• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DNC Didn't Invite AOC to Speak - Sanders Had to Invite Her With a Nomination Slot

As for Pelosi backing Kennedy, I think she should have steered clear of that but not because of some position about challenging incumbents. Her position and the DEM House caucus position is specific to House incumbents, not Senate incumbents. She is not stabbing Markey in the back.

Yes, I'm familiar with that nonsense excuse.

So why is it verboten for House Dems, but acceptable for Senators? Ed has 50 years under his belt and has generally been popular in his riding and representative of their policy demands, so where does she get off backing her pro-corporate boy Joe?
 
Sure. Because the core of what Sanders advocates for has solid majority support in the country as I've shown you, and much of it is tried and proven in most of the rest of the developed world.

And yes, I stand by what I said; at best to attack Sanders for being 'not a real Democrat' despite caucusing, fundraising and acting alongside Democrats incessantly is a feeble excuse, and a cover for their desire to preserve factional hegemony. Why else would Pelosi endorse Kennedy against a 50 year incumbent progressive Senator despite her own policy on that (i.e. not challenging incumbents)? Why would the Dem party fail to investigate one of the challengers to the Squad (who are all Democrats) who openly admitted to using a series of shell companies to protect Dem campaign vendors from obliged penalties per that same policy? Why does the party engage in routine minimization of progressive Democratic representatives, such as denying AOC her appearance at the convention the rank and file of the party clearly wanted? The reason is obvious: they want to win that internal power struggle.

Lastly, Sanders was the best shot we had; already polls are narrowing for Joe in the battleground states despite Trump's epic mismanagement of the COVID crisis, which should have all but guaranteed Biden's success.

Polls aways narrow and you are trying to have it both ways again. The poll that counts is the vote itself and you have not proven at least to me that Sanders had a better shot at unseating Trump than Biden has. We who tend to be more aligned with the Left or firmly established in the Left make this same mistake all the time in contemporary politics insisting in an oft repeated dream state that this country is ready to put a Bernie Sanders in the WH. Bernie could not get out of the Dem nominating process and you want to contend that he had an actual shot at unseating Trump.

As for "solid majority support" I am mostly concerned that the water is so muddy now that most Americans will have no earthly idea what they are voting for in November. The case can just as easily be made that Biden policies enjoy "solid majority support" as I suspect you are mostly talking about healthcare and I do believe you would find MOST AMERICANS want an end to Trump's endless meandering back and forth over key elements of the ACA while quite obviously trying to eliminate the whole thing including those key elements.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm familiar with that nonsense excuse.

So why is it verboten for House Dems, but acceptable for Senators? Ed has 50 years under his belt and has generally been popular in his riding and representative of their policy demands, so where does she get off backing her pro-corporate boy Joe?

You are mistaking Pelosi's position to make a point and you are mistaking the DEM House Caucus position to make a point. Whether you agree with Pelosi's endorsement or not, mistaking her position helps nobody and nothing.
 
Polls aways narrow and you are trying to have it both ways again. The poll that counts is the vote itself and you have not proven at least to me that Sanders had a better shot at unseating Trump than Biden has. We who tend to be more aligned with the Left or firmly established in the Left make this same mistake all the time in contemporary politics insisting in an oft repeated dream state that this country is ready to put a Bernie Sanders in the WH. Bernie could not get out of the Dem nominating process and you want to contend that he had an actual shot at unseating Trump.

I mean, I'm definitely not going to convince you, that much is clear, especially since you seem to think that getting dogpiled in the nomination is somehow indicative of his fitness for the general, but I have shown you why he stands a better chance than Biden, whether or not you are willing to listen: because his polling was good, his core policies are proven globally, are popular nationwide, and have only become more so in the wake of Covid, not to mention he doesn't trip over his own sentences every other public appearance.


You are mistaking Pelosi's position to make a point and you are mistaking the DEM House Caucus position to make a point. Whether you agree with Pelosi's endorsement or not, mistaking her position helps nobody and nothing.

I'm not 'mistaking Pelosi's position' I'm pointing out that she defies the spirit of her policy, if not the word, in order to advance her agenda of New Dem faction hegemony which she is clearly doing in throwing down the gauntlet and endorsing Kennedy over Ed.
 
