" folks.

Bernie Bros don't seem to recognize or understand that they live in a bubble with their friends, who are many, who are legion, but who, in stark overall demorgraphic numbers, are still, nationally, a fucking minority.

Politics is the art of the fucking POSSIBLE. Our house is burning and we must do whatever is necessary to get Hump out of office, before he does even more fucking damage. Bernie Bros too fucking proud, too fucking pure, or too fucking resentful to vote for Hillary contributed to a Supreme Court which will put it's right wing thumb on the scales of our "justice" for FUCKING decades to come.

To them I say, "We NEED you to grow the fuck up and stand with us and actually DEFEAT Pres. Shit Stain."

You are basing your arguments off Baby Boomer politics. Millenials are now the biggest voting block in America. They don't hate the word "socialist" like the Boomers do, instead they hate the word establishment. As I stated in another thread, I think its highly unlikely that Trump beats any candidate, but the idea that Sanders can't win is ridiculous. There is no denying the country is going through a significant, populist wave right now, and the Dems won't fare as well if they continue to fight it.

Additionally, I think it is short sighted of the Dems to focus exclusively on removing Trump from office. If we just return to business as usual, and fail to address the issues that have been plaguing the working class for the last several decades and continue to build, we very well could end up with Trump 2.0 in the near future, and its possible that this one will come with a functional brain.

 

[sandorski]

I wouldnt say it is totally fud. The 20th century is littered with socialist experiments that ended very badly. Bernie is more than capable of having that debate to prove the naysayers wrong.

It has also many successes. If you judged Capitalism the same, you'd find out it had its' failures and successes as well.

 

[Blackjack200]

delete

 

[Blackjack200]

Looks like Mayo Pete declared victory when he knew he had lost.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1224666278268370945

Seems pretty Trumpian to me.

 

[Zorba]

This debacle only reinforces my opinions that:

1) Caucuses are stupid and Iowa being first is bad.
2) All voting should be done by mail using ranked choice.

Just have a fucking primary already where everybody votes at the same time so we aren't subjected to months of inane Iowa coverage about who's going to win the hearts and minds of Americans in about the least diverse state we can find.

I agree, except I do think there should be a few lead states. A national primary would massively favor name recognition and money. Obama would've never been nominated in that system.

 

[Brainonska511]

I agree, except I do think there should be a few lead states. A national primary would massively favor name recognition and money. Obama would've never been nominated in that system.

They should all be primaries, and states of similar sizes should be paired together. Maybe as a concession, you could have a few small states vote on the same day and go first.

 

[K1052]

I agree, except I do think there should be a few lead states. A national primary would massively favor name recognition and money. Obama would've never been nominated in that system.

Pick a state or two within shouting distance of the demos of registered party members. Then let the rest go a few weeks later.

 

[Genx87]

It has also many successes. If you judged Capitalism the same, you'd find out it had its' failures and successes as well.

I didnt see capitalism as a political ideology murdering hundreds of millions via political cleansing or starvation due to forced agricultural collectivism. The equivalency isnt even close.

 

[ultimatebob]

You know if the GOP holds the Senate they are going to investigate the shit out of the next President. If they manage to get the House back the President will be impeached a few times a year at least.

Yeah, it's pretty safe to assume that the impeachment proceedings are going to become more common at this point. It's just going to become another tool in arsenal of the opposition party.

 

[sandorski]

I didnt see capitalism as a political ideology murdering hundreds of millions via political cleansing or starvation due to forced agricultural collectivism. The equivalency isnt even close.

El Salvador and a half dozenish Central/South American nations would disagree.

 

[Blackjack200]

I didnt see capitalism as a political ideology murdering hundreds of millions via political cleansing or starvation due to forced agricultural collectivism. The equivalency isnt even close.

And neither did socialism "as a political ideology". To the extent that you compare them on even terms, capitalism is always much worse.

 

[Genx87]

And neither did socialism "as a political ideology". To the extent that you compare them on even terms, capitalism is always much worse.

Oh really? I can rattle off China and Soviet Union that killed an estimated combined 80-100 million via starvation and political extermination. From there the murdering does drop off to the tune of single or low double digit millions of murders for countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea ect. Which "capitalist" country or countries achieved that level of murdering in the 20th century?

This is getting off topic. But I find the false equivalency interesting. Especially the "capitalism is always much worse" stance.

 

[alcoholbob]

American politics is weird.

You have a bunch of people who appear to hate the Democratic party trying to vote for some who isn't a member of the Democratic party to be leader of the Democratic party and then getting surprised that the existing members of the Democratic party who have worked for the party for decades aren't massively enthused about this.

I agree, no need to cry about a power struggle. Labor got kicked out of the democratic party in favor of the corporatist wing in the 90s and they need to fight if they want to claim power back.

