The Swamp

brian wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:54 pm And that's before you accept the notion that anyone on the left who hates Trump is going to for even a second seriously contemplate wasting their vote on some milquetoast centrist. The kinds of people who would or will vote for Schultz are ones who would never vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name on the ballot and their needs/concerns should be completely irrelevant to the rest of us.

Imma go on a little jaunt here, stay with me:

I grew up (politically) at the Democratic Leadership Council. I truly believed at the time that the Dems had both an identity crisis that was pushing "middle america" away. That liberal policies had allowed the unions too much power, and hamstrung the justice system allowing for too much crime. I won't go too much more into it, but I'm OK admitting now that a lot of that was somewhat wrong-headed.

Whatever about all that. What I saw at the DLC over the years, as well as working on the hill and at the New America Foundation made me increasingly cynical. What at first started off as honest policy differences sure started looking like something much more sinister. There is SO MUCH MONEY flowing in DC, that there is absolutely room for Big Pharma, Insurance, Tobacco, Gun, etc etc to push and pull levers to make sure the relative status quo stays in place. These people aren't stupid.

If a progressive package comes out of the primary process, the amount of money that's going to go into defeating those candidates is going to be STAGGERING. If it's not Schultz, someone else will be put forward that is more formidable than Jill Stein, and they will have a shit ton of money backing them.

Mark it down. 2020 is going to be bonkers because the stakes are getting raised for the ultra-rich and their corporations. People are fed up. Trump might be good short term, but these rich fuckers have a long-term outlook and they know the mob is assembling on their front lawn.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:04 pm None of that, all of which I agree with, has anything to do with my assertion that no one in the national media will bring up him selling the SuperSonics as a negative.

Agree to disagree. We'll meet back here to discuss never, because this is all just his book tour and he'll float away having served his purpose.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:14 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:04 pm None of that, all of which I agree with, has anything to do with my assertion that no one in the national media will bring up him selling the SuperSonics as a negative.

this is all just his book tour and he'll float away having served his purpose.

Unfortunately, that's what I said about Trump in 2015.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:22 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:14 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:04 pm None of that, all of which I agree with, has anything to do with my assertion that no one in the national media will bring up him selling the SuperSonics as a negative.

this is all just his book tour and he'll float away having served his purpose.

Unfortunately, that's what I said about Trump in 2015.

If Schultz actually wins the presidency I can live with that outcome compared to the status quo.

Add Corey Booker to the pile.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:59 pm Shit like this isn't sustainable. Schultz is the new poster boy for entitled rich fuck smug prickdom.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:12 pm If a progressive package comes out of the primary process, the amount of money that's going to go into defeating those candidates is going to be STAGGERING. If it's not Schultz, someone else will be put forward that is more formidable than Jill Stein, and they will have a shit ton of money backing them.

Mark it down. 2020 is going to be bonkers because the stakes are getting raised for the ultra-rich and their corporations. People are fed up. Trump might be good short term, but these rich fuckers have a long-term outlook and they know the mob is assembling on their front lawn.

I absolutely agree with this and would add that there’s an interesting dynamic where candidates like Harris, Booker and Gillibrand are currently staking out platforms for the primary that are significantly more progressive than their historical track records. If any of them gets the nomination they will face huge pressure to walk that back and to run as a third-way style centrist.

Is 2020 the number of candidates in the field now?

Baloney wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:32 pm Is 2020 the number of candidates in the field now?

No, it's just the level of hindsight the Democrats aren't going to have when these alsorans keep entering the race and they don't move the needle.

Add Bernie, officially.

I’d like to see something related to foreign policy on this list, but in his defense, Sanders has shown more leadership there in recent years than the other Senators who are running.

I'm tapped out in WashPo articles.

Is there a "Green New Deal" for pot somewhere in there too? I think he's come out in favor of descheduling it previously, so I'm wondering if it's part of the agenda.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:16 am I'm tapped out in WashPo articles.

Is there a "Green New Deal" for pot somewhere in there too? I think he's come out in favor of descheduling it previously, so I'm wondering if it's part of the agenda.

He recently co-sponsored a bill authored by Cory Booker that would not only deschedule it but also withhold federal funding from states that continue to aggressively criminalize it.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:46 am

I’d like to see something related to foreign policy on this list, but in his defense, Sanders has shown more leadership there in recent years than the other Senators who are running.

Sign me the fuck up, although gun to head, Liz Warren gets my vote still. That platform is fantastic though.

I'll take someone not yet on the list with that same agenda. Which I know isn't fair.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:30 am I'll take someone not yet on the list with that same agenda. Which I know isn't fair.

Kinda what I was trying to say.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:36 am

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:30 am I'll take someone not yet on the list with that same agenda. Which I know isn't fair.

Kinda what I was trying to say.

I’d agree but of those who have announced a run, Warren is the only other candidate I’d trust for a second to continue supporting those policies after getting through the primary.

