All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tendrin]

The raw truth is that if he answered this question honestly -- that he doesn't think society should desegregate or that black people deserve the right to a quality education -- many in America would agree with him.

People keep acting as if Trump winning was some fluke, when in reality it just exposes the truth about American politics and America in general.

I mean, it sounded to me he didn't have any idea what was being talked about and was just thinking about, you know, school busses taking people to school altogether. It's true, though, the president is the president of revanchist white identity politics.

[aja_christopher]

I mean, it sounded to me he didn't have any idea what was being talked about and was just thinking about, you know, school busses taking people to school altogether. It's true, though, the president is the president of revanchist white identity politics.

That's my point as well -- he's both painfully ignorant and blatantly racist.

And many Americans still saw fit to elect him to the presidency -- or to not "vote against" him when the opportunity presented itself.

Assuming we even get to another (legitimate) Democratic presidency, with gerrymandering approved, the courts stacked in their favor, and white supremacist policy now coming directly from the White House almost unchecked, one can only wonder what racist, homophobic, anti-democratic horror show the Republican party might evolve into from this point forward.

[aja_christopher]

Wasn't sure whether to use white supremacist or white nationalist when referring to the Republican White House -- as Mets points out, terminology is important.

Interesting how Trump has mostly shut up about "terrorism" after all of the recent shootings and murders by white supremacists.

Instead, he's now calling the brown people at the border "animals" and rallying his Republican "base" to do the same.

----
"...while academic researchers are pushing for more precision in describing white nationalism and other far-right extremism, the Trump administration seems to be moving in the opposite direction, with some officials adopting more generic terms such as "ethno-violence" or "racially motivated extremism." Unless they're being questioned by Congress, security officials rarely mention "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" violence. Those terms are missing from federal agencies' websites, too.

"I'm appalled that the leadership, at least some people, feel that they can't use those terms," said Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor who oversaw terrorism-related cases at the Justice Department. "These acts of violence we've seen recently — Tree of Life synagogue [in Pittsburgh], the recent events in California, international events like in Christchurch in New Zealand. I mean, these are white supremacists."

President Trump has dismissed white nationalists as a "small group of people." He has retweeted white nationalist accounts. And there is little daylight between his anti-immigrant speeches and those of far-right extremists. White supremacist factions were spotted among the crowds cheering for Trump at his 2020 campaign kickoff rally in Florida this week.

Critics of the administration's handling of the far-right threat say it is no mystery why administration officials don't speak up more forcefully — it would put them at odds with the White House.

Eric Ward, a longtime civil rights activist who leads the nonprofit Western States Center in Oregon, said there are two main consequences of the administration's mixed messaging. First, it muddies the picture that law enforcement and the public have of the white nationalist threat; and, secondly, it gives at least the appearance of political cover to hate groups that have moved from the fringe to the mainstream in recent years.

"You have a white nationalist movement that, correctly or incorrectly, believed that it was part of a coalition that elected Donald Trump to the White House," Ward said. "And this administration should be saying and doing everything within its legal power and its moral voice to drive home that it wants nothing to do with that movement."

There's no sign that such a clear-cut disavowal is coming, extremism trackers say. Instead, the administration remains fixated on playing up the threats of Islamist and far-left militant groups, especially Antifa, a self-styled anti-fascist organization known for black-masked protesters."

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/23/73485...ight-extremism

[Mister Mets]

But again, I think for a lot of people, it's his ideas that matter. I like Bernie the best, but someone like Warren would be a good second choice, I am not saying its Bernie or bust, I am saying you need someone with actual left-wing ideas to fix the busted system.

And yes Clinton and Trump are not the same, obviously, but if Clinton was unwilling to deal with conditions that created Trumpism, which I do not she was willing to do, she would have delayed Trumpism, not defeated it. The system as it now breeds Trumpism, if it's not changed, Trumpism will just take a new form if Trump is defeated, it will not go away in the current system. Trump is a symptom, not the disease, fixing what created Trumpism requires real work, not just putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Would Biden be a better President than Trump? Yes, but would Biden be willing to take on Trumpism itself or would he ignore it if he won? That's the big question.



If you are going to ask me is Biden a better choice then Trump, yes, obviously and should vote for Biden over Trump, yes.

But answer me this question do you think Trump is the only problem or a symptom of a larger problem?

