All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So because of Hillary Clinton's supporters, compromise = unacceptable? I don't think Clinton's supporters have anything to do with your professed stance on Gun Control which also lacks any compromise short of 'Repeal the 2nd' for just one example (Or acknowledgement of any potential work that can be done before 2/3rds of the legislature agrees).

You couldn't even agree that Trump was willing to compromise on his wall before being called out on it (which is out there for all to see as factual) so don't try to paint yourself as some bastion of compromise who was disabused by them damn Clinton supporters. There are multiple people in this thread with actual memories that last more than a year or so.

Sorry I don’t really feel like compromising again for people I already comprised for after the amount of vitriol. And quite frankly it’s not surprising at all the reaction that Bernie running again got by the people who constantly cried about party unity and relitigating 2016. There’s a lack of credibility there

[ZombieHavoc]

God Emporer Bernie is the only candidate who will ever be able to be elected again. Love it or leave it, if you disagree.

Knight is right about Hillary supporters going in on Bernie supporters for the past two years. He's blinded by party partisanship though because it was also the other way around, though he has spreadsheets I guess that prove that not to be true.

[Dalak]

Sorry I don’t really feel like compromising again for people I already comprised for after the amount of vitriol. And quite frankly it’s not surprising at all the reaction that Bernie running again got by the people who constantly cried about party unity and relitigating 2016. There’s a lack of credibility there

"Compromise didn't work once, so lets throw the entire concept out along with the baby in the bathwater!"

Given your past posts (Also pointed out by ZH), I agree there's a lack of credibility involved but I disagree with you about where it lies.

[jetengine]

The issue frankly is that for all his talk Bernie isnt a Democrat, he just rocked up since he knew he couldnt run as an independent. When people are asking for unity they mean for those infighting on race/gender etc rather then Bernie ignoring the last two years and setting his cult on the ballots whom WILL vote for Trump if Bernie doesnt get in.

Which is literally insane. But he doesnt seem to care.

[Kusanagi]

I voted for Bernie in 2016, I may or may not vote for him in the primaries, and if he does win the primaries I'll definitely vote for him vs. Trump.

That said if he does win, I hope he picks a young dynamite VP because I'm really uncomfortable that'd he be what, 83?, by the end of his first term.

[Iron Maiden]

Nobody is stealing media from Trump. He’s a celebrity and he’s in a weird unique position other Democrats can’t replicate. Least of all Beto. He’s interesting in a state like Texas where he’s the breath of fresh air. The North East, California, all the major urban media markets, he’s not really that exciting of a candidate comparatively to what they see every day.

Trump only attracts low brow nitwits these days. You can never hope to convert them anyway

[Rob Allen]

Arkansas State Senator Bill Zedler, a member of the Texas House of Representatives

Does he live in Texarkana?

[PaulBullion]

Lol you really think it was a not Hillary vote and not his progressive record? Because his progressive record is what’s been permeating the Democratic Party for the past 2 years.

And if we are being absolutely truthful those same Sanders voters hate Gillibrand, hate Booker, and don’t think much of Harris (way better than the former two, but she’s not a Progressive darling). Warren’s the biggest who has real crossover with Bernie voters and then I think most people would accept Biden.

I rarely agree with you, but you are right in pointing out that many Bernard voters don't like women and black people.

[wjowski]

I think Bernie's bought into his own hype too much trying to run again.

[TheDarman]

Lol you really think it was a not Hillary vote and not his progressive record? Because his progressive record is what’s been permeating the Democratic Party for the past 2 years.

One hundred percent--I think that Clinton also got a share of the votes that would've generally agreed with Bernie more. But a large part of his initial support was with those who weren't exactly comfortable with her as a person more than her policy proposals.

The policies were successful. But I think that demonstrates the strength and pull of the ideas more than the candidate. It is going to be difficult for Bernie Sanders, I think, to break down new members of Congress who have signed onto his policy proposals from the beginning and making them out to be the villains he successfully made Clinton out to be. Without that, I don't think Sanders has demonstrated an ability to run an effective campaign. He's welcome to prove me wrong. But he hasn't made too much of an effort to make any real inroads with the folks he lost in 2016 while losing ground with the progressive base as a result of a lot of candidates being legitimate in claiming they have also acted progressively. It's gonna be even tougher for him than it was last time.

And if we are being absolutely truthful those same Sanders voters hate Gillibrand, hate Booker, and don’t think much of Harris (way better than the former two, but she’s not a Progressive darling). Warren’s the biggest who has real crossover with Bernie voters and then I think most people would accept Biden.

I don't think I'd argue that Gillibrand is being perceived as a progressive candidate. If anything she would be more establishment, which actually does have a base, and only she and Klobaucher are vying for that right now. However, Booker has been going along with a lot of what progressives would want. While they can be skeptical, it is gonna be difficult to come up with too many things substantive to hold against him. Harris, particularly, has an even better record on social progressive issues than Bernie Sanders himself, which is gonna play well with social progressives who prioritize that over economic populism (which we had two years of already mind you). I don't see the progressive base as a monolith that will only sign on with Sanders. I think people in this race now actually have legitimate claims to be a progressive darling--and actually have better substantive social policy to play to other parts of the party that progressives have prior ignored.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

God Emporer Bernie is the only candidate who will ever be able to be elected again. Love it or leave it, if you disagree.

