All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[PwrdOn]

I'm so over this "ask nicely" excuse-making and whining from progressives. Nowhere do I hear people demanding you be polite.

I hear people demanding you be real. You and thirty are notorious in this thread for launching so many caveats and "If....then" clauses about what will get progressives to vote.....so let me not politely tell you: knock that crap off. You want to be taken seriously? Be serious. It's great that Bernie has boots on the ground, but until you change what the demographics of the VOTING populace looks like, there is zero reason to take you seriously. Why would the DNC get behind a candidate who can't even turn out the very people he says he can turn out? Why would they trust a segment of their base they can't rely on?

Your noise is meaningless without the real influence and participation required to make it matter. How polite you are about your noise is irrelevant because your movements lack of actual movement has made it irrelevant.

You are really going to claim that moderates haven't been trying to tone police progressives this whole time? What the hell is all that Bernie Bro stuff about then? It's true, we can't brainwash voters into agreeing with us, we can only state our case as best we can and hope that they sign on. However, it is clear that, absent any good policy proposals of their own, centrists are resorting to fearmongering, trying to scare black people into thinking that modern progressives are no different from Woodrow Wilson just because we use the same label, and I sincerely hope that nobody is falling for that nonsense.

I honestly am getting myself a bit too worked up **** talking Biden constantly, so I'll just leave it at this - nominate him and you WILL lose in November. I live in Delaware and despite it being solidly blue I've met more diehard Trump supporters in the last year than I have diehard Biden supporters in my entire life, if any even exist. The fact that he inspires such loyalty among black southerners when there is no great love for him in his own community just smells fishy as hell to me. He's a bad candidate, and he cannot win, if I'm wrong then so be it.

[Theleviathan]

You are really going to claim that moderates haven't been trying to tone police progressives this whole time? What the hell is all that Bernie Bro stuff about then? It's true, we can't brainwash voters into agreeing with us, we can only state our case as best we can and hope that they sign on. However, it is clear that, absent any good policy proposals of their own, centrists are resorting to fearmongering, trying to scare black people into thinking that modern progressives are no different from Woodrow Wilson just because we use the same label, and I sincerely hope that nobody is falling for that nonsense.

I honestly am getting myself a bit too worked up **** talking Biden constantly, so I'll just leave it at this - nominate him and you WILL lose in November. I live in Delaware and despite it being solidly blue I've met more diehard Trump supporters in the last year than I have diehard Biden supporters in my entire life, if any even exist. The fact that he inspires such loyalty among black southerners when there is no great love for him in his own community just smells fishy as hell to me. He's a bad candidate, and he cannot win, if I'm wrong then so be it.

Who cares if they are policing you? Why does that prevent you from doing the smart thing? Frankly, until progressives make themselves a force to be reckoned with - they get to put the dunce cap on you and berate you. You keep wanting power and influence handed to you and it just won't happen. I thought Bernie was a chance for progressives to kick in the door....instead you whimpered to the ballot box and raged on twitter. Your role as the spat on segment of the democratic base is earned by your complete inability to be relied upon to help the party. Start small and build or stop whining about it.

I fear though, that can't happen. Progressives, as idealists, wait for a shining knight to ride in for them to rally behind rather than doing the hard work of building a cohesive, reliable, passionate group of voters. Bernie is just the latest one and, like pretty much all the rest, even he couldn't rally your group to show up.

[Tendrin]

This has always been a sticking point I've had when people vote 3rd Party for president. You don't make substantive changes from the top down. When people talk about impressive grass roots campaigns, I always wonder why they aren't investing those efforts in their communities first to build a party base and build upwards.

Sure that's slow and boring, but it how you build lasting apparatus.

Exactly this. I've made similar arguments and I always get 'but the president sets the agenda!'. I keep trying to tell them that the president isn't the first stop, it's the last one.

[PwrdOn]

Who cares if they are policing you? Why does that prevent you from doing the smart thing? Frankly, until progressives make themselves a force to be reckoned with - they get to put the dunce cap on you and berate you. You keep wanting power and influence handed to you and it just won't happen. I thought Bernie was a chance for progressives to kick in the door....instead you whimpered to the ballot box and raged on twitter. Your role as the spat on segment of the democratic base is earned by your complete inability to be relied upon to help the party. Start small and build or stop whining about it.

I fear though, that can't happen. Progressives, as idealists, wait for a shining knight to ride in for them to rally behind rather than doing the hard work of building a cohesive, reliable, passionate group of voters. Bernie is just the latest one and, like pretty much all the rest, even he couldn't rally your group to show up.