Because I think Trump is a symptom of a bigger problem and if Biden becomes President and says ''everything is fine now'' you are going back to the environment that breed Trumpism in the first place.

Do you want to win a battle or win a war? Because there is no normalcy to go back to, that normalcy was an illusion, if you want to ''get woke'', just to go back to sleep when Trump is no longer President, you will see Trumpism come back worse then ever in short order. This marathon, not a jog, defeating Trump is part one, but the job is not done if you do not defeat Trumpism.

As long as Trumpism exists, that normalcy people crave will never exist, only by making a better system can Trumpism be defeated.

What if Biden is the nominee, runs the same type of neoliberal campaign Hilliary Clinton ran and Trump eats him breakfast then what? What if Biden is not the safe choice he is making himself out to be, he had no good answer when Harris brought up his record, you don't think Trump will do the same? It's naive to think Biden is a sure bet against Trump, don't leave anything to chance.

Some of the concerns about Bernie are that he won't be able to pull off what he wants to do.

There are three major problems.
1) President Bernie Sanders would need congressional support for a lot of his agenda. Democrats are underdogs to take back the Senate, but even if they do, would moderates like Joe Manchin vote for the more ambitious socialist policies?
2) Sanders might have a worst chance at winning than some of the others. Is the difference between him and Biden really worth an increase in the chances of Trump getting reelected (which would also correspond to a good Senate outcome in 2020; which also means that if a Democrat wins in 2024 those Senators will be up for reelection in 2026 and midterms are historically bad for the party in the White House.)
3) Will Sanders be able to keep the presidency in 2024? Would he run for reelection at 83? Will there be a new fight between the establishment and younger progressives arguing they're continuing his legacy?

Again if Clinton was so progressive, why did she seem to have no answer (and thus ceed ground) to Trump when he attacked NAFTA? Trump told the working class that foreigners were coming to take their jobs and he was going to stop it and she said nothing to them, heck she barely campaigned in the rust belt states, she gave those Trump on a platter because she thought they were in her pocket. If she was progressive, she able to counter Trump on that, not just surrender ground to him right away on this issue.

This whole idea that she was ''the most progressive candidate ever'' seems like a Boston Globe fluff piece that made her seem more progressive then her actual record showed, that of her being another out of touch war hawk, a corporate-backed center right career politician. People were supposed to trust that she would actually keep her supposed progressive promises, despite her record saying she wouldn't

If Clinton and Biden are ''progressives'' despite the fact they supported the crime bill that increased incarnation rates for African Americans, supported the war in Iraq and financial deregulation, that word has no meaning.

If you are going to accuse of ''relitigating the 2016 election'' if people think Biden is a good choice, I think it does need to be relitigated, because I think that is just repeating the mistakes of the past, rather then learning from them.

How about this time we try to counter right populism with left-wing populism, instead of trying to counter it with vacuous Third Way nothing policies.



Why not just run Brad Pitt then?

I think people are underestimating how people in 2016 did not like the status quo and voted for Trump simply because promised to change it, just promising to return us to the status quo, rather than changing it is the wrong way to go, the things the created Trumpism will not be addressed if that happens.

It's worth noting the crime bill was backed by a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus. It had significant support among African-American leaders, because African-Americans were also disproportionately likely to be victims of crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/...e-bill-n552961

Trump and the GOP have immediately jumped on the democratic candidates saying that they would give illegal immigrants health insurance. I think this will be the basis of his campaign. “They’re trying to use your hard earned money to pay for health insurance for the people who are trying to steal your jobs!!!” I really hope who ever the democratic candidate ends up being, they have a good explanation that gets right to the point. They’re gonna have to find a way to explain the fact that illegal immigrants actually pay millions of dollars in taxes for services they can’t use.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/172290...ants-pay-taxes

This argument would mainly work if they can demonstrate that illegal immigrants won't get more out of health care than they put in.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump had the perfect opportunity to show the country, and the world that he shunned white supremacists by fully disavowing the heinous actions of those neo-Nazi fuckwads in Charlottesville, especially after one of their number murdered Heather Heyer. Instead, he came out with his mealy mouthed “Both sides were just as bad” bullshit, and it was effectively game over, white supremacists knew right then and there they had a friend in the Oval Office, a friend they could count on to have their backs, and it’s been downhill for decency ever since. Yeah, no way will this White House call out white supremacists for their ugly rhetoric and especially their violence because Trump needs their support for his re-election bid. Stevie Wonder could see the hideous symmetry working between Trump and his racist buddies, and it’s ugly as hell.

