All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[PwrdOn]

It's not your place to claim the choices of others are "objectively awful" nor to assume that the only reason people choose other candidates is to "stop" Sanders.

When people say those who support Sanders are "cult-like" this is what they mean -- the election is not all about Sanders.

Many people simply don't like him or his policies -- just because you do doesn't mean everyone should see him in the same light.

Likewise, when you fail to address the fact that he couldn't even beat Hillary due to his lack of appeal to most black voters, you are likewise denying the fact that the vast majority of black -- and non-progressive -- voters don't see Sanders as you do.

Assuming everyone is just out to get Sanders is ridiculous: what "got" Sanders last time was that millions more people voted for Hillary, his only competitor.

It's not a conspiracy when you lose by that many votes -- the fact is simply that he's not as great a candidate as his supporters believe he is, which is why the majority of us keep pointing out his actual record both with regards to legislation and last year's primaries.

I have seen you make the same argument about Hillary or black voters before, what I haven't seen is you speaking a genuine word in support of one of these other candidates and, absent all consideration for the opposition, why voting for them would be good for the country. Nor have I gotten that from the other posters around here either, that's why I am saying that the candidates suck, because not even their supposed supporters really like them.

You need to understand your opposition inside the party. You don't have to agree with them, but you need to grasp why they're doing what they're doing ad that they're not the enemy. You need to accept that not everyone likes Bernie and that there are good reasons for it, otherwise it comes off as being upset that people aren't inside his sub-group. This isn't about what you think Buttiege is, it's about what other people think and they clearly do. I don't understand, either, but it is what it is. Being a Sanders supporter is not a universal truth in the Democratic party, there are numerous wings in the party and he is speaking for only one of them.

I can totally understand why some people don't like Bernie, I just wish they found better people to throw their support behind to try and stop him. But frankly, there aren't very many good candidates in this field overall, if this is the best that the Democrats can do I am legitimately scared for the future.

[JCAll]

First, you've got a primary that was an issue.

Now, it's "I Wouldn't Worry About That..."

While it would be great if none of that amounted to anything, having anything like "A Plan..." in case they do might not be a bad idea.

There's no plan that can deal with dipshits on Twitter who are just looking for a target to hate. They're going to find something to get their hate on no matter what.
I do miss the days when you could just ignore them though.

[aja_christopher]

I have seen you make the same argument about Hillary or black voters before, what I haven't seen is you speaking a genuine word in support of one of these other candidates and, absent all consideration for the opposition, why voting for them would be good for the country.

For the same reason voting for Obama was good for the country -- because progress doesn't happen overnight.

Maybe when progressives start winning elections and Republicans no longer control any aspects of Congress maybe progressive politics will prove themselves effective -- even Obama would have been more "progressive" if Congress remained in Democratic control, but "progressives" didn't bother showing up to protect his progress in health care and other social programs, just like they didn't show up for Sanders against Hillary in 2016.

In 2018, however, moderates showed up and swept the House, giving Democrats the power to take a stand against Trump -- not progressives.

In Sanders you're trying to sell other people a vision that has yet to prove itself effective, much less even viable, in modern political reality.

People are not being "objectively awful" in being objective with regards to the lack of success of progressive politics in America.

You want people to believe in "progressive" candidates -- then prove it with votes instead of trying to argue people into believing in them.

[numberthirty]

There's no plan that can deal with dipshits on Twitter who are just looking for a target to hate. They're going to find something to get their hate on no matter what.
I do miss the days when you could just ignore them though.

Sure...

That said, is giving them really great raw material to do it with sensible?

Could it eventually play a role in digging a hole that you are going to have a tough time getting out of?

It's just odd to see that this sort of stuff created problems last time out, and what folks got out of it feels like "There's No Plan That Can Deal With Twitter Users Looking For A Target To Hate..."

You don't need a brilliant plan not to walk right into the same punch a second time.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

For the same reason voting for Obama was good for the country -- because progress doesn't happen overnight.

It was good because a Republican president would have been so much worse.

His time as president was still disastrous for the world. Whatever progress was made on his watch was not worth the price of his presidency.

[Zauriel]

For the same reason voting for Obama was good for the country -- because progress doesn't happen overnight.

Maybe when progressives start winning elections and Republicans no longer control any aspects of Congress maybe progressive politics will prove themselves effective -- even Obama would have been more "progressive" if Congress remained in Democratic control, but "progressives" didn't bother showing up to protect his progress in health care and other social programs, just like they didn't show up for Sanders against Hillary.