 

[sandorski]

Oh really? I can rattle off China and Soviet Union that killed an estimated combined 80-100 million via starvation and political extermination. From there the murdering does drop off to the tune of single or low double digit millions of murders for countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea ect. Which "capitalist" country or countries achieved that level of murdering in the 20th century?

This is getting off topic. But I find the false equivalency interesting. Especially the "capitalism is always much worse" stance.

No one denies what those Nations did. I would suggest that it wasn't because of "Socialism", but because of uncontrolled zealotry. What some of those did well though is to raise more People out of Poverty than any other system with unprecedented rapidity.

 

[Bitek]

Bernie would have an issue with a lot of democrats as well.

The funny thing, I actually respect Bernie the most of all the candidates on both sides of the aisle. At least he is being honest.

btw it isnt fud. The guy identifies as a socialist but caucuses with the Democrats.

I do give him credit for being honest.

He's also an intransigent idealist with lots of new taxes and big expensive plans that would take 60 votes to do anything with.

His plans are pixie dust.

Question is, what would he actually do (assuming he even survives the general as a socialist.)?

Is he humble enough to take the small wins and make real changes for regular folks? Or will he only fight for his socialist utopia and accomplish nothing in the end?

His record suggests the latter.

I see him as a risky candidate with little upside and serious, serious downside risk.

Mission #1 needs to be getting rid of Trump, and not having RGB replaced by another Alito.

Mission #2 is going big on infrastructure and green energy. Lots of jobs and innovation needed now to ensure our future.

Then bolt on a public option to Medicare on a reconcilation vote (only way possible), combined with some tax increases on the richest/corps plus tax cuts for the middle, balanced well enough to trim the deficit to sustainable levels (~3% GDP.)

Get weed legalized too.

Then I'll call it a greatly successful presidency.

All the Ds are offering slightly different flavors of this, even Biden. No reason to lose the election for a guy who's promising more than can be delivered. We just need to win.

 

[dainthomas]

Looks like Mayo Pete declared victory when he knew he had lost.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1224666278268370945

Seems pretty Trumpian to me.

That fits right in with him crying about the latest Des Moines Register poll and getting it tossed, when other candidates (Yang) were routinely lumped into "other" yet you didn't hear him whining about it.

 

[Zorba]

That fits right in with him crying about the latest Des Moines Register poll and getting it tossed, when other candidates (Yang) were routinely lumped into "other" yet you didn't hear him whining about it.

Yeah, I think this will be his Dean moment if he is not at least a very close second.

 

[Perknose]

The idea that socialism is bad is the FUD.

The idea that "socialism" is not already inextricably woven into the very fabric of our many government programs is the real joke.

And I'm not even talking about the stunning, big bucks "corporate socialism" enjoyed by pharma, farmers, oil companies, timber land exploiters, our military, etc, etc, etc.



The stupidity is mind blowing.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh really? I can rattle off China and Soviet Union that killed an estimated combined 80-100 million via starvation and political extermination. From there the murdering does drop off to the tune of single or low double digit millions of murders for countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea ect. Which "capitalist" country or countries achieved that level of murdering in the 20th century?

This is getting off topic. But I find the false equivalency interesting. Especially the "capitalism is always much worse" stance.

And how many were killed as a result of the American and British empires? How many people have been starved by American sanctions? How many killed by the polluted air and water of capitalism? I'm quite comfortable that these numbers dwarf the finest work of Mao and Stalin.

 

[nakedfrog]

I do give him credit for being honest.

He's also an intransigent idealist with lots of new taxes and big expensive plans that would take 60 votes to do anything with.

His plans are pixie dust.

Question is, what would he actually do (assuming he even survives the general as a socialist.)?

Is he humble enough to take the small wins and make real changes for regular folks? Or will he only fight for his socialist utopia and accomplish nothing in the end?

His record suggests the latter.

He can set the tone, but the house and senate will be the ones drafting bills for him to sign. You believe if they send him small wins, he'd veto them out of idealism?

 

[nakedfrog]

At any rate, it sounds like Biden didn't do well, which is all I really wanted.

 

[Perknose]

You are basing your arguments off Baby Boomer politics. Millenials are now the biggest voting block in America. They don't hate the word "socialist" like the Boomers do...

Sure, the millenials you know, maybe.

But come out of your bubble and smell the wider demographics, please. From that noted right wing rag, Huff Post:

Turns Out White Millennials Are Just As Conservative As Their Parents
Democrats hoping for younger voters to reduce the country’s political and racial divide could be disappointed.

Additionally, I think it is short sighted of the Dems to focus exclusively on removing Trump from office.

Au contraire, I think it's unforgivably blind to his clear and present danger not to. First things first . . . then, we can work together for true, democratic progress.

A (very possible) Trump re-election would be a tragedy. His current term sure is.

Our house is burning. Now is not the time to consider new lawn ornaments or which flowers to plant.