When you consider that Biden crushed Sanders in the primaries, meaning that the progressive faction couldn't bother to show up for their main man, it makes sense that Biden's convention would attempt to appeal to other types of people - those who do show up.

That's an absurd attitude. Spit in the face of progressives and try to alienate them, good going. The Democrats all linked to the same donors united against progressives and only won then, after Bernie basically won the first four primaries. And you seem to celebrate that victory of donors.
 
I mean, I'm definitely not going to convince you, that much is clear, especially since you seem to think that getting dogpiled in the nomination is somehow indicative of his fitness for the general, but I have shown you why he stands a better chance than Biden, whether or not you are willing to listen: because his polling was good, his core policies are proven globally, are popular nationwide, and have only become more so in the wake of Covid, not to mention he doesn't trip over his own sentences every other public appearance.




I'm not 'mistaking Pelosi's position' I'm pointing out that she defies the spirit of her policy, if not the word, in order to advance her agenda of New Dem faction hegemony which she is clearly doing in throwing down the gauntlet and endorsing Kennedy over Ed.

Defies the spirit of the policy?? Give me a break. I don't think she should have endorsed Kennedy but not because of defying the spirit of any policy. The Kennedy name is a big deal in Massachusetts politics. I have no idea what Pelosi thinks she can do from across the country that is additive and she is just riling a hornet's nest...probably the worst decision she has made as Speaker this time around. If a Kennedy cannot win in Massachusetts he does not belong in politics. Its that simple. Kennedy is 37 years old and Markey is 74. Kennedy's have always known when to run and who to run against in Massachusetts. Seems to me that Joe Kennedy is pushing on a rope. What does he think, Markey is going to run again at 80?

As for getting "dog-piled" in the nomination and that being some issue of relevance, did Bernie get the nomination? Did the rank and file not snap out of their coma and snap to at SC and beyond? Are you living in some fantasy world where there are more leftist independents out there for Bernie to get in a general election than there are Righty independents? I think you would find that is not nearly the case.

From the policy perspective I just do not believe it is as black and white an issue as you want to make it out to be. IMO most Americans want the Trumpian assault on American values to stop. They don't buy the idea that its the DEM party that is assaulting American values and Trump is riding to the rescue. They believe Trump is trying to rescue Nativist values which is a far cry from American values no matter what the Right or the Alt-Right or the Trumplicans want Americans to believe. The truly scary part is the number of Americans that support Nativist values.

On healthcare, IMO most Americans want the ACA to be retained and built upon. They likely want it built upon faster than they would have had COVID not come along but even in the face of COVID if asked, they want the bedrock elements of the ACA protected, not assaulted and want them built upon, maybe all the way to Medicare for all....maybe not, depends on whether or not its accompanied by job growth and there is the rub.

We have it engrained in most of us as Americans that we have some individual and independent responsibility for ourselves and that remains regardless of how much we are abused by powerful elements in this country which is why jobs and the economy continue to be such prevalent arbiters of who wins elections.

Should there be relief for student loan debt? YES. Should it just be forgiven? NO and I don't think you will get anybody outside of some within the community of current heavy debt holders to believe that it should be entirely forgiven. Should there be support for American workers? No doubt. But Tariff Wars are not the way to do it nor do they nearly address the structural problem that we have engendered.

Should this endless racial strife that started with our original sin mainly now driven by white privilege and undue fear of minorities be driven back? Without question just as the GOP has without question become the party of racial bias and nativism, virtually the only recognizable tenet of Trumpism other than "what is good for DonDon is good for the country". The fact is some factions within this country regardless of political persuasion have always been able to find a reason to engender what amounts to a race based caste system to the point now that we are retiring the trophy for most racially motivated western democracy on the face of the planet. Used to be a close contest for awhile. But now we are the undisputed champ and well on the way to retiring the trophy. The mere fact that the GOP is the party of voter suppression should tell you who champions the nativist, racial caste system flag these days.