You might want to cool it on that prechampionship celebration, the election is far from over and just because you happened to win a bunch of states despite having done nothing to earn those votes doesn't mean that ingenious strategy will keep working. We have facts on our side, and we have the better candidate, even if we lose we can still go down with dignity, knowing we fought the good fight and stayed true to our principles. Even if you somehow manage to backpedal your way into the White House, you know that you didn't deserve to win and it'll make for the weakest administration in history.

[TheDarman]

Who cares if they are policing you? Why does that prevent you from doing the smart thing? Frankly, until progressives make themselves a force to be reckoned with - they get to put the dunce cap on you and berate you. You keep wanting power and influence handed to you and it just won't happen. I thought Bernie was a chance for progressives to kick in the door....instead you whimpered to the ballot box and raged on twitter. Your role as the spat on segment of the democratic base is earned by your complete inability to be relied upon to help the party. Start small and build or stop whining about it.

I fear though, that can't happen. Progressives, as idealists, wait for a shining knight to ride in for them to rally behind rather than doing the hard work of building a cohesive, reliable, passionate group of voters. Bernie is just the latest one and, like pretty much all the rest, even he couldn't rally your group to show up.

I can’t help but think that the insistence by progressives like Sanders and AOC that FDR is their model president makes a lot of black and brown people needlessly nervous. This is the same FDR that put Japanese folks in internment camps. This is the same FDR that allowed southern Democrats to make prescriptions for exclusion of black and brown people from these entitlement programs. This is the same FDR that made it so we have to get health insurance through our workplace and it took Obama coming along to make it so you might be able to switch jobs and both have insurance between jobs and not be denied it because of pre-existing conditions.

FDR is not the best Democratic President. He isn’t even close. And for all the discussion of wanting to be “anti-war” by progressives, FDR actively made decisions to get us involved in World War II, much to the chagrin of the Congress. While I think we should’ve been involved in World War II from the start, and not rejecting Jewish refugees at our shores, this is obviously not in line with current progressive motivations on how we should act on the world stage.

So, these progressives really should be more careful at messaging, because FDR isn’t the best appeal to minorities you count on to form your coalition. It may be how you get some older, white folk back into the fold, but probably because they also think you won’t play “identity politics” and try to help black or brown people. The second you start talking about racial justice again, you’ve lost them.

[TheDarman]

You might want to cool it on that prechampionship celebration, the election is far from over and just because you happened to win a bunch of states despite having done nothing to earn those votes doesn't mean that ingenious strategy will keep working. We have facts on our side, and we have the better candidate, even if we lose we can still go down with dignity, knowing we fought the good fight and stayed true to our principles. Even if you somehow manage to backpedal your way into the White House, you know that you didn't deserve to win and it'll make for the weakest administration in history.

Weaker than Andrew Johnson’s? I somehow doubt that. And, by your metric, Obama should’ve been severely weakened entering the 2008 race with merely half the delegates and only a small lead in the popular vote. Winning by huge margins in the primary is quite the opposite of “didn’t deserve to win”—you won more votes. But Obama had the strongest post-FDR Democratic Administration that resulted in him winning two presidential elections with the majority of the vote (not even a plurality), the FIRST to do it since FDR. I don’t know where you are getting your corollary information, but a hard fought primary that ends with a clear winner is not a case for “you didn’t deserve to win” and certainly doesn’t lead to weakness as an administration.

[PwrdOn]

Weaker than Andrew Johnson’s? I somehow doubt that. And, by your metric, Obama should’ve been severely weakened entering the 2008 race with merely half the delegates and only a small lead in the popular vote. Winning by huge margins in the primary is quite the opposite of “didn’t deserve to win”—you won more votes. But Obama had the strongest post-FDR Democratic Administration that resulted in him winning two presidential elections with the majority of the vote (not even a plurality), the FIRST to do it since FDR. I don’t know where you are getting your corollary information, but a hard fought primary that ends with a clear winner is not a case for “you didn’t deserve to win” and certainly doesn’t lead to weakness as an administration.

Biden doesn't deserve to win because he's not making any real case for why he would be a good president. His entire argument is that he was Obama's sidekick and that people better vote for him or else they'll get a scary socialist and that leads to everyone getting murdered in gulags or something. We focus so much on the electoral math these days, what we should be focused on is why people are voting the way they are and whether they are actually acting in their own best interest, or if they are being deceived with lies and fearmongering.

Also, Andrew Johnson actually wielded quite a bit of power as president, granted he was a hateful piece of **** who stonewalled any attempts to help freemen, but you can't say he didn't use the office to do exactly what he wanted to do.

