2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[FAH1223]

 

[King Kreole]

The impression I got from your argument is one that I see often from leftists, which is basically "Obama was unpopular and a disaster, and running on a similar platform would be disastrous." Which is alt reality nonsense, as I mentioned. If you want to argue Obama didn't take leftist actions to your desired outcomes, fine. Understandable. To me, the idea that a president is a failure because he alone didn't change the fundamental makeup of our economic system is laughable...but hey, what do I know. I thought Obama's reaction to the financial crisis was a success in some ways, and a failure in others (namely the lack of any consequences for those who tanked the economy). If I can get back to the election aspect...running on a slightly updated Obama platform would not be unpopular or doom a candidate. Candidates live or die by their merits moreso than their policies in America, usually. The failures of Hillary Clinton for instance have more to do with her personal distastefulness than her policies...she ran on arguably the most liberal platform in decades.

It is objectively absurd to deny Obama's popularity. And I absolutely agree that running on a slightly updated Obama platform could win the election. But one can maintain Obama is broadly popular while still believing it would be disastrous to re-run his administration/political ideology, as it is responsible for bringing us to this point. Which gets to the heart of our disagreement. Unlike you, I don't view simply winning the White House as an intrinsic good, but rather a vehicle to get to intrinsically good ends. It's not enough to just win the election, you must govern. But people who share your view are in the vast majority (hence turnout differences in Presidential and Non-Presidential elections), and this explains how someone like Obama, who had so many objective failures, can maintain high popularity. There has been a 40-year right-wing assault on the civic sensibilities of the American people, and this attenuated view of politics is the result.

I see a lot of Obama apologists often pivot to the "he couldn't have single-handedly fixed America!" argument, but it's a strawman. Obama critics aren't expecting him to have turned America into a utopia. My critiques aren't based on hypotheticals, they're based on the actual, distinct actions and decisions he took as President. When I talk about his timidity in pushing for truly foundational economic change in the wake of the financial crisis, I'm talking about him taking Larry Summers' advice to pre-emptively reduce the amount of the stimulus because Republicans would be upset, and I'm talking about him taking Timothy Geithner's advice to prioritize Wall Street over Main Street in providing support in the wake of the housing crash. He owns those decisions. Time and time again, Obama was self-defeating because he fundamentally believed in a dumbass ideology.

I didn't say my lesson for 2012 is to nominate an unlikable semi moderate. My point is that the end game is going to look a lot like 2012, with Trump likely winning. I don't see any candidates who can beat him. I'm not afraid that Biden will win the nom - I think he'll fade - but unfortunately I don't really see anyone next up who can win in my opinion. And as in 2012, the debates have devolved into weird tangents that don't even interest the American people.

I disagree, but aight.

My problem with the Sanders wing is that they have endorsed a series of policies that involve magical math and are unrealistic - not to mention illogical. I like Warren to a degree because at least she understands monetary policy, which can't be said of any other candidate (outside of Yang). These debates have done a decent job of exposing how poor some of their arguments are, and how even someone as stupid as Trump could likely best them in a debate. Not that I think winning or losing the debates will be key...I think we can all agree Hillary outright one every debate, and still lost the election.

I'm an MMTer so I'm sure we'll disagree when it comes to what constitutes magical math. I do agree that winning or losing the debates will not be key.

 

[Pressure]

I didn't vote for Trump, and that fact you need to pretend I did in order for your argument to stand up is evidence of how empty it is. As is the fact that I've laid out exactly why I dislike the political establishment and the failures of the Obama years, yet you still see the need to ascribe to me some nebulous, unknowable obsession with destroying the Democratic Party. Go off, king.

Wasted by Reed Hundt.[/QUOTE]
His primary job was to lift us out of the recession. He did.

Dodd frank.
Onamacare.
Paris climate agreement.
Lifting us out of the recession.

But let's pretend like those thing didn't happen.
Let's pretend like without those the progressive would even be possible.

If you are serious about opening up more options, then you should be voting for Trump. Trump represents a historic opportunity for a reconfiguration of the American political landscape. The aftermath of a Trump victory is establishment Republicans fleeing their now co-opted party and joining the Democratic party, a process that has already started.

@ me next time, hoe

Cognitive dissonance? You and the rest of your HillarySet clowns are caping for a continuation of the American status quo. A continuation of America's neocolonial foreign policy. A continuation of the gutting of the underclass, disproportionately consisting of minorities, in favour of corporate profits. Why in the fukk would I support that shyt? America is already great! Why the fukk would I support that shyt? I'm done defending my position, I've written thousands of words on this forum during the past few months doing so while you #EstablishmentSet peanut gallery fukks just sit there and hee-haw about how Trump is a raciss . I'm having my black card checked by some fukks supporting Hillary Clinton?

Terrible posting.

There's also an entire thread with you celebrating the Trump election.

And here we are 3 years later with Joe Biden looking like the nominee.

All those long rants for naught

 

[King Kreole]

His primary job was to lift us out of the recession. He did.

Dodd frank.
Onamacare.
Paris climate agreement.
Lifting us out of the recession.

But let's pretend like those thing didn't happen.
Let's pretend like without those the progressive would even be possible.

If these weak tea policies impress you, we're not speaking the same language.

Terrible posting.

There's also an entire thread with you celebrating the Trump election.

And here we are 3 years later with Joe Biden looking like the nominee.

All those long rants for naught

3 years later and you're still caping for "Keep America Great"?

Joe Biden will not be the nominee. Elizabeth Warren will, and the prophecy will be complete. You're welcome.

 

[Pressure]

If these weak tea policies impress you, we're not speaking the same language.

They're popular with Americans. That's what matters and is reasonable way to value the success of a candidate.

3 years later and you're still caping for "Keep America Great"?

Just pointing out that 3 years later your predictions were wrong and so is any justification you've used to support a Trump presidency.

Moderates made the largest gains in 2018.

 

[King Kreole]

They're popular with Americans. That's what matters and is reasonable way to value the success of a candidate.

Yeah, I too am an idiot who cannot distinguish between what's popular and what's good.

Just pointing out that 3 years later your predictions were and so is any justification you've used to support a Trump presidency.

Moderates made the largest gains in 2018.

*looks at your av and chuckles to myself*

Yeah, I was wrong, there has been absolutely no reconfiguration of the American political landscape in the wake of Trump's election victory. No fundamental change in the direction of political activity and legitimacy in this country. Everything is the same as it ever was.

 

[Piff Perkins]

It is objectively absurd to deny Obama's popularity. And I absolutely agree that running on a slightly updated Obama platform could win the election. But one can maintain Obama is broadly popular while still believing it would be disastrous to re-run his administration/political ideology, as it is responsible for bringing us to this point. Which gets to the heart of our disagreement. Unlike you, I don't view simply winning the White House as an intrinsic good, but rather a vehicle to get to intrinsically good ends. It's not enough to just win the election, you must govern. But people who share your view are in the vast majority (hence turnout differences in Presidential and Non-Presidential elections), and this explains how someone like Obama, who had so many objective failures, can maintain high popularity. There has been a 40-year right-wing assault on the civic sensibilities of the American people, and this attenuated view of politics is the result.

I see a lot of Obama apologists often pivot to the "he couldn't have single-handedly fixed America!" argument, but it's a strawman. Obama critics aren't expecting him to have turned America into a utopia. My critiques aren't based on hypotheticals, they're based on the actual, distinct actions and decisions he took as President. When I talk about his timidity in pushing for truly foundational economic change in the wake of the financial crisis, I'm talking about him taking Larry Summers' advice to pre-emptively reduce the amount of the stimulus because Republicans would be upset, and I'm talking about him taking Timothy Geithner's advice to prioritize Wall Street over Main Street in providing support in the wake of the housing crash. He owns those decisions. Time and time again, Obama was self-defeating because he fundamentally believed in a dumbass ideology.
.

We have differing views on the presidency and its worth. On one hand I certainly think it's worth a lot...but to be most effective, a president needs congressional control. During the later parts of Obama's presidency there was often a refrain from liberals (moreso than leftists) that he needed to be like LBJ and "just get things done." Of course, all of LBJ's achievements occurred when democrats controlled large majorities in the house and senate. After losing nearly 50 seats in the House in 1966 (due to the CRA), LBJ was ineffective for the remainder of his presidency. Obama was very effective when democrats had majorities in both the senate and congress.

In terms of the stimulus and Wall Street/Mainstreet I agree. Obama made the best decision for the market, and it worked but I agree he had all the power to make a bolder move and didn't. Granted, I work in the financial sector.

I have little interest in the candidates. But I think it's of paramount importance that democrats remove Trump from office. My main interest is in re-taking the senate. I don't think it'll happen, even if a dem wins...but that has to be the goal. There is no hope for any policy - be it Biden-esque moderate bullshyt or Sanders-esque leftism, unless democrats 1) take the senate 2) end the filibuster. Without those two things, nothing will get done. Removing Trump from office is not going to "break the spell" on republicans. They're going to be emboldened and be even more extremist. It's essential that democrats enact popular policies and confirm a shyt ton of judges. That's literally all that matters.

Downside to all of this is that we're going to have a recession. Whether it happens next year when Trump is president, or in 2021...I'm not sure. But there are too many signs pointing towards it. A recession during a democrat presidency in which the filibuster remains would be disastrous.

 

[Pressure]

*looks at your av and chuckles to myself*

Yeah, I was wrong, there has been absolutely no reconfiguration of the American political landscape in the wake of Trump's election victory. No fundamental change in the direction of political activity and legitimacy in this country. Everything is the same as it ever was.

There's nothing new about racists attacking minorities and immigrants for political gain.




The conservatives has moved further right and liberals are roughly in the same position.

Medicare for all is only 42% without a private option. 72% with.

That's basically Obamacare with a public option. Or Obamacare as it was intended.

Support for sanders vs Biden is almost exactly where his support was against Hillary and Hillary is much more liberal than Biden.

Yeah, I too am an idiot who cannot distinguish between what's popular and

Leftwing fascism.

@Black Panther might be right about the horseshoe theory.

 

[StatUS]

There's nothing new about racists attacking minorities and immigrants for political gain.




The conservatives has moved further right and liberals are roughly in the same position.

Medicare for all is only 42% without a private option. 72% with.

That's basically Obamacare with a public option. Or Obamacare as it was intended.

Support for sanders vs Biden is almost exactly where his support was against Hillary and Hillary is much more liberal than Biden.

Leftwing fascism.

@Black Panther might be right about the horseshoe theory.

It's 55% once people are told they can keep their doctor and hospital. That can easily rise when more people are paying attention. Still makes it majorly popular even considering the questions in those polls are leading as hell.

 

[Pressure]

It's 55% once people are told they can keep their doctor and hospital. That can easily rise when more people are paying attention. Still makes it majorly popular even considering the questions in those polls are leading as hell.

The point is that it's less popular than the moderate proposal.

 

[StatUS]

The point is that it's less popular than the moderate proposal.

The questions are slanted towards that though. They don't tell people that it will still leave people uninsured. Or that it won't cover all cost like M4A will and they have to somewhat buy into it. Or that it could affect their beloved private insurance by lowering what is covered.

There has to be some education going forward on these fake plans from Pete and Kamala. And this public option extension by Biden. But that's what this is really all about. It's on Bernie and Warren to educate and get those numbers up. I don't quite trust the polls or the media to be honest actors here.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Made a bet with someone that thinks trump will win 42 or more states

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Pressure]

The questions are slanted towards that though. They don't tell people that it will still leave people uninsured. Or that it won't cover all cost like M4A will and they have to somewhat buy into it. Or that it could affect their beloved private insurance by lowering what is covered.

There has to be some education going forward on these fake plans from Pete and Kamala. And this public option extension by Biden. But that's what this is really all about. It's on Bernie and Warren to educate and get those numbers up. I don't quite trust the polls or the media to be honest actors here.

Or a lot of people have good jobs with good insurance provided by their company and want to keep that plan.

When Obamacare came out people were also told they would be able to keep their plan and their doctors and that didn't end up being the case.

These policy proposals are great, but they don't take into account the reality that is republican sabotage. I think that's the wearyness you see in the poll more than the polls being done poorly.

 

[FAH1223]