IMO the issue of strong support for Bernie's policies across America is very much in question with as many if not more Americans to be found that think Bernie is directionally correct but pushing a Socialist agenda too hard and those that think Bernie had an actual shot or even deserved one are simply living in a dream state of a different America than the one we have.
 
BS. Bernie came storming out of the gate and was way ahead, but then the dem leadership saw that the corporations werent gonna back him, so they sabotaged Bernie's campaign.

Bernie simply didnt get the votes.
 
This country is not ready to put a self-avowed Socialist of any sort in the WH, Democratic Socialist or otherwise. They will have to get the rules changed such that only the Bronx in NY gets to vote for President to pull that off currently and maybe a few districts scattered around the country.
You aren't ready, which is fine. Don't vote for one then. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea what the electorate will tolerate

I've always hated the argument that one particular candidate is the "safe choice" because we hear it every election cycle and it's usually wrong. It happens when a candidate has many flaws, but one of their few merits is name recognition. So their supporters push the claim that they're the best chance to beat the opposition based on that name recognition alone. There's no polling or other evidence to support the assertion, but it's an easy way to brush all the flaws under the rug. It works because enough people say "Well, Biden isn't MY favorite candidate, but everyone says he's safe and it's really important to beat Trump, so I'll vote for him!". The textbook definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key word being prophecy, because it started off with no basis in fact.

Your arguments are WHY so many elections end up being a choice for the lesser of two evils. They are WHY positive changes in this country are glacial or nonexistent. They give undue weight to name recognition, which means undue weight to establishment and status-quo. Shouting "safe choice" over and over was not enough to erase Hillary's flaws in 2016. She was never safe or electable, but enough voters believed that BS in the primary. Look where it got us. Biden is also not a safe choice in 2020, but enough voters fell for the BS once again. I can only hope he's enough to beat Trump. If your safe choice loses again, please at least learn a lesson from it.
 
She's got them realtor eyes.
 
You aren't ready, which is fine. Don't vote for one then. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea what the electorate will tolerate

I've always hated the argument that one particular candidate is the "safe choice" because we hear it every election cycle and it's usually wrong. It happens when a candidate has many flaws, but one of their few merits is name recognition. So their supporters push the claim that they're the best chance to beat the opposition based on that name recognition alone. There's no polling or other evidence to support the assertion, but it's an easy way to brush all the flaws under the rug. It works because enough people say "Well, Biden isn't MY favorite candidate, but everyone says he's safe and it's really important to beat Trump, so I'll vote for him!". The textbook definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key word being prophecy, because it started off with no basis in fact.

Your arguments are WHY so many elections end up being a choice for the lesser of two evils. They are WHY positive changes in this country are glacial or nonexistent. They give undue weight to name recognition, which means undue weight to establishment and status-quo. Shouting "safe choice" over and over was not enough to erase Hillary's flaws in 2016. She was never safe or electable, but enough voters believed that BS in the primary. Look where it got us. Biden is also not a safe choice in 2020, but enough voters fell for the BS once again. I can only hope he's enough to beat Trump. If your safe choice loses again, please at least learn a lesson from it.

This election it truly matters unless you actually want to see how unmoored Trump will be as a lame duck.
 
You aren't ready, which is fine. Don't vote for one then. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea what the electorate will tolerate

I've always hated the argument that one particular candidate is the "safe choice" because we hear it every election cycle and it's usually wrong. It happens when a candidate has many flaws, but one of their few merits is name recognition. So their supporters push the claim that they're the best chance to beat the opposition based on that name recognition alone. There's no polling or other evidence to support the assertion, but it's an easy way to brush all the flaws under the rug. It works because enough people say "Well, Biden isn't MY favorite candidate, but everyone says he's safe and it's really important to beat Trump, so I'll vote for him!". The textbook definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key word being prophecy, because it started off with no basis in fact.

Your arguments are WHY so many elections end up being a choice for the lesser of two evils. They are WHY positive changes in this country are glacial or nonexistent. They give undue weight to name recognition, which means undue weight to establishment and status-quo. Shouting "safe choice" over and over was not enough to erase Hillary's flaws in 2016. She was never safe or electable, but enough voters believed that BS in the primary. Look where it got us. Biden is also not a safe choice in 2020, but enough voters fell for the BS once again. I can only hope he's enough to beat Trump. If your safe choice loses again, please at least learn a lesson from it.