[KOSLOX]

Biden doesn't deserve to win because he's not making any real case for why he would be a good president. His entire argument is that he was Obama's sidekick and that people better vote for him or else they'll get a scary socialist and that leads to everyone getting murdered in gulags or something. We focus so much on the electoral math these days, what we should be focused on is why people are voting the way they are and whether they are actually acting in their own best interest, or if they are being deceived with lies and fearmongering.

Also, Andrew Johnson actually wielded quite a bit of power as president, granted he was a hateful piece of **** who stonewalled any attempts to help freemen, but you can't say he didn't use the office to do exactly what he wanted to do.

It's a mistake to assume that people voting for Biden are any less principled in their choice than the supporters for Sanders.

[PwrdOn]

It's a mistake to assume that people voting for Biden are any less principled in their than the supporters for Sanders.

I'm drawing a distinction between the campaign and voters here. My contention is that the Biden campaign are unprincipled cretins who are trying to win the votes of good and honest people by lying and pandering to them. Frankly, there isn't much that anyone can tell me at this point that would convince me otherwise, unless I'm TOTALLY blind to some huge piece of the puzzle.

[TheDarman]

Biden doesn't deserve to win because he's not making any real case for why he would be a good president. His entire argument is that he was Obama's sidekick and that people better vote for him or else they'll get a scary socialist and that leads to everyone getting murdered in gulags or something. We focus so much on the electoral math these days, what we should be focused on is why people are voting the way they are and whether they are actually acting in their own best interest, or if they are being deceived with lies and fearmongering.

Ehh...I could be wrong, but I don’t recall Biden saying those would be the consequences of Bernie winning. Perhaps you are exaggerating and, indeed, fearmongering, which makes it more difficult to take your latter points seriously. Again, I think it mostly comes down to which approach will get results. Biden says that his will get results because moderate Democrats can actually vote for his policies. I’m inclined to agree and don’t think we can wait for a health insurance collapse where people lose insurance altogether. And a public option certainly opens the door for Medicare For All sooner than another four years of Trump does. Bernie thinks his big ideas can get results and he thinks that progressives will turn out to send more progressives to Washington with him. I’m inclined to disagree, because he can’t even consolidate progressives around him in a primary, when that would be MUCH easier to do than in a general election. Biden is doing what any candidate does to win—he came up with ideas, told people who he was, and made a case for his election. I think the specifics of his platform matter less. After all, Obama was a lot more vague in 2008 about what he would do than Clinton and I’d argue Obama’s Administration was fairly successful all things considered.

Also, Andrew Johnson actually wielded quite a bit of power as president, granted he was a hateful piece of **** who stonewalled any attempts to help freemen, but you can't say he didn't use the office to do exactly what he wanted to do.

He was also the first president to be impeached, was almost removed from office, and had his vetoes overridden. Republicans (liberals at the time) got to pass pretty much anything they wanted anyhow. Johnson only slowed them down for the rest of Lincoln’s term.

[Steel Inquisitor]

On former President Obama...

You're almost there. Is there going to be a second "First" African-American President? If not, you've got to slap the blinders on not to see why his being elected was not just "Business As Usual..."

As for Clinton? The second term is a non-issue. Without Perot in play to throw a wrench in the works? Clinton most likely never wins that election. The Democrats after not named "Obama" all make that much clear.

You continue to dismiss these wins as though they have no baring on other parts of the party doing what the left has failed with. The presidents, they're the stars but they aren't the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the elections all over the country over numerous decades that they belong to. They are the backbone of how those factions got to be president and are able to make progress once elected and Sanders has neither.

[TheDarman]

I'm drawing a distinction between the campaign and voters here. My contention is that the Biden campaign are unprincipled cretins who are trying to win the votes of good and honest people by lying and pandering to them. Frankly, there isn't much that anyone can tell me at this point that would convince me otherwise, unless I'm TOTALLY blind to some huge piece of the puzzle.

I think it is pretty unfair to make such a contention. I really believe that everyone here has always tried to under Sanders’ platform and what he stands for and where his blind spots are. It’s a shame to see that the same attitude is not reciprocated.