In 2018, however, moderates showed up and swept the House, giving Democrats the power to take a stand against Trump -- not progressives.

Some moderate democrats such as Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnely and Claire McCaskill lost their senate seats in 2018. So the moderates lost the senate to the conservatives or to the liberals .

[Steel Inquisitor]

Some moderate democrats such as Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnely and Claire McCaskill lost their senate seats in 2018. So the moderates lost the senate to the conservatives or to the liberals .

The track record comparing moderates against socialists is astronomically on the former's side with winning elections. Moderates don't have to win in every election to have an advantage here.

Edit: In 2018 socialists won a total of 8 seats, the rest won 33.

[Tendrin]

"Oh yeah?! Well, moderates ALSO lose!!!!" is not quite the retort some folks think it is.

[numberthirty]

It was good because a Republican president would have been so much worse.

His time as president was still disastrous for the world. Whatever progress was made on his watch was not worth the price of his presidency.

Never mind that the number of people that former President Obama's administration's ICE rounded up set Trump up to be able to make the sort of pitch that allowed him to do better with Latinos that Romney did.

There's more to it that just what happened while you were in office. If your term helped set the stage for another party to wind up with the Presidency and Senate, that is "Good" or "Bad" right along with what you did during you term.

Heck, anyone that's actually thought about it would wonder if Trump would not have stayed at NBC as a television personality had former President Obama not called him out by name during that "Gary Busey..." bit.

[aja_christopher]

Some moderate democrats such as Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnely and Claire McCaskill lost their senate seats in 2018. So the moderates lost the senate to the conservatives or to the liberals .

How many progressives won Senate seats instead?

You're not going to convince anyone the alternative that rarely wins is better than the norm that sometimes loses but often wins as well.

The only way Sanders can prove he can win and get things done is for him to win and get things done.

It's not going to be proven in an argument on a message board.

[Zauriel]

Delayed Iowa contest results are finally made official. So Mayor Pete lost the popular vote by 6 thousand votes, but won more delegates? Democrats always wanted to abolish the presidential electoral college, but they couldn't abolish their own electoral college.

https://news.yahoo.com/iowa-democrat...005753009.html

According to data from the IDP, in the first alignment of the caucus, considered to be the "popular" vote, Sanders had 25% of the vote and Buttigieg had 21% of the vote.

Sanders still led over Buttigieg. In the final alignment, Sanders had 27% of the vote, and Buttigieg had 25% of the vote.

[numberthirty]

Delayed Iowa contest results are finally made official. So Mayor Pete lost the popular vote by 6 thousand votes, but won more delegates? Democrats always wanted to abolish the presidential electoral college, but they couldn't abolish their own electoral college.

https://news.yahoo.com/iowa-democrat...005753009.html

According to data from the IDP, in the first alignment of the caucus, considered to be the "popular" vote, Sanders had 25% of the vote and Buttigieg had 21% of the vote.

Sanders still led over Buttigieg. In the final alignment, Sanders had 27% of the vote, and Buttigieg had 25% of the vote.

More than anything else, it potentially hurts the Party with voters who will see it as a process that is slanted.

Edit: Never mind that it will be a line that just about writes itself should any Democrat talk about the popular vote versus the Electoral College. All Trump will have to do is point to how the nomination process the party uses actually works.

[Tami]

Romney, vilified by Trump and his allies for voting to convict, finds respect back home

SOUTH JORDAN, Utah — Republican Sen. Mitt Romney's vote to convict President Donald Trump on one count of abuse of power didn't bother Kelsey Malin.

"I have kind of come to terms that even though he hasn't voted in a way that people say represents his party, the fact that he voted true to his conscience and over his party is a great thing," Malin, 28, said as she entertained her two children at a library two days after the impeachment trial concluded last week.

NBC News spoke with dozens of voters in Utah in the days immediately following the Senate's vote to acquit the president. Most identified themselves as Republicans who had supported Romney in 2018 and said that regardless of their opinion of the president, Romney's decision to go against his party was one that they understood and respected for its honesty. Many said they would not hold it against the first-term senator when he faces re-election in 2024.

[Theleviathan]

Blaming Obama for Trump huh? Gee, the left sure does love to sound stupid and voice self defeating nonsense.

[Tendrin]

The funny part is that this is how Caucuses work, and Bernie's people fought super hard to keep them since he overperformed in them in 2016.