This election it truly matters unless you actually want to see how unmoored Trump will be as a lame duck. Bernie for his part could not secure the nomination either time. You can sour grapes about it till hell freezes over. He could not even get out of the Dem Party nominating process successfully. So you are going to have construct some Qanon level nonsense to put him into the WH from there. Where are the votes coming from in a general?
 
Last edited:
This election it truly matters unless you actually want to see how unmoored Trump will be as a lame duck. Bernie for his part could not secure the nomination either time. You can sour grapes about it till hell freezes over. He could not even get out of the Dem Party nominating process successfully. So you are going to have construct some Qanon level nonsense to put him into the WH from there. Where are the votes coming from in a general?
The votes for Bernie in the general would come from exactly the same people that will vote for Biden: people that want to get rid of Trump. There might be some different demographics between the two, but the anti-trump vote is by far the dominant block and would not change.

Now would you care to address the actual points in my post? Start by rereading and noticing that I never mentioned Sanders. I would have voted for Pete if he hadn't dropped out before I got the chance. Personally I think Bernie should have thrown his support behind a younger candidate rather than running himself. His chance was 2016 and he is simply too old now. Of course, almost all the other candidates have that same flaw. Thanks to your attitude of voting on name recognition it seems like all viable candidates should have retired 10 years ago.
 
The votes for Bernie in the general would come from exactly the same people that will vote for Biden: people that want to get rid of Trump. There might be some different demographics between the two, but the anti-trump vote is by far the dominant block and would not change.

Now would you care to address the actual points in my post? Start by rereading and noticing that I never mentioned Sanders. I would have voted for Pete if he hadn't dropped out before I got the chance. Personally I think Bernie should have thrown his support behind a younger candidate rather than running himself. His chance was 2016 and he is simply too old now. Of course, almost all the other candidates have that same flaw. Thanks to your attitude of voting on name recognition it seems like all viable candidates should have retired 10 years ago.

Minus people that simply will not put a self-avowed Socialist in the WH. You want to help keep some voters from going to the polls in this country, force them to choose between DonDon and a Socialist. I will never understand how it makes sense to coddle the extreme end of any Political Party on the notion that if you don't put their guy up for the nomination, they will stay home. Where are they going to go exactly if not vote for the Centrist candidate? Vote for the other guy. Stay home and hope the opponent won't get a shot at more SJC seats with Ruth pushing 90? You want to yammer about Biden being half a loaf when Bernie would have been just as much a half a loaf for other voters. There are no perfect candidates....none of them and judgements about which candidate you think is closer to your desired candidate or someone's desired candidate has nothing to do with electability.

Plus the enthusiasm for Bernie argument got blown out the water in the primaries. He DID NOT get the vaunted young vote out. If you want to know the truth of it, they screwed him. Probably stayed home and played video games on Election Day.

As for your previous post, was there a question in there? Standard form for wanting an answer is to ASK A QUESTION. I did not see a question mark anywhere.

For the record name recognition has NOTHING TO DO WITH Biden's position in this election. A desire to stop the madness and return some dignity to the office of President has more to do with where Biden is than name recognition. Nobody but the hard core Bernies were ever actually interested in whipsawing the country from Trump to Bernie.
 
Last edited:
Minus people that simply will not put a self-avowed Socialist in the WH. You want to help keep some voters from going to the polls in this country, force them to choose between DonDon and a Socialist. I will never understand how it makes sense to coddle the extreme end of any Political Party on the notion that if you don't put their guy up for the nomination, they will stay home. Where are they going to go exactly if not vote for the Centrist candidate? Vote for the other guy. Stay home and hope the opponent won't get a shot at more SJC seats with Ruth pushing 90?
And that number gets smaller every day. It isn't the 80s anymore. I think it's about comparable to the number of progressives who will refuse to vote for Biden due to his many problems. If you deny that he is terribly flawed, I'll list them, but I figure I'll avoid that since we both want this guy elected. People WILL stay home in protest. They WILL vote for a 3rd party. I wish they wouldn't, but many WILL. Biden is not OWED any votes by people on the left, he has to earn them with policy concessions at the very least. You don't need to coddle the extremists, but you (and sometimes Biden, and Hillary before him) seem to think you can ignore and disdain progressives and expect continued support. You were wrong about that in 2016. Please learn from history for all our sakes.