[PwrdOn]

Ehh...I could be wrong, but I don’t recall Biden saying those would be the consequences of Bernie winning. Perhaps you are exaggerating and, indeed, fearmongering, which makes it more difficult to take your latter points seriously. Again, I think it mostly comes down to which approach will get results. Biden says that his will get results because moderate Democrats can actually vote for his policies. I’m inclined to agree and don’t think we can wait for a health insurance collapse where people lose insurance altogether. And a public option certainly opens the door for Medicare For All sooner than another four years of Trump does. Bernie thinks his big ideas can get results and he thinks that progressives will turn out to send more progressives to Washington with him. I’m inclined to disagree, because he can’t even consolidate progressives around him in a primary, when that would be MUCH easier to do than in a general election. Biden is doing what any candidate does to win—he came up with ideas, told people who he was, and made a case for his election. I think the specifics of his platform matter less. After all, Obama was a lot more vague in 2008 about what he would do than Clinton and I’d argue Obama’s Administration was fairly successful all things considered.



He was also the first president to be impeached, was almost removed from office, and had his vetoes overridden. Republicans (liberals at the time) got to pass pretty much anything they wanted anyhow. Johnson only slowed them down for the rest of Lincoln’s term.

How am I fearmongering when you just brought up FDR and internment camps as an example of why minorities shouldn't trust progressives? By the way, the reason we like FDR is not because he's in any way perfect, but because policy wise he came fairly close to what we wanted. Obviously a blueblood aristocrat who might as well have Executive Overreach among his several middle names is not the type of leader we want going forward, we just think Social Security is kind of a neat idea is all.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I'm drawing a distinction between the campaign and voters here. My contention is that the Biden campaign are unprincipled cretins who are trying to win the votes of good and honest people by lying and pandering to them. Frankly, there isn't much that anyone can tell me at this point that would convince me otherwise, unless I'm TOTALLY blind to some huge piece of the puzzle.

As opposed to Sanders who lied to his voters when he knew his campaign was toast by Super Tuesday and who's entire brand is built on creating a revolution which never arrives in elections.

[TheDarman]

You continue to dismiss these wins as though they have no baring on other parts of the party doing what the left has failed with. The presidents, they're the stars but they aren't the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the elections all over the country over numerous decades that they belong to. They are the backbone of how those factions got to be president and are able to make progress once elected and Sanders has neither.

Obama’s 2008 election gave Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (when you include independents who caucused with them, like Sanders and Lieberman) and a House majority.

Bush won by losing the popular vote by 500,000 votes and taking a state that his brother was governor of at the time. He won re-election by hitting Democrats as cut-and-run non patriots who were already ready to give up the crusade not four years after 9/11. Even a candidate who voted for the Iraq War was attacked for not being big and mean enough to hit the terrorists where they lived.

There is this misconception that Bush Sr. would’ve won if Ross Perot weren’t there. The evidence on that is more muddled. It certainly didn’t help Bush Sr., but Bush Sr. was weakened heading into his re-election despite a set of good foreign policy decisions and the Soviet Union’s collapse. Namely, we were going through a recession and Bush Sr. seemed to have difficulty in working with a Congress in solving the issue. It’s an open question about how things could’ve been different without Perot, but I think it is the wrong conclusion to draw that Bush Sr. would’ve won if Clinton had been his only opponent.

Meanwhile, after Carter, a string of progressive defeats allowed Reagan to take an axe to pretty much every program under the guise of cutting programs so black welfare queens couldn’t suckle any more money out of hard working Americans. It was clear that Democrats needed a different candidate. And that’s where Clinton came from and reformed the party to have more moderate folks on its fringe. Clinton was still socially liberal, but fiscally moderate. That became the new wing of the party.

We fast forward twenty-four years and we have Hillary Clinton running. Clinton has been at the center of the conservative hate lingering for those past two decades. They ran Benghazi investigation after Benghazi investigation and got a number of the public to really hate her for “abandoning Americans” despite the fact there was a much higher number of embassy attacks under Bush than Obama. Then came the private email server which Bernie Sanders also leapt on to try to defeat her. Clinton fended him off, but DNC leaked emails soured moderates on her campaign. These were moderates she couldn’t afford to lose—she was already unpopular and had lost a number of more progressive support in the primary. Then, the email thing came back up in the end of October, which soured those who liked neither candidate more on her, allowing Trump to take the election. They justified it as Trump being “something different” and not being a real Republican and certainly not being a Democrat. It was because he was viewed as less partisan and willing to work with Democrats on popular ideas, like Social Security, Medicare, and infrastructure, that led to him winning.

We can’t be blind to these circumstances. Virtually none of the election performances that thirty mentioned were derailed or caused by their moderate approach. Indeed, it was because Clinton wasn’t viewed as moderate *enough* that we ended with Trump, who seemed to be less partisan Republican and more do-what-it-takes-to-be-successful.