[Mister Mets]

Vagueries in Forum Discussion worry you more than actual policy being enacted by your Republican party. Actual people being mistreated in camps aren't worth fighting for having better treatment because of phrases like 'treat these people like human beings' in response to said mistreatment. If you as a registered Republican were to call your Senators and Congresspeople (Local and not) and show them your objections to this policy you'd have much more of an impact than any liberal as they ignore us, have you done so? You've said this shouldn't continue but you never responded to how long it should still continue thanks to the phrasing I used, so I think it's important to see if you are even willing to put that much effort into holding your party responsible for policies you say that you oppose.

BTW: Gerrymandering being tied to a VP from hundreds of years ago shouldn't protect the current illegal practice from being addressed.

Whether someone discusses a topic isn't a proxy for whether we care about it. I don't see much point in talking about things you guys are already of. That would seem to waste your time.

I've written about mistreatment in camps and offered some solutions (more judges so cases are heard faster so people spend less time in detention facilities/ the facilities are less crowded, financial support for Mexico in exchange for Mexico offering safe harbor at a lower cost.)

When I think you guys are mistaken on something, or haven't considered the full implications of a suggestion, I'll point that out. I do mainly spend time on this thread to learn about current events, and work through my understanding, so I'll also questions when I'm not sure about something.

As for calling members of Congress as a Registered Republican, I'll also note that my members of Congress in Queens are Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gilibrand and Grace Meng (D-NY.) If you want, I can call their offices on Monday to thank them for voting on the bipartisan border security bill that passed the Senate 84-8 and the House 305-102.

https://www.apnews.com/6fb698358db346e4b47183ffe0fef8b6

[aja_christopher]

If the Democrats want to win elections then the best thing they could do is to ensure that Republicans don't continue to impede the right of "minorities" to vote as equals in said elections.

-----
"Civil rights groups sue Florida over 'poll tax' law to restore felon voter rights"

"The lawsuit claims the new law violates the prohibition against poll taxes enshrined in the 24th Amendment"

"A group of civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida Friday after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would require felons to pay court-ordered financial obligations if they want their voting rights restored.

Florida's new law, SB7066, violates the prohibition against poll taxes enshrined in the 24th Amendment, claims a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Brennan Center for Justice and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The suit filed on behalf of 10 Floridians also claims the law was at least partly motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose in violation of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to people born or naturalized in the United States, and the 15th Amendment that prohibits the government from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race or color or previous servitude.

"This disenfranchisement will be borne disproportionately by low-income individuals and racial minorities, due to longstanding and well-documented racial gaps in poverty and employment," the lawsuit states.

An estimated 1.4 million Floridians with felony records had their voting rights restored in January after 64.5 percent of state residents voted last year to approve an amendment to Florida's constitution. The ballot initiative restored voting rights to residents with felony convictions who have completed their sentences, with the exception of those convicted of murder or a sexual offense.

But DeSantis began to undermine the voter-approved amendment in December just after he was elected."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...store-n1024866

[Theleviathan]

Why not just run Brad Pitt then?

I think people are underestimating how people in 2016 did not like the status quo and voted for Trump simply because promised to change it, just promising to return us to the status quo, rather than changing it is the wrong way to go, the things the created Trumpism will not be addressed if that happens.

I'd pick The Rock not Pitt.

He would probably win too.

[aja_christopher]

Not saying I agree with everything said here but the premise is sound -- infighting is the bane of the Democratic party, especially in contrast to Republican solidarity.

-----
"MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called the second night of the first 2020 Democratic debates a “disaster for the Democratic Party” and said that he hopes voters were not watching the face-off, which aired on his network.

"With apologies to our friends and watching, last night was a disaster for the Democratic Party," Scarborough said Friday on "Morning Joe." "My only hope is people were not watching and I will tell you why."

He went on to jab the candidates for criticizing each other instead of focusing their ire on President Trump.

“So they’re lined up in trench warfare, ready to get out of the trenches and charge Donald Trump. Instead, they all turn their guns on each other and shoot each other, and everybody is yelling at each other all night,” Scarborough said Friday morning.

“If you’re an American and this is your introduction to these candidates and the Democratic Party, and all you see are 12 people yelling at each other, trying to interrupt each other, insulting each other, you’re like, ‘You know what. I thought Donald Trump was a clown show. I’m changing the channel.'”