You want to yammer about Biden being half a loaf when Bernie would have been just as much a half a loaf for other voters. There are no perfect candidates....none of them and judgements about which candidate you think is closer to your desired candidate or someone's desired candidate has nothing to do with electability.

Plus the enthusiasm for Bernie argument got blown out the water in the primaries. He DID NOT get the vaunted young vote out. If you want to know the truth of it, they screwed him. Probably stayed home and played video games on Election Day.
Yes, they're all half loaves, and yet you arrogantly claim that Biden was the safest choice to beat Trump, the most "electable". There was no evidence to support that claim at the very beginning of the primary because it is simply impossible to predict the electorate so far in the future.

As for your previous post, was there a question in there? Standard form for wanting an answer is to ASK A QUESTION. I did not see a question mark anywhere.
This is a debate forum, questions are not necessary for a debate. I criticized your position ("Biden is the electable candidate"), and argued that most of his success in the primary was due to people like you propagating that flawed argument ("self fulfilling prophecy"). Now you could ignore my criticisms or come up with a counterargument. Your choice, but typically ignoring things indicates that you can't logically defend your position. That's a bad look. Whether or not it's phrased as a question shouldn't matter.

For the record name recognition has NOTHING TO DO WITH Biden's position in this election. A desire to stop the madness and return some dignity to the office of President has more to do with where Biden is than name recognition. Nobody but the hard core Bernies were ever actually interested in whipsawing the country from Trump to Bernie.
"A desire to stop the madness and return some dignity to the office of President" is something that EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE had. It is ridiculous to claim that is what set Biden apart from the pack. It was pure name recognition and riding on Obama's coattails.
 
Defies the spirit of the policy?? Give me a break. I don't think she should have endorsed Kennedy but not because of defying the spirit of any policy. The Kennedy name is a big deal in Massachusetts politics. I have no idea what Pelosi thinks she can do from across the country that is additive and she is just riling a hornet's nest...probably the worst decision she has made as Speaker this time around...

I mean I can think of dumber things she has said and done as Speaker, but I'd personally rather not go down that bottomless rabbit hole, and yes, it was definitely a stupid decision on her part, and there are multiple reasons I think her endorsement of Joe is a terrible idea; that she demonstrates effective hypocrisy (again, I really don't give a **** if she specified her policy applies to the House only; it's the essence of it that matters) is only one of them. Also Kennedy should wait his own damn turn instead of trying to topple an effective and popular long time representative and leaning into his name to champion the corporate interests backing his candidacy, which, let's be frank, is the only reason he stands a chance.

As for getting "dog-piled" in the nomination and that being some issue of relevance, did Bernie get the nomination? Did the rank and file not snap out of their coma and snap to at SC and beyond? Are you living in some fantasy world where there are more leftist independents out there for Bernie to get in a general election than there are Righty independents? I think you would find that is not nearly the case.

I live in the real world where according to the evidence available A: Klob and Pete's seminal decision to dogpile came from backroom negotiations, not rank and file 'snapping out of a coma' and B: where Sanders' core policy polls with majority to supermajority support among the general population; support that has only grown since COVID, and that remains strong in battleground states. If you wish to assert otherwise, show me the money.

On healthcare, IMO most Americans want the ACA to be retained and built upon. They likely want it built upon faster than they would have had COVID not come along but even in the face of COVID if asked, they want the bedrock elements of the ACA protected, not assaulted and want them built upon, maybe all the way to Medicare for all....maybe not, depends on whether or not its accompanied by job growth and there is the rub.

Well the latest poll results are in, the fact is that 87% of Dems, 69% of Independents, and 43% of Republicans want MFA, and it has 67% overall support; a supermajority. Meanwhile ACA itself has about 51% support: Poll: 67 percent support providing Medicare for every American | TheHill | KFF Health Tracking Poll: The Public’s Views on the ACA | KFF

We have it engrained in most of us as Americans that we have some individual and independent responsibility for ourselves and that remains regardless of how much we are abused by powerful elements in this country which is why jobs and the economy continue to be such prevalent arbiters of who wins elections.

Should there be relief for student loan debt? YES. Should it just be forgiven? NO and I don't think you will get anybody outside of some within the community of current heavy debt holders to believe that it should be entirely forgiven. Should there be support for American workers? No doubt. But Tariff Wars are not the way to do it nor do they nearly address the structural problem that we have engendered...

...IMO the issue of strong support for Bernie's policies across America is very much in question with as many if not more Americans to be found that think Bernie is directionally correct but pushing a Socialist agenda too hard and those that think Bernie had an actual shot or even deserved one are simply living in a dream state of a different America than the one we have.

So basically this wall of text is reducible to what is once again, your personal, unproven opinions. You keep making broad, sweeping and bold assertions while failing to provide the evidence and receipts for them; you need to work on that. Also I don't know if you checked recently, but public health is now the lead concern for Americans, with the economy now a distant second: Top issues in 2020 election: Coronavirus handling tops U.S. economy, race issues as Trump-Biden matchup heats up | Fortune
 
Last edited:
I live in the real world where according to the evidence available A: Klob and Pete's seminal decision to dogpile came from backroom negotiations, not rank and file 'snapping out of a coma' and B: where Sanders' core policy polls with majority to supermajority support among the general population; support that has only grown since COVID, and that remains strong in battleground states. If you wish to assert otherwise, show me the money.



Well the latest poll results are in, the fact is that 87% of Dems, 69% of Independents, and 43% of Republicans want MFA, and it has 67% overall support; a supermajority. Meanwhile ACA itself has about 51% support: Poll: 67 percent support providing Medicare for every American | TheHill | KFF Health Tracking Poll: The Public’s Views on the ACA | KFF



So basically this wall of text is reducible to what is once again, your personal, unproven opinions. You keep making broad, sweeping and bold assertions while failing to provide the evidence and receipts for them; you need to work on that. Also I don't know if you checked recently, but public health is now the lead concern for Americans, with the economy now a distant second: Top issues in 2020 election: Coronavirus handling tops U.S. economy, race issues as Trump-Biden matchup heats up | Fortune


Eliminated the Pelosi stuff in the quote box as we are in agreement.
I have the receipt. Biden won and Bernie lost.

Clearly COVID has added a dynamic to the MFA debate that did not exist before. I acknowledged that earlier. I like MFA. Just don't think it should be shoved down peoples throats. Apparently, Biden's preference would be to drop the eligibility age for Medicare to 60, add back the public option to the ACA that they had to cut out to get it to pass and open up even more access to Medicaid. That is likely as much as you can expect Americans to swallow in one mouthful as a platform plank. The problem for any DEM running is that the economy STILL even now tops the 5 most important issues for voters.

According to PEW which might be the most respected pollster in the country at present its:
The economy
Heathcare
SJC appointments (quite possibly because of Ruth and Breyer. Ruth is barely hanging on and won't make it 4 more years on the bench. Breyer might not make it either)
COVID
Violent Crime
Foreign policy
Gun policy
Race and ethnic inequality
immigration
ethnic inequality
Climate change
Abortion

The deck shuffles constantly under #1 but the Economy is rarely dislodged by anything. Galliup had a similar survey in January and with the exception of Covid it was quite similar. The problem for the so called big tent party is that is not how people vote. They can't keep all of that crap in their heads when they close that curtain and actually make their choice. I am disappointed that in my lifetime The Economy has stubbornly stayed at the top. I am old as dirt and I would have expected some change by now. Encouraged that Healthcare is at #2 but frankly even #2 is a far cry from #1 as it is simply more often that once that curtain closes, a voter asks himself "what is the most important issue to me" not "what are the most important issues to me" and that is how he votes. Happens very consistently. Very discouraged that all of those issues I would consider social justice issues and progress toward the aspirations this country was founded upon are so far down the list.

Frankly, I don't think either Biden nor Bernie are favored over Trump in spite of what the polls say about the race itself because we refuse as a country to dislodge The Economy from #1 as as voting issue. What is truly disturbing is that Trump has us hurtling toward authoritarianism and sacrificing just about everything else in the list of election issues for The Economy when in truth Trump never delivered on his promised 4+ points of GDP, never got close but for 1 quarter out of 14 and has really not outperformed Obama by more than a fraction of a point here or there. What that tells you is not how much better Trump is on the economy but how over-exercised we are about The Economy when we enter the voting booth. Hard to argue that Bernie would have had the better shot when his programs would involve major infusions of tax dollars which like it or not are a drag on the near term Economy.
 
And that number gets smaller every day. It isn't the 80s anymore. I think it's about comparable to the number of progressives who will refuse to vote for Biden due to his many problems. If you deny that he is terribly flawed, I'll list them, but I figure I'll avoid that since we both want this guy elected. People WILL stay home in protest. They WILL vote for a 3rd party. I wish they wouldn't, but many WILL. Biden is not OWED any votes by people on the left, he has to earn them with policy concessions at the very least. You don't need to coddle the extremists, but you (and sometimes Biden, and Hillary before him) seem to think you can ignore and disdain progressives and expect continued support. You were wrong about that in 2016. Please learn from history for all our sakes.


Yes, they're all half loaves, and yet you arrogantly claim that Biden was the safest choice to beat Trump, the most "electable". There was no evidence to support that claim at the very beginning of the primary because it is simply impossible to predict the electorate so far in the future.


This is a debate forum, questions are not necessary for a debate. I criticized your position ("Biden is the electable candidate"), and argued that most of his success in the primary was due to people like you propagating that flawed argument ("self fulfilling prophecy"). Now you could ignore my criticisms or come up with a counterargument. Your choice, but typically ignoring things indicates that you can't logically defend your position. That's a bad look. Whether or not it's phrased as a question shouldn't matter.


"A desire to stop the madness and return some dignity to the office of President" is something that EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE had. It is ridiculous to claim that is what set Biden apart from the pack. It was pure name recognition and riding on Obama's coattails.

Really! Hillary lost because she had no argument to make to blue collar voters which had been a main stay of the DEM Party. She simply overemphasized LGBQ issues to the point where she began virtually every campaign speech with them. Do you know what voters think when you start every campaign speech with the same issue? They think that its is the most important issue to you! Why do you think she did not go back to Michigan and Wisconsin at the end when it was obvious that the undecided vote there was greater than her evaporating lead on Trump? Why? Because she had nothing to say to those people and they still make up a large percentage of the electorate.

I would say the Bernies are about 8-10 years ahead of themselves at present. 1980 has nothing to do with anything except those were Trump's glory years and he thinks the world was created the day he was born.

We don't have 8-10 years to give up. I predicted in these pages way back in 2017 that Donnie would cost us about 25 years for every 4 years he was in office. I was wayyyyyyyy wrong. He has set us back 25 years in his first two years and four years of Donnie will cost us more like 50 years. I have no interest in going back to the 1920s in any way shape or form and Donnie could take us there in every way shape and form. Trump makes Hoover look like a God Damn genius and that is saying something.
 


https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1296584700950175751

So the jist of it is that despite a supermajority of democrats wanting to hear from AOC at the convention, and despite being one of the most popular and notable democratic politicos in the country ( https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1295008521600282624 | CBS News Battleground Tracker, August 12 - 14, 2020.pdf - Google Drive ), AOC was not to get an invitation to speak at the Democratic National Convention at all, and in fact, Sanders had to give her one of his two nomination speaker slots to get her even the scant appearance that progressives rightly complained about as being inadequate. Meanwhile some mainstream media sources, despite obviously knowing better, are going after AOC for nominating Sanders in a traditional, procedural endorsement, or are lambasting her for not being supportive enough of Biden, lol ( Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accuses NBC of spreading misinformation after DNC speech | US news | The Guardian ). You can't make this **** up.

