I think you are moving the goalpost here. Sure having a black VP might help the next midterms in the South. But it's not the difference between winning and losing the Presidential election.
I think you are moving the goalpost here. Sure having a black VP might help the next midterms in the South. But it's not the difference between winning and losing the Presidential election.
hal2kilo
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2009
- 23,431
- 10,328
- 136
Obama was different, so it probably was reverting towards the mean. I'm not sure putting a black candidate on would really helped her. She annihilated Bernie on the black vote because they remembered the Clinton and Obama years, so why would I think they would sour just because the ticket doesn't have a black person?.
Why Black Voters Prefer Establishment Candidates Over Liberal Alternatives
Black voters effectively delivered Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. She and Sen. Bernie Sanders ran about evenly among white vote…
Black voters effectively delivered Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. She and Sen. Bernie Sanders ran about evenly among white voters, but black voters overwhelmingly backed Clinton. So did the Democratic establishment.
It's nothing that you need to say out loud, and probably not really a factor outside of the public i.e. put a POC on SC. But doesn't this seem like a problem to you?
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,647
- 5,220
- 136
The point is proving some recognition of the importance of the black/poc vote to the party. It's integral. You can't just ask for votes, then not bring people into power.
If you don't, they never get the experience, never get the exposure, party never builds the bench.
Since it's so rigged in the South, it's very difficult for these candidates get to statewide offices which launches them even higher. It's a low ceiling they run into.
I can't see a party that can afford to just ignore that fact. At some point they can't count on the horror of the Rs to drive their people to the polls without any promise of sharing in the power.
If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, I still don't see a clear path to Bernie winning against Trump. A revolution like Bernie's will need some kind economic pain foisted onto the masses for them to want to even think about tearing it all down. I don't think the average voter understands or cares about the difference between communism, socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy. The average GOP voter will label all of it communism, and I don't know if the average swing voter will want to learn enough about poly sci to distinguish them.
A better marketing term would be "Social Democracy". It is capitalism with a strong social safety net and regulations to protect labor and the environment. Bernie's fundamental principles of wanting to provide Medicare For All, free college, expand existing social programs and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes are all fine proposals. Lyndon Johnson did it and no one thinks he was a marxist. He should know that most Americans would be described as social democrats, not democratic socialists. Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism, Social Democracy is capitalism for the middle classes. The terms only look alike.
Sanders has been clear that he wants the Nordic model and on the topic of billionaires he has been clear that: “Billionaires should not exist.” But Sweden and Norway both have more billionaires per capita than the United States — Sweden almost twice as many. Not only that, these billionaires are able to pass on their wealth to their children tax-free. Inheritance taxes in Sweden and Norway are zero, and in Denmark 15 percent. The United States, by contrast, has the fourth-highest estate taxes in the industrialized world at 40 percent.
The problem with Bernie is he's indulged by his ridged and fringe line of thinking where people think he's leading a war on capitalism. That's where it becomes an issue and people will tune out that message.
A better marketing term would be "Social Democracy". It is capitalism with a strong social safety net and regulations to protect labor and the environment. Bernie's fundamental principles of wanting to provide Medicare For All, free college, expand existing social programs and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes are all fine proposals. Lyndon Johnson did it and no one thinks he was a marxist. He should know that most Americans would be described as social democrats, not democratic socialists. Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism, Social Democracy is capitalism for the middle classes. The terms only look alike.
Sanders has been clear that he wants the Nordic model and on the topic of billionaires he has been clear that: “Billionaires should not exist.” But Sweden and Norway both have more billionaires per capita than the United States — Sweden almost twice as many. Not only that, these billionaires are able to pass on their wealth to their children tax-free. Inheritance taxes in Sweden and Norway are zero, and in Denmark 15 percent. The United States, by contrast, has the fourth-highest estate taxes in the industrialized world at 40 percent.
The problem with Bernie is he's indulged by his ridged and fringe line of thinking where people think he's leading a war on capitalism. That's where it becomes an issue and people will tune out that message.
When it comes to the "socialists". I would have a preference for Warren over Sanders.
Warren has a track record of being able to work with people to get things accomplished. Sanders doesn't. He wants to be the leader of a revolution.
The filibuster. Sanders revolution isn't going to be able to put enough pressure on enough GOP Senators to get anywhere near 60 votes to get bills through the Senate.
When it's clear that Medicare-for-All is a non-starter, she'll have the chops to figure out other solutions, and will likely also hire others similarly capable.
IOW, they may want essentially the same things, but Warren is realistic and pragmatic enough that she has a chance of accomplishing some of them if elected. I really don't see that being true with Sanders.
Also: Warren is 70, and clearly in good shape. Sanders is 78, and has recently had some sort of heart incident. (And refuses to release his medical records.)