Scarborough called former Vice President Joe Biden’s performance one of “the most disturbing debate performances” he had seen, and questioned Biden for sticking closely to the debate’s rules and not focusing more specifically on issues in his answers.

“It was one of those moments where you’re going, 'My God, is he going to complete his sentence?'” Scarborough asked.

The host also accused Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) of not preparing for the debate and recycling tactics he used when he debated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

“Bernie Sanders was yelling all night. Bernie Sanders didn’t prepare for the debate,” Scarborough said. “It showed because he basically gave the same debate performances this year that he gave four years ago. It may have worked when it was Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton. It did not work last night.”

Scarborough also criticized the Democratic candidates for adopting a slate of progressive policy platforms, including decriminalizing border crossings and providing health insurance through a public option to undocumented immigrants, suggesting that they would not be able to beat Trump with that focus.

“It was a bad sign for me, as someone who desperately wants to see Donald Trump taken out of office,” Scarborough said.

He slammed Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for calling out Biden on his history of opposing the policy of busing black students to predominately white schools. One of the most heated moments of the debate came as the California senator attacked Biden's record on civil rights.

Scarborough said the “overwhelming majority of Americans” oppose busing as a means of integrating American schools. Fifty-nine percent of Americans opposed school busing in 2009, according to the Pew Research Center."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...020-democratic

[Tami]

Maybe you should read the wikipedia article you linked. Because there's a whole section titled "contemporary mainstream political conception". Also that same article links to a more relevant page on "Progressivism in the United States".

Sorry you just changed the goal posts to a discussion nobody involved in the progressive movement is having and isn't really relevant in this context. Even you would have to concede all the leaders of the progresive movement in the Democratic party are talking about political policy on terms of an economic/healthcare perspective.

In this context the voters who claim they want a progressive have a very clear idea of what they want, and using the broadest definition of the term so you can group as many people in it as possible isn't that compelling of an argument. You aren't going to convince any of them that Biden for instance is a progressive in relation to Sanders or Warren quite frankly.

Also you never addressed the principle of the argument. If Bernie's theory is an old theory, then why was nearly everyone on that stage basically inching as much they dared to towards his theory?

I'd really love to see the person who across the board goes further consistenly than him.

Again you're using the length of time he's been making the argument to say "oh it's old news and passe", when the whole party is slowly trying to meet him there because they realize that's what the people want. So

1. No they aren't all caught up to him, so clearly the Party and the country hasn't passed his ideas by.

2. Again all it speaks to is he has the most credibility of consistency on it.

3. To your last point it doesn't only address one problem. It addresses our tax code, it addresses our economic system, it addresses our approach to healthcare, it addresses our foreign policy priorities, etc. I know what your getting at, in that to you he doesn't explicitely target racial issues enough (though I don't think anybody in their right mind has any real reason to believe he isn't going to push for advancements in civil rights) for you. But you can't just use the broadest use of the term progressive in one sense and then try to lump all the things he fights for as "only addressing one problem".

First, my interpretation of Progressivism is very broad, covering all aspects of social and economic and scientific issues. Yet I do understand that the word Progressive has become synonymous with those on the most liberal edges of the left, especially those who advocate Economic Progressivism.

When I say One Issue, that is what I mean. Economic Progressives like Sanders who are focused on trying to apply the same Economic pseudo-socialism band aides to everything. But not everything is Economic and not every problem can be solved by up-ending Capitalism, tearing down corporations, and eliminating taxes.

His ideas are old, Socialism in one form or another has been around for hundreds of years or more. It's just not the way America sees it's self, that is why there is a note of surprise and apparent newness to it, even though it isn't. Also, it actually may not be all that Progressive either since letting the government control everything stifles innovation. It's like a parent who si so overprotective of a child that they lock that child up, provide for their every need, and let them vegetate in this protective cocoon. Eventually the parents will get too old, too poor, or too sick to continue to do this and then what happens?

[TriggerWarning]

I don't want to relitigate the 2016 election either, but I think we should learn something from that defeat, otherwise, we are just repeating mistakes from the past.

The only lesson dems need to learn from 2016 is not to nominate someone who is as unlikeable as Hilary Clinton. There was only one other candidate even remotely as hated by half the country as her running last time and he was Donald Trump. The only dem candidate I see this time who could come close to Hilary in terms of dislike is Warren because she comes off as an entitled rich woman who faked being a minority to get ahead. You can argue how much she really benefited from the fake minority claims she made on forms back in the 70's but she did do it and its not going to play well in the poor white America parts of the country that chose Trump over Hilary in 2016. And it won't play well with minorities because if Warren is the nominee, Trump will hammer on this issue endlessly. So she will struggle with her base and with the small percent of swing voters in important states that gave the election to Trump last time.

[Theleviathan]

The only lesson dems need to learn from 2016 is not to nominate someone who is as unlikeable as Hilary Clinton. There was only one other candidate even remotely as hated by half the country as her running last time and he was Donald Trump. The only dem candidate I see this time who could come close to Hilary in terms of dislike is Warren because she comes off as an entitled rich woman who faked being a minority to get ahead. You can argue how much she really benefited from the fake minority claims she made on forms back in the 70's but she did do it and its not going to play well in the poor white America parts of the country that chose Trump over Hilary in 2016. And it won't play well with minorities because if Warren is the nominee, Trump will hammer on this issue endlessly. So she will struggle with her base and with the small percent of swing voters in important states that gave the election to Trump last time.

When Charlamagne Tha God went "Rachel Dolezal" on her, I felt it was a sneak preview of what Trump could do on that issue. Her response was not ideal, it's a worry of mine. And I say that as someone who favors her right now.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

First, my interpretation of Progressivism is very broad, covering all aspects of social and economic and scientific issues. Yet I do understand that the word Progressive has become synonymous with those on the most liberal edges of the left, especially those who advocate Economic Progressivism.

When I say One Issue, that is what I mean. Economic Progressives like Sanders who are focused on trying to apply the same Economic pseudo-socialism band aides to everything. But not everything is Economic and not every problem can be solved by up-ending Capitalism, tearing down corporations, and eliminating taxes.

His ideas are old, Socialism in one form or another has been around for hundreds of years or more. It's just not the way America sees it's self, that is why there is a note of surprise and apparent newness to it, even though it isn't. Also, it actually may not be all that Progressive either since letting the government control everything stifles innovation. It's like a parent who si so overprotective of a child that they lock that child up, provide for their every need, and let them vegetate in this protective cocoon. Eventually the parents will get too old, too poor, or too sick to continue to do this and then what happens?

Okay well first things first you're using YOUR interpretation of progressivism to counter the concerns of a whole block of voters who have a very defined idea of what progressive tenants they are fighting for. So you're not addressing their point. It's not an effective counter because the principle of the issues they support Sanders for and don't support other canidates for go unaddressed because you are asking for a goal post change of viewing the whole subject differently, and thus taking it away from what they care about.

When you say one issue you are lumping a lot into one box of econmics. Sanders has a strong history on being anti interventionalist on foreign policy. That is a huge draw that attracts alot of his supporters. In fact one of the last remaining holdouts from them fully embracing Warren is that she doesn't have Sanders strong history on foreign policy. On LGBT right he's been at the front of the pack forever in supporting the right issues and always pushing the envelope compared to his peers. On Civil Rights, he was part of the movement. I guess you will argue that he is not as overt in specific causes like a canidate like Booker who has a very different experience does, but he's always been at the forefront there. Notice I didn't talk about healtcare, taxes, regulation, infrastructure, social programs, etc which is alot regardless to lump in one box of "Economic Progressive". The appeal he has to his supporters is that he's either leading the way or at the front of the back on most of the issues they care about and he has a consistent history of supporting those to the point where you can't deny his credibility on it. It's very easy to look at Booker and Gillibrand who have been bought off special interests forever and wonder "hmm will they go back to being the same politicians they were before now that they don't have an election to worry about". With Sanders you don't have to worry about the concern that you will be sold one thing and get something else.

Also you're distorting the point and making an argument Republicans make. Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. It's not Socialism. Anybody whose ever seriously studied socialism knows most of his policies aren't even close to what Socialism actually is. He's advocating for a hybrid economic model closer to that of Europe and Canada and nearly every developed country where certain utilities like healthcare and education are deemed human rights and not subject to free market interference where profits can subvert the goals of those programs. Canada, or the UK, or Sweden, or nearly all of the civillized world would not define themselves as Socialist countries. Also Sanders isn't advocating for tearing down corporations or eliminating taxes. You're doing a really great job of using a disengenous Republican talking point on this one. This is the same arguments they used against Obama when he was trying to get the ACA passed. He's modeling out tried and true methods that have worked elsewhere to far greater success than our current systems.