Knight is right about Hillary supporters going in on Bernie supporters for the past two years. He's blinded by party partisanship though because it was also the other way around, though he has spreadsheets I guess that prove that not to be true.

You’re right, it was both ways. However only one way was saying it and calling for party unity while doing it and using that mantra in a self serving way to criticize people who weren’t falling in line.

Does it surprise me that a lot of the people who begged Bernie supporters for party unity were the same ones that couldn’t resist taking a shot at him or blaming him for the election result? No. Does it surprise me that those same people spent the last few months coming up with reasons why Bernie shouldn’t run like his age or to give someone lee a shot? No. Doesn’t it surprise me that when push came to shove they had a very telling negative reaction to him running again? No. You could see it coming up a mile away.

And while Bernie supporters criticized Hillary supporters, I don’t recall a big campaign to label Bernie supporters sexists. I don’t recall people trying to imply that it was about Bernie being a white man like someone in this thread (and others online all the time) try to do.

So yeah there was criticism on both sides. One side however threw way more targeted vitriol and labledthe other group and one side did it all while screaming party unity. So no, it’s not equal. It’s a false equivalence

[Spike-X]

Fuck me, it's gonna be a long two years.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

"Compromise didn't work once, so lets throw the entire concept out along with the baby in the bathwater!"

Given your past posts (Also pointed out by ZH), I agree there's a lack of credibility involved but I disagree with you about where it lies.

Compromise only works when it’s done in good faith. Bernie supporters compromised for Hillary more than Hillary supporters compromised for Obama. Bernie supporters still got blamed for the outcome of the election, still got labeled sexist, and as you can see others in this thread trying to make a racial implication as well.

It’s blatantly a false equivalency (and quite frankly, if it was a Republican vs Democrat thing, you’d be one of the first people to point it out and dismiss the whole thing out of hand) and it’s pretty clear that a good deal of the people that begged for party unity only did it because it served the candidate they wanted.

[ZombieHavoc]

One side however threw way more targeted vitriol and labledthe other group and one side did it all while screaming party unity. So no, it’s not equal. It’s a false equivalence

You are entrenched and tribal as hell, man. It's okay though, I am too. I'm just not loyal to one specific person who I have deified beyond all hope and reason, such as people have with Trump and Bernie.

I'm already seeing Bernie people in comments referring to Kamala as "black Hillary". People can have their problems with Kamala, as some do, but now I guess she's gonna have to answer to Bernie for all of the Hillary vs. Bernie stuff from 2016. Things are gonna turn out well.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

One hundred percent--I think that Clinton also got a share of the votes that would've generally agreed with Bernie more. But a large part of his initial support was with those who weren't exactly comfortable with her as a person more than her policy proposals.

The policies were successful. But I think that demonstrates the strength and pull of the ideas more than the candidate. It is going to be difficult for Bernie Sanders, I think, to break down new members of Congress who have signed onto his policy proposals from the beginning and making them out to be the villains he successfully made Clinton out to be. Without that, I don't think Sanders has demonstrated an ability to run an effective campaign. He's welcome to prove me wrong. But he hasn't made too much of an effort to make any real inroads with the folks he lost in 2016 while losing ground with the progressive base as a result of a lot of candidates being legitimate in claiming they have also acted progressively. It's gonna be even tougher for him than it was last time.



I don't think I'd argue that Gillibrand is being perceived as a progressive candidate. If anything she would be more establishment, which actually does have a base, and only she and Klobaucher are vying for that right now. However, Booker has been going along with a lot of what progressives would want. While they can be skeptical, it is gonna be difficult to come up with too many things substantive to hold against him. Harris, particularly, has an even better record on social progressive issues than Bernie Sanders himself, which is gonna play well with social progressives who prioritize that over economic populism (which we had two years of already mind you). I don't see the progressive base as a monolith that will only sign on with Sanders. I think people in this race now actually have legitimate claims to be a progressive darling--and actually have better substantive social policy to play to other parts of the party that progressives have prior ignored.

I think in general the progressive base will be more agreeable to Sanders, then Warren, then possibly some combo of Harris and Beto (but they’d have to make a good faith effort), then Biden because they generally like Obama but Biden also pissed a lot of them off with recent comments.

I think Gillibrand and Booker are pretty much dead on arrival. They just piss of progressives too much. Gillibrand’s been a lot better and has been trying but I don’t think anyone trusts her whatsoever and Booker’s in an even worse position and if he wants to win he should probably strategize pulling off some huge upsets in some Republican strongholds with few progressives. Gabbard I don’t take seriously and Klobucher will be out after the first serious debate or primary.

That’s the way I see the race from a progressive front.

Thankfully I see the race coming down to some combination of Warren/Harris/Sanders/Biden. But to be honest, Democrats should just try to win without any far left votes if Gillibrand or Booker get the nom. That ain’t happening