I don't think Warren can get the nomination though...
Mayor Pete has much to offer the Democratic party going forward. I hope his talents will be well utilized in one capacity or another.
Warren has a track record of being able to work with people to get things accomplished. Sanders doesn't. He wants to be the leader of a revolution.
The filibuster. Sanders revolution isn't going to be able to put enough pressure on enough GOP Senators to get anywhere near 60 votes to get bills through the Senate.
When it's clear that Medicare-for-All is a non-starter, she'll have the chops to figure out other solutions, and will likely also hire others similarly capable.
IOW, they may want essentially the same things, but Warren is realistic and pragmatic enough that she has a chance of accomplishing some of them if elected. I really don't see that being true with Sanders.
Also: Warren is 70, and clearly in good shape. Sanders is 78, and has recently had some sort of heart incident. (And refuses to release his medical records.)
I don't think Warren can get the nomination though...
Mayor Pete has much to offer the Democratic party going forward. I hope his talents will be well utilized in one capacity or another.
Guess I hit a nerve with the corny comment.
I don't have an issue with you believing you're some sort of internet warrior that's changing the world. If that's what gets you through the day, more power to you. My point was that you shouldn't expect the rest of the world to see you the same way. The struggle you think your a part of exists primarily in your head, the battle you think your fighting was never joined by the enemy.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,188
- 14,092
- 136
Yes she's out. I'm not going to base my vote on who voted for Iraq war 17 years ago. But the truth is, neither Biden nor Sanders is going to beat Trump. We're screwed.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 16,678
- 13,432
- 146
ok posting this because I found it funny.
Bernie and Biden are both around ~5 points above Trump in national Feb. matchups, while the rest average around ~1-2 above Trump. Amy, Pete, and Liz have always been behind. Even in the battleground states of PA, MI, and WI. There's a lot I don't like about Bernie. There's a lot I don't like about Biden. But all the evidence points to them being the strongest this round, and voters generally choose those two for perceived electability.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 32,224
- 14,912
- 136
Yeah, his message was so freaky that the “establishment” didn’t pay any attention to him for 26 of his 30 years in public life. He’s spoken so much truth to power that he hasn’t changed the game since being in office. He’s spoken so much truth that while your wealth has remained flat, his has increased tremendously!
Don’t get me wrong, I like Bernie, I like his message but he isn’t the saint you and others make him out to be and your failure to acknowledge even the tiniest of weaknesses and to dismiss any criticism of him as conspiracy is reminiscent of another politician I know who’s fan base is similar. You may have forsaken the right that you used to be a part of but you simply changed sides without realizing the same mistakes and traps you fell for the first time around.
I have no idea who will win. I just feel it is best if Sanders wins. Maybe I have more hope than you do, but I believe is social evolution and that means progressives are the future from here. We are screwed if there is no revolution or until one finally happens. And you know what I mean by a revolution, the ending of the rule of the 1% by legislation.
This just sounds so crazy to me I don't even know where to begin. And I don't even want to deal with it, it's so out there. I think I'm going to watch TV. Damn. What the hell.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,188
- 14,092
- 136
I put very little stock in head to head polls taken during a primary. Historically they are just not that predictive.
While I agree they aren't super predictive it seems wrong to be confident in the victory of a president currently polling at ~43% who is losing by a significant margin to his most likely opponents.
As I always say I'm not saying Trump can't win by any stretch, just that it's hard for me to see what in the currently available evidence would indicate so many people assuming he's going to win. To me it seems like a hangover from 2016 where people are wary of being too confident.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,188
- 14,092
- 136
Trump is the incumbent while the economy is good. Historically that is not a favorable scenario for the opposing party.
Also, we are now faced with one potential nominee who is IMO too far left to win in the general election, while another comes across as senile. I'm voting for the senile guy. Neither is anywhere near an optimal choice.
I get that, but traditionally isn't the way a good economy leads to re-election is that it's reflected in the president's approval rating?
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,685
- 126
I think it's hard to say what's going to happen in November. Trump is hugely unpopular, but with an extremely loyal and motivated base. The country is also gerrymandered to shit, so he can win the election with a massive popular vote loss.
nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 58,152
- 12,325
- 136
Eh, just remember that a small handful of votes in a few very specific locations is what tipped the scale last time around.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,647
- 5,220
- 136
I wouldn't discount the possibility that his numbers could be underreported given he's an insufferable jackass and people may not want to admit or are undecided on him.
That's why I don't think a candidate selling a bunch of big tax increases and nationalizing several industries won't inspire suburban voters to hold noses and vote with their 401ks.
Bernie needs more crossover appeal if he wants to even smell the Presidency. He can't win with his base alone, and sadly...I don't think the "anybody but Trump" crowd will be big enough for many reasons, especially when it comes to running against Sanders.