Maybe his ideas are old, but they are still ahead of America, which makes him relevant. You don't like Sanders so you are creating a problem where there isn't one. Point to the canidate who across the board right now is equal or better than him across the entire spectrum of policies on progressive issues? There isn't one. There's Warren who is nearly with a major gap in foreign policy and had to be nudged a bit on helathcare. Everyone else is not where he is and that's despite most of them running further left than they ever have in their lives. So no the fact that we are so archaic as a country that old ideas are still new and needed don't making Sanders irrelevant.

No offense but you just made a standard Republican argument to counter Sanders. Claiming he wants to end Capitalism. Claiming that he wants to tear down corporations. Claiming that he wants the government to control everything and that innovation will be stifled". He wants none of those. He views certain specific programs that are for the social good to be viewed as human rights and to either be taken into the public sector or have a hybrid competing public and private model so that people can get those rights. He wants an actual modern tax code that actually makes sense and doesn't let millionaires and billionaires hoard over 90% of the wealth in the country as everyone else shrinks out of the middle class. Also you can't compare it to an overprotective parent. It's a government. There is a historical contract that governments take up with the welfare of their people. When the government grows old and dies it was because it failed and there was a revolution or another government conquered it. Which still isn't even the best analogy.

There's a lot of Republicans you could vote for if that's how you feel about his poliices. Trump will definitley not hinder any businesses ability to make money and innovate and his cabinet is doing a great job completely abandoning any social responsibility whatsoever. We also have a fantastic healthcare system where if someone breaks a leg a family goes bankrupt and is put behind the eight ball for a few years to pay off medical expenses, where old people who could have retired are working on hobbled legs because they need their employer healthcare for certain benefits, where if someone is unemployed and doesn't have insurance and their kid gets cancer, we let them die. We also have a fantastic education system where college tuition has tripled, most entry level jobs that pay a living wage require a Bachelors that requires over a decade of debt and you have the newest generations in the work force refusing to do anything like buy houses or cars and not stimulating the economy because they come into the economy with 50k in debt overhead. Yeah unrestrained capitalism is really working and all the solutions that governments have all over the world that consistently rank leaps and bounds over us just wouldn't work here.

I really don't get your argument.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The only lesson dems need to learn from 2016 is not to nominate someone who is as unlikeable as Hilary Clinton. There was only one other candidate even remotely as hated by half the country as her running last time and he was Donald Trump. The only dem candidate I see this time who could come close to Hilary in terms of dislike is Warren because she comes off as an entitled rich woman who faked being a minority to get ahead. You can argue how much she really benefited from the fake minority claims she made on forms back in the 70's but she did do it and its not going to play well in the poor white America parts of the country that chose Trump over Hilary in 2016. And it won't play well with minorities because if Warren is the nominee, Trump will hammer on this issue endlessly. So she will struggle with her base and with the small percent of swing voters in important states that gave the election to Trump last time.

If you don't nominate Warren you are either getting Sanders who is left of her, who obviously a lot of people here have severe issues with or you are getting someone to the right of her which many in that Progressive coalition are going to be very hesitant to accept in the current climate.

[aja_christopher]

It's not Socialism. Anybody whose ever seriously studied socialism knows most of his policies aren't even close to what Socialism actually is.

Which is something that won't matter in the general election as Trump will brand him as a "socialist" regardless, and it will stick for the most part because his policies are socialist in nature.

Ultimately, it's great that you have "progressive" candidates that you believe in, but not everyone feels the same and it doesn't make sense to attack "moderate" Democrats when they are the ones who have actually won both nominations and elections in the past.

Ultimately, if people wanted more progressive candidates and policies then they would vote for them, but as it stands, moderate Democrats have been the ones making most of the progress in that respect (affordable health care, criminal justice reform and police oversight, business regulation, civil and voting rights, LGBT marriage, environmental protections, etc) often while in direct contention with a Republican Congress.

Maybe when that changes your arguments will have more objective validity, but as it stands you are arguing for candidates and ideals that have yet to prove their viability in presidential elections, much less in local politics nationwide (Congress).

That's not an attack on Sanders or his policies -- it's just an observation on American politics in general.