It's one thing to say free healthcare but what does that mean? And for who? Do current private clinics get transformed or shut down or is it some two-tier hybrid?

Even in Canada its probably a 60/40 split. For example I have to pay for dentist and glasses through insurance.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:36 am

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:30 am I'll take someone not yet on the list with that same agenda. Which I know isn't fair.

Kinda what I was trying to say.

Exactly right. If you loved 100% of what Hillary was about and you were happy Hillary was running again, sorry but you'd be an insane person.

Bernie will get broad (and vocal) support, but not very deep. In a crowded field, don't see him doing much, but I've been wrong before. If he's the nominee I'll grit my teeth and vote for him.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:46 am Bernie will get broad (and vocal) support, but not very deep. In a crowded field, don't see him doing much, but I've been wrong before. If he's the nominee I'll grit my teeth and vote for him.

I think the crowded field helps him a lot, especially since the only other candidate his more passionate supporters are likely to consider is Warren. If there were just one establishment candidate it’d be hard for him, but as it stands, Harris, Booker, Klobuchar and Gillibrand have tons of overlap on policy issues. Add Biden and/or Beto to the mix and the establishment pack gets even more crowded.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:16 am It's one thing to say free healthcare but what does that mean? And for who?

Is this an honest question or the standard "supporting an issue on the left means having every detail locked down and every potential loophole closed while supporting an issue on the right means the ability to repeat a slogan"? If its the former, free healthcare means poor people will have options other than the ER and bills they'll never pay and people of lower-to-middle means won't face inhumane decisions (groceries or insulin, cancer death or putting your family in crippling debt). "Uninsured" will no longer exist, though I'm sure the rich will always have better and quicker option. That's life.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:15 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:16 am It's one thing to say free healthcare but what does that mean? And for who?

Is this an honest question or the standard "supporting an issue on the left means having every detail locked down and every potential loophole closed while supporting an issue on the right means the ability to repeat a slogan"? If its the former, free healthcare means poor people will have options other than the ER and bills they'll never pay and people of lower-to-middle means won't face inhumane decisions (groceries or insulin, cancer death or putting your family in crippling debt). "Uninsured" will no longer exist, though I'm sure the rich will always have better and quicker option. That's life.

It's an honest question and I like your answer and hope it gets framed that way.
Of course the GOP will grind it into a money argument with slogans.

I do agree that universal health care will actually save the US money in the long run since they are spending so much money now on uninsured and shitty healthcare. But the money would have to be raise up front in the short term to see that benefit in the future and who and what to tax will be a campaign issue.

The idea there's no money for this stuff is a fallacy. Even if you didn't want to raise taxes on super-high incomes, the cost of Trump's tax cuts for the 1 percent would have funded free college education and Medicare For All for everyone age 45 and older for about a decade.

Mayor Pete had a good interview on 1A today. Just wish he would get more run then he will actually get. Had a great line about standing up to Trump.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:15 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:16 am It's one thing to say free healthcare but what does that mean? And for who?

Is this an honest question or the standard "supporting an issue on the left means having every detail locked down and every potential loophole closed while supporting an issue on the right means the ability to repeat a slogan"? If its the former, free healthcare means poor people will have options other than the ER and bills they'll never pay and people of lower-to-middle means won't face inhumane decisions (groceries or insulin, cancer death or putting your family in crippling debt). "Uninsured" will no longer exist, though I'm sure the rich will always have better and quicker option. That's life.

Agree that the bolded point is crucial. While the ACA was an improvement over the status quo it didn’t go far enough because for millions of Americans, just having private health insurance isn’t enough to keep the out of pocket costs from being a major hardship. That’s why more aggressive reforms such as M4A are needed.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:46 am

Interesting that election reform /Citizens United didn't make the list.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:12 pmWhile the ACA was an improvement over the status quo it didn’t go far enough because for millions of Americans, just having private health insurance isn’t enough to keep the out of pocket costs from being a major hardship.

Right. Probably a bad policy that actively hurt some, but a stepping stone to what now seems far more inevitable than anyone would have imagined a decade ago.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:46 am Bernie will get broad (and vocal) support, but not very deep. In a crowded field, don't see him doing much, but I've been wrong before. If he's the nominee I'll grit my teeth and vote for him.

I would think Bernie is a pretty decent favorite to get the nomination. Not just that he has the name recognition factor, but he'll likely have a significantly stronger organization than any of the other candidates. And unlike last time there can be no complaints from his supporters about the system, they have basically a year to get registered as Dems so no complaining about closed primaries. And that's where the Bernie organization will be so vital because they should be getting people registered en masse.

I just think anyone who is not a Bernie stan is done with him at this point. But again, we'll see.

duff wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:51 am Mayor Pete had a good interview on 1A today. Just wish he would get more run then he will actually get. Had a great line about standing up to Trump.

I like what I've seen and heard from Pete so far, but I doubt he will get much traction on the national stage. He is a virtual unknown, and doesn't have anything to grab attention. It's a shame, but in a field this big, running to defeat an incumbent who is a caricature of the worst President imaginable, I think it's going to take incredible charisa for an unknown to break through. Either that, or an extremely compelling story, or even striking good looks. Something. Pete is a calm, rational voice, but "openly gay mayor" isn't going to be enough to "go viral" in the media.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:22 pm I just think anyone who is not a Bernie stan is done with him at this point. But again, we'll see.

I think his age is a big obstacle. But if anything, Bernie’s platform and messaging about economic justice will be more appealing after 4 years of Trump than it was in 2016.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:29 pm

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:22 pm I just think anyone who is not a Bernie stan is done with him at this point. But again, we'll see.

I think his age is a big obstacle. But if anything, Bernie’s platform and messaging about economic justice will be more appealing after 4 years of Trump than it was in 2016.

+1

Or his cult of personality will be reminiscent of Trump and nobody else will jump on board when they can get 75% of his platform in a better package

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:21 pm

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:46 am Bernie will get broad (and vocal) support, but not very deep. In a crowded field, don't see him doing much, but I've been wrong before. If he's the nominee I'll grit my teeth and vote for him.

I would think Bernie is a pretty decent favorite to get the nomination. Not just that he has the name recognition factor, but he'll likely have a significantly stronger organization than any of the other candidates. And unlike last time there can be no complaints from his supporters about the system, they have basically a year to get registered as Dems so no complaining about closed primaries. And that's where the Bernie organization will be so vital because they should be getting people registered en masse.

No way. Bernie's 2016 run was an amazing boost for the Progressive platform. It forced some major ideas into the mainstream discussion that were previously too far left to seriously discuss. Now that the ideas are normalized in the public forum, there are a dozen or so other candidate pushing the same beliefs who are much more appealing to the voters who are down with his platform. The same message will have much more appeal coming from a younger, more relatable candidate to that base. Let's face it, it's going to be Millenial to GenX heavy base, and I don't think an 80 year old grump with a thick Jewish/Brooklyn accent is going to pull more enthusiasm than the young, ethnic or female faces who play well on podcasts or Stephen Colbert's couch. Nobody wants to get yelled at by their crazy Uncle's lectures. Not to mention, Bernie refused to join the Dem Party until he decided to run for President. Yes, it sucks that the DNC fucked his chances in 2016, but it's perfectly understandable. I thought the Republicans would have dne the same to Trump when he joined the GOP in order to run.

Bernie will end up more historically important than whoever implements these changes if that happens, but I don't see any way he can be the one to do it.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:22 pm I just think anyone who is not a Bernie stan is done with him at this point. But again, we'll see.

You realize that he routinely polls as one of the most popular politicians in the country, right?

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:44 pm Bernie will end up more historically important than whoever implements these changes if that happens, but I don't see any way he can be the one to do it.

In which case his legacy may be similar to Goldwater's.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:37 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:21 pm

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:46 am Bernie will get broad (and vocal) support, but not very deep. In a crowded field, don't see him doing much, but I've been wrong before. If he's the nominee I'll grit my teeth and vote for him.

I would think Bernie is a pretty decent favorite to get the nomination. Not just that he has the name recognition factor, but he'll likely have a significantly stronger organization than any of the other candidates. And unlike last time there can be no complaints from his supporters about the system, they have basically a year to get registered as Dems so no complaining about closed primaries. And that's where the Bernie organization will be so vital because they should be getting people registered en masse.

No way. Bernie's 2016 run was an amazing boost for the Progressive platform. It forced some major ideas into the mainstream discussion that were previously too far left to seriously discuss. Now that the ideas are normalized in the public forum, there are a dozen or so other candidate pushing the same beliefs who are much more appealing to the voters who are down with his platform. The same message will have much more appeal coming from a younger, more relatable candidate to that base. Let's face it, it's going to be Millenial to GenX heavy base, and I don't think an 80 year old grump with a thick Jewish/Brooklyn accent is going to pull more enthusiasm than the young, ethnic or female faces who play well on podcasts or Stephen Colbert's couch. Nobody wants to get yelled at by their crazy Uncle's lectures. Not to mention, Bernie refused to join the Dem Party until he decided to run for President. Yes, it sucks that the DNC fucked his chances in 2016, but it's perfectly understandable. I thought the Republicans would have dne the same to Trump when he joined the GOP in order to run.

The thing about those “younger” and “more appealable” faces is that they don’t have nearly the same consistent track record of progressive politics that Sanders does. To use a few examples, remember when Booker went on Meet the Press and bashed Obama for criticizing Romney’s work in private equity? Or how Harris first ran for San Francisco DA on a hardline, tough on crime platform? Or how Gillibrand initially ran for Congress as a conservative Dem? Authenticity matters to voters and I think that’s a big part of why Sanders consistently polls as one of the most popular politicians in America.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:58 pmYou realize that he routinely polls as one of the most popular politicians in the country, right?

Where does Biden rank?