I will vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. My priority is getting Trump out of office. He's not a normal. He's an abomination of a human being. Not to mention... he's a fake conservative and not even a "real" Republican. IMO we need both liberals and conservatives for our political system to work properly. Right now, we don't have any conservatives, with the result that the Democrats are having to take on the conservative role, and they are really bad at it. A return of real conservatives instead of Trump would definitely be a benefit to normalcy.
Biden's is also horrible, but his approach is better than Bernie's with the mindset of bringing more people into his tent: we live under a political system that was designed for incremental change. The really successful presidents are those who recognize opportunities for steps or even small skips or hops forward, like Obama did in 2009/2010. Bernie brings passion and energy - I get that. But he's promising his supporters the moon, and I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of delivering. Bernie is intensely popular within one small wing of one political party - most everyone concedes that. Bernie comes across as an inflexible ideologue. One of his biggest blind spots is human motivation and response to incentives. He appears to believe that such things can be mandated by government fiat. He needs people outside his tent and party to win this election. If he wins the nomination, we'll see how, or if he modifies his message at all.
I will vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. My priority is getting Trump out of office. He's not a normal. He's an abomination of a human being. Not to mention... he's a fake conservative and not even a "real" Republican. IMO we need both liberals and conservatives for our political system to work properly. Right now, we don't have any conservatives, with the result that the Democrats are having to take on the conservative role, and they are really bad at it. A return of real conservatives instead of Trump would definitely be a benefit to normalcy.
Biden's is also horrible, but his approach is better than Bernie's with the mindset of bringing more people into his tent: we live under a political system that was designed for incremental change. The really successful presidents are those who recognize opportunities for steps or even small skips or hops forward, like Obama did in 2009/2010. Bernie brings passion and energy - I get that. But he's promising his supporters the moon, and I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of delivering. Bernie is intensely popular within one small wing of one political party - most everyone concedes that. Bernie comes across as an inflexible ideologue. One of his biggest blind spots is human motivation and response to incentives. He appears to believe that such things can be mandated by government fiat. He needs people outside his tent and party to win this election. If he wins the nomination, we'll see how, or if he modifies his message at all.
Gerrymandering really doesn't have anything to do with Trump's chances. It impacts House races certainly but has no influence on the Presidential race.
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,685
- 126
Right, that's true. I'm using the term more informally to refer to the unequal voting power of voters in different states, but that's EC not gerrymandering.
@fskimospy: "While I agree they aren't super predictive it seems wrong to be confident in the victory of a president currently polling at ~43% who is losing by a significant margin to his most likely opponents.
As I always say I'm not saying Trump can't win by any stretch, just that it's hard for me to see what in the currently available evidence would indicate so many people assuming he's going to win. To me it seems like a hangover from 2016 where people are wary of being too confident.
I get that, but traditionally isn't the way a good economy leads to re-election is that it's reflected in the president's approval rating?"
Thanks. Trump, I think, has a way of making some of us crazy. I like Sanders for one reason, his intention to upset the power that wealth has over the electoral process and his potential to bully pulpit that issue for the potential it holds to focus the Attention of the American people on why they feel powerless and helpless to effect any real change in government that affects them. The government isn't set up to serve the people as much as it is to service the 1% and their ego ambitions. Massive wealth inequality is a culture killer and a recipe for hatred sufficient to wish for self destruction rather than continued misery of so many millions of hope drained people.
I don't think any cost prohibitive and truly impractical changes he may hope for will not pass the congress. Reality is real even for Progressives. Step one, get rid of the wealthy owning the state. Step two, seek to do what actually makes sense to fix the damage done and repair society.
As I always say I'm not saying Trump can't win by any stretch, just that it's hard for me to see what in the currently available evidence would indicate so many people assuming he's going to win. To me it seems like a hangover from 2016 where people are wary of being too confident.
I get that, but traditionally isn't the way a good economy leads to re-election is that it's reflected in the president's approval rating?"
Thanks. Trump, I think, has a way of making some of us crazy. I like Sanders for one reason, his intention to upset the power that wealth has over the electoral process and his potential to bully pulpit that issue for the potential it holds to focus the Attention of the American people on why they feel powerless and helpless to effect any real change in government that affects them. The government isn't set up to serve the people as much as it is to service the 1% and their ego ambitions. Massive wealth inequality is a culture killer and a recipe for hatred sufficient to wish for self destruction rather than continued misery of so many millions of hope drained people.
I don't think any cost prohibitive and truly impractical changes he may hope for will not pass the congress. Reality is real even for Progressives. Step one, get rid of the wealthy owning the state. Step two, seek to do what actually makes sense to fix the damage done and repair society.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter