2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[Nonlinear FC]

Moderate dems are just sycophants who've allowed themselves to be pushed right by the idiots we have in control now so they can keep pretending that they're centrists. Stop it.

And yet, these "idiots" aren't voting against their own interests.

[Steve of phpBB]

Steve, how do you reconcile that to the Bernie or bust voters who live in far less privilege than the voter you're referring to, who are directly affected by Trump but won't settle for a half-measure?

I don't think I'm understanding exactly what you're asking. Aren't most Sanders supporters straight white males?

Also I'm not sure what to reconcile. If in fact "refusing to settle for a half-measure" means "refusing to support a moderate Dem against Trump," then it's easy - whatever that person's specific circumstances are, if he or she is refusing to support a moderate Dem against Trump, then he or she is making Trump more likely to win and exacerbating the plight of the millions of people I referred to.

Trump winning means expansion of the Muslim and Black Foreigner Ban and more voter suppression and deportation of thousands of people who've lived in the US basically their entire lives. Biden or Buttigieg or Bloomberg winning means an end to the ban and fights against voter suppression and protection of DACA folks. It doesn't matter how rich or poor the voter is.

[Jerloma]

Call it what is is...by moderate, you mean establishment dems. The kind that are going to make the rich richer and let corporation do whatever the fuck they want. Being for that seems like white privilege more than Bernie or bust.

And while I get that, when you are looking at Trump vs. Establishment Dem, I just don't see how anyone can allow 4 more years of Trump.

Keep fighting as progressives. You are winning. Somethings this stuff takes a few cycles.

But letting Trump win is a really shitty "protest" move.

Sorry. It just occurred to me that you guys are talking about not voting for the Dem candidate if Bernie loses. I agree. That's dumb. I thought you meant that the Democratic party shouldn't let him win.

[mister d]

I don't think I'm understanding exactly what you're asking. Aren't most Sanders supporters straight white males?

Not really, check the Iowa demos.

Also I'm not sure what to reconcile. If in fact "refusing to settle for a half-measure" means "refusing to support a moderate Dem against Trump," then it's easy - whatever that person's specific circumstances are, if he or she is refusing to support a moderate Dem against Trump, then he or she is making Trump more likely to win and exacerbating the plight of the millions of people I referred to.

Trump winning means expansion of the Muslim and Black Foreigner Ban and more voter suppression and deportation of thousands of people who've lived in the US basically their entire lives. Biden or Buttigieg or Bloomberg winning means an end to the ban and fights against voter suppression and protection of DACA folks. It doesn't matter how rich or poor the voter is.

I guess before I respond longer, does the reverse of this also hold? If you'd vote for Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg then you also have to vote for Sanders or else you're pro-Trump imposed suffering? Because it often seems like the middle is given free will to choose the side that works for them where the far left has a one way street requiring them to vote Dem without the Dems having a requirement to work with/for the left (or actively work in concert with the right against them).

[govmentchedda]

I don't think I'm understanding exactly what you're asking. Aren't most Sanders supporters straight white males?

Not really, check the Iowa demos.

Also I'm not sure what to reconcile. If in fact "refusing to settle for a half-measure" means "refusing to support a moderate Dem against Trump," then it's easy - whatever that person's specific circumstances are, if he or she is refusing to support a moderate Dem against Trump, then he or she is making Trump more likely to win and exacerbating the plight of the millions of people I referred to.

Trump winning means expansion of the Muslim and Black Foreigner Ban and more voter suppression and deportation of thousands of people who've lived in the US basically their entire lives. Biden or Buttigieg or Bloomberg winning means an end to the ban and fights against voter suppression and protection of DACA folks. It doesn't matter how rich or poor the voter is.

I guess before I respond longer, does the reverse of this also hold? If you'd vote for Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg then you also have to vote for Sanders or else you're pro-Trump imposed suffering? Because it often seems like the middle is given free will to choose the side that works for them where the far left has a one way street requiring them to vote Dem without the Dems having a requirement to work with/for the left (or actively work in concert with the right against them).

Interesting question, and you're definitely correct about the middle being given (more) free will to choose the side that works for them.

That being said, I'd argue yes. Yes, the middle needs to fucking swing left, if that's the case. Easy for me to write that as a Warren first, Sanders close second, Dem voter.

[Steve of phpBB]

I guess before I respond longer, does the reverse of this also hold? If you'd vote for Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg then you also have to vote for Sanders or else you're pro-Trump imposed suffering?

Absolutely it does. If Sanders wins the nomination I'll be sending him money and calling complete strangers on the telephone (which I absolutely despise doing).

Of course, I personally would love to see a Sanders presidency anyway. What I really don't want is a Sanders *loss* in a general election.

[Giff]

I don't think you're pro-Trump imposed suffering if you don't vote for the Dem nominee, you just don't care if it continues to happen and that he'll be even more emboldened after re-election. How this question is still being asked after three years of his administration is almost as maddening as republicans getting pissed off at paper being torn.

[Giff]

Can't wait for four more years of this if mister d and Johnnie don't get their guy!

[Johnnie]

Only Biden can save us!

[Brontoburglar]

how is it so hard to grasp the reasoning that the least-best/worst/whatever term you prefer of the non-trump choices is still overwhelmingly better than the trump choice?

[mister d]

I don't think you're pro-Trump imposed suffering if you don't vote for the Dem nominee, you just don't care if it continues to happen and that he'll be even more emboldened after re-election. How this question is still being asked after three years of his administration is almost as maddening as republicans getting pissed off at paper being torn.

Ok, and like I asked above, how do you reconcile that to poor/targeted people who will come out for Bernie and stay home otherwise?

[Johnnie]

How is it hard to fucking grasp I'm voting blue no matter who? If Pete it Biden win the nomination, whatever. They have my vote.

The idea that a moderate Democrat will have a better chance at defeating Trump than a progressive one is a notion I fully fucking reject.

Sorry, I have to keep checking my privilege before I speak.

[mister d]

#I'mWithHim

[Brontoburglar]

How is it hard to fucking grasp I'm voting blue no matter who? If Pete it Biden win the nomination, whatever. They have my vote.

The idea that a moderate Democrat will have a better chance at defeating Trump than a progressive one is a notion I fully fucking reject.

Sorry, I have to keep checking my privilege before I speak.

steve -- or anyone in this thread today -- didn't make that argument

[Giff]

I don't think you're pro-Trump imposed suffering if you don't vote for the Dem nominee, you just don't care if it continues to happen and that he'll be even more emboldened after re-election. How this question is still being asked after three years of his administration is almost as maddening as republicans getting pissed off at paper being torn.

Ok, and like I asked above, how do you reconcile that to poor/targeted people who will come out for Bernie and stay home otherwise?

I'm reconciling it by criticizing them for doing that. Maybe those poor/targeted are OK with being poor/targeted with zero hope unless it's their guy, I don't know. But I hope they are because that is what will happen if Trump wins again. And four more years of installing judges, abusing power, and doing whatever in their power to ensure the poor/targeted will always be poor/targeted.

[Johnnie]

How is it hard to fucking grasp I'm voting blue no matter who? If Pete it Biden win the nomination, whatever. They have my vote.

The idea that a moderate Democrat will have a better chance at defeating Trump than a progressive one is a notion I fully fucking reject.

Sorry, I have to keep checking my privilege before I speak.

steve -- or anyone in this thread today -- didn't make that argument

And where exactly did I say I was Bernie or Bust?

[Brontoburglar]

where the snowball started down the hill

Quite frankly, I'd rather fail with a progressive than hope to succeed with a moderate. Nothing is for certain.

where the snowball somehow ended up after white males being privileged got mentioned

Only Biden can save us!

ETA: my confusion comes with the offense taken to the fact that white male privilege exists for all white dudes and then how we got to that point quoted directly above but this thread also does go around and around in circles on this general subject anyway

[Nonlinear FC]

Call it what is is...by moderate, you mean establishment dems. The kind that are going to make the rich richer and let corporation do whatever the fuck they want. Being for that seems like white privilege more than Bernie or bust.

And while I get that, when you are looking at Trump vs. Establishment Dem, I just don't see how anyone can allow 4 more years of Trump.

Keep fighting as progressives. You are winning. Somethings this stuff takes a few cycles.

But letting Trump win is a really shitty "protest" move.

Sorry. It just occurred to me that you guys are talking about not voting for the Dem candidate if Bernie loses. I agree. That's dumb. I thought you meant that the Democratic party shouldn't let him win.

Oh, FUCK NO.

[Johnnie]

It does go around and around.

The idea on this board is that a moderate Democrat has the better shot at taking out Trump than a progressive one.

But I feel, since nothing is for certain, that the progressive is better. And, in my opinion, you're only hoping to succeed if the moderate takes the nomination because Clinton, Kerry, and Gore were straight trash.

So I'd rather it be a progressive since, if the moderate looks like a loser to me, then failing with a progressive is a better shot. Because if you're going to fail, fail by being aggressive.

Why that means I have white male privilege is beyond me.

[Nonlinear FC]

Johnnie - The entire conversation around White Privilege is out the door once you (re)stipulate that you'd vote for a moderate if it came to that.




Classic dumb message board debate. Would've been squashed drinking in a bar when someone put their hand up to clarify this point.

[mister d]

Isolated strictly to personal gains those who are in the bottom 25% of income would see from this field, I'm curious where people think Pete or Biden would fall if Trump is a 0 and Bernie would be a 10.

[Steve of phpBB]

How is it hard to fucking grasp I'm voting blue no matter who? If Pete it Biden win the nomination, whatever. They have my vote.

The idea that a moderate Democrat will have a better chance at defeating Trump than a progressive one is a notion I fully fucking reject.

Sorry, I have to keep checking my privilege before I speak.

steve -- or anyone in this thread today -- didn't make that argument

For the record, while I may not have said it today, I do believe that. 24 percent of people in the US consider themselves liberal, 35 percent moderate, and 37 percent conservative.

(https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/rem ... -2019.aspx)

Moving to the part of the spectrum where fewer voters live - and drawing stronger resistance from the area where the most voters live - is not a winning strategy. If someone is aware of studies showing that it is, I'd love to see them. I've seen several links to studies and reports saying the opposite.

[mister d]

So if the Republicans are supposed to work for the right to far right and the Dems are supposed to make sure they don't offend the center ...

[Steve of phpBB]

Isolated strictly to personal gains those who are in the bottom 25% of income would see from this field, I'm curious where people think Pete or Biden would fall if Trump is a 0 and Bernie would be a 10.

If you're talking about actual gains that the bottom 25% would get if one of those were elected President, then on a 0-10 scale Bernie would be like a 4, and Pete or Biden would be like a 3.8. 51 Bernies in the Senate and 218 Bernies in the House would be a 10.

That's another critical angle - the stuff I was ranting about before is a lot more susceptible to executive and judicial action. The real big economic reforms that Sanders and Warren are talking about all require legislative action, i.e., approval from Joe Manchin (at best).

[Steve of phpBB]

So if the Republicans are supposed to work for the right to far right and the Dems are supposed to make sure they don't offend the center ...

Republicans get elected by persuading the right and far right on social issues and enough right-leaning moderates on economic issues (and still only get minority support but it's enough because of the electoral college).

Republicans don't run for president claiming that they will cut Social Security and Medicare and make college less affordable.

[mister d]

I feel like those two posts, back to back, highlight the problem. Republicans set the agenda and lead their voters whereas the idea of anyone but a "moderate" steering the left and middle to the gains of the left and middle is seen as preposterous. Its all tentative "what might the hypothetical most center person in the country say if forced to react" versus driving change, even if that change doesn't start at 50.01+%.

[Shirley]

Truth hurts?

Not trying to be an asshole, but what about Steve's post isn't true?

The implication that if Bernie is the nominee that he'll lose. And also that Johnnie is "Bernie or bust" despite his saying many times that he is not.

If you really want to win the election (and let's be clear, everyone currently posting in The Swamp wants a Democrat to win), it might make sense to go with the guy who's been surging nationally and leading in several polls now. Bernie isn't a niche candidate.

[Steve of phpBB]

I feel like those two posts, back to back, highlight the problem. Republicans set the agenda and lead their voters whereas the idea of anyone but a "moderate" steering the left and middle to the gains of the left and middle is seen as preposterous. Its all tentative "what might the hypothetical most center person in the country say if forced to react" versus driving change, even if that change doesn't start at 50.01+%.

You may be correct, but if in fact the electorate is more conservative than liberal, that's the playing field we have to play on. Losing elections doesn't really help anything. Winning elections and getting through as much reform as possible, so that even conservative people realize those were good ideas, is the way. That's what happened with the New Deal programs, Medicare, CHIP, and the 2010 law that barred health insurers from rejecting coverage or charging higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions. People who call themselves "conservative" now support all of those.

[Steve of phpBB]

Truth hurts?

Not trying to be an asshole, but what about Steve's post isn't true?

And also that Johnnie is "Bernie or bust" despite his saying many times that he is not.

If Johnnie said that many times before, then I apologize. I read his statement about how he'd rather fail with a progressive, and to me, the whole idea of another four years of Trump just terrifies me deeply.

[degenerasian]

Here's one of the establishment Democrats ranting.

“We’re losing our damn minds”: James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party

[Nonlinear FC]

Truth hurts?

Not trying to be an asshole, but what about Steve's post isn't true?

And also that Johnnie is "Bernie or bust" despite his saying many times that he is not.

If Johnnie said that many times before, then I apologize. I read his statement about how he'd rather fail with a progressive, and to me, the whole idea of another four years of Trump just terrifies me deeply.

He thinks I'm Canadian, so I think you can be excused your misreading or lack of awareness of his previous statements.

[brian]

I’m more convinced that ever this next election will be a repeat of 1972 especially if Bernie is playing the role of George McGovern

[Joe K]

Steve, how do you reconcile that to the Bernie or bust voters who live in far less privilege than the voter you're referring to, who are directly affected by Trump but won't settle for a half-measure?

I don't think I'm understanding exactly what you're asking. Aren't most Sanders supporters straight white males?

This isn’t remotely true. I believe the majority of Sanders supporters are actually women. And he’s second to Biden for African-American support and absolutely dominated with Latinos, Muslims and other minority voters in Iowa.

ETA:

[Steve of phpBB]

I found a site saying 61% of Sanders’ donations were from men. It had a pretty detailed breakdown. I’ll see if I can find it again.

[Joe K]

I found a site saying 61% of Sanders’ donations were from men. It had a pretty detailed breakdown. I’ll see if I can find it again.

Even if that’s true “donors” and “supporters” are not synonymous. And I’d also like to see how 61%, if true, compares to others in the race. Because based on voting and polling support we know that Sanders has substantially more support from minority voters than Buttigieg or Warren. Only Biden exceeds him and that gap appears to be closing. I also think the efforts to pigeonhole Sanders as a candidate for “straight white men” are ridiculous given that 1.) he was waaaaay out in front of the party on gay rights issues—Sanders organized gay rights parades in the 1980s as mayor of Burlington, back when Warren was a Reagan Republican and 2.) having a Jewish President would have meaningful historic significance.

[Steve of phpBB]

This isn’t the same site, but here’s another breakdown.

https://publicintegrity.org/politics/de ... er-places/

For Sanders, at least 52% of donors are men, and they account for at least 57% of his donations. Women are 41% of donors and 37% of dollars. (I guess they’re going by names so they can’t tell everyone.)

So it’s not a crazy breakdown. (Certainly different from how the breakdown appears online. Once again, Twitter isn’t real life.)

But he’s the only top candidate with more male donors than female.

[Steve of phpBB]

This was the site I found earlier. More detail - but also it's several months out of date.

https://prospect.org/power/wealthy-whit ... al-donors/

Joe, I didn't say that Sanders only cares about white men. Rather, that most of the folks who support Sanders - especially those who are in so deep that they talk about not voting if he's the nominee - are white men.

[Joe K]

This was the site I found earlier. More detail - but also it's several months out of date.

https://prospect.org/power/wealthy-whit ... al-donors/

Joe, I didn't say that Sanders only cares about white men. Rather, that most of the folks who support Sanders - especially those who are in so deep that they talk about not voting if he's the nominee - are white men.

The first link you posted, which is less than a week old, shows that Sanders is second to only Yang in highest percentage of donations from racially diverse zip codes. So the “white men” part is still flat out wrong.

[mister d]

I never fully understood that, and maybe its just me, but I wouldn't think straight white males would be the target demographic for american socialism. Just feels like two different angles of attack.

[HaulCitgo]

This was the site I found earlier. More detail - but also it's several months out of date.

https://prospect.org/power/wealthy-whit ... al-donors/

Joe, I didn't say that Sanders only cares about white men. Rather, that most of the folks who support Sanders - especially those who are in so deep that they talk about not voting if he's the nominee - are white men.

The first link you posted, which is less than a week old, shows that Sanders is second to only Yang in highest percentage of donations from racially diverse zip codes. So the “white men” part is still flat out wrong.

Gentrification and hipsters. I hear zero black folks talking up Bernie.