I mean, it's sadly unsurprising. The Democratic establishment and certain allies are definitely apprehensive about her and the changing of the guard she and the Squad represents, recent losses of long time incumbents such as William Lacy Clay, Elliots Engel and Dan Lipinski to progressives ( two of these wins being huge upsets; Progressive Victories Signal Staying Power for the Movement - The New York Times ), and the crushing re-election of all Squad reps despite well-funded primary competitors, and thus seeks to minimize her exposure and prominence. Again, further continuation of the wagon circling behaviour we've seen throughout the primary and 2016.


She got more time than she deserved.
 
Eliminated the Pelosi stuff in the quote box as we are in agreement.
I have the receipt. Biden won and Bernie lost.

That's not a receipt for the assertions you mean to prove.

Clearly COVID has added a dynamic to the MFA debate that did not exist before. I acknowledged that earlier. I like MFA. Just don't think it should be shoved down peoples throats. Apparently, Biden's preference would be to drop the eligibility age for Medicare to 60, add back the public option to the ACA that they had to cut out to get it to pass and open up even more access to Medicaid. That is likely as much as you can expect Americans to swallow in one mouthful as a platform plank.

Nice opinion.

According to PEW which might be the most respected pollster in the country at present its:
The economy
Heathcare
SJC appointments (quite possibly because of Ruth and Breyer. Ruth is barely hanging on and won't make it 4 more years on the bench. Breyer might not make it either)
COVID
Violent Crime
Foreign policy
Gun policy
Race and ethnic inequality
immigration
ethnic inequality
Climate change
Abortion

The deck shuffles constantly under #1 but the Economy is rarely dislodged by anything. Galliup had a similar survey in January and with the exception of Covid it was quite similar. The problem for the so called big tent party is that is not how people vote. They can't keep all of that crap in their heads when they close that curtain and actually make their choice. I am disappointed that in my lifetime The Economy has stubbornly stayed at the top. I am old as dirt and I would have expected some change by now. Encouraged that Healthcare is at #2 but frankly even #2 is a far cry from #1 as it is simply more often that once that curtain closes, a voter asks himself "what is the most important issue to me" not "what are the most important issues to me" and that is how he votes. Happens very consistently. Very discouraged that all of those issues I would consider social justice issues and progress toward the aspirations this country was founded upon are so far down the list.

So we've got one poll where the economy has a significant lead, and another where healthcare has a straight up massive lead. I don't think that's remotely an adequate basis for asserting the economy is #1. Further, even assuming the economy was #1, two of Sanders' key positions on revivifying the economy, a federal jobs program, and an infrastructure spend funded by higher taxes on the rich, are massively popular, with the first having supermajority support even among Republicans!

Frankly, I don't think either Biden nor Bernie are favored over Trump in spite of what the polls say about the race itself because we refuse as a country to dislodge The Economy from #1 as as voting issue. What is truly disturbing is that Trump has us hurtling toward authoritarianism and sacrificing just about everything else in the list of election issues for The Economy when in truth Trump never delivered on his promised 4+ points of GDP, never got close but for 1 quarter out of 14 and has really not outperformed Obama by more than a fraction of a point here or there. What that tells you is not how much better Trump is on the economy but how over-exercised we are about The Economy when we enter the voting booth. Hard to argue that Bernie would have had the better shot when his programs would involve major infusions of tax dollars which like it or not are a drag on the near term Economy.

Again, you have yet to actually prove that the economy is presently the top priority. Also Trump's lead on the economy as an issue is pretty narrow (as it rightly should be given he shares a great deal of responsibility for the current malaise): Trump’s Edge on the Economy Has Evaporated - Morning Consult
 
It's conceivable Kasich could run for President against Democrats in 2024. Allowing him to speak at our Convention didn't make alot a sense to me for this reason. Maybe I'm wrong, idk.
 
Really! Hillary lost because she had no argument to make to blue collar voters which had been a main stay of the DEM Party. She simply overemphasized LGBQ issues to the point where she began virtually every campaign speech with them. Do you know what voters think when you start every campaign speech with the same issue? They think that its is the most important issue to you! Why do you think she did not go back to Michigan and Wisconsin at the end when it was obvious that the undecided vote there was greater than her evaporating lead on Trump? Why? Because she had nothing to say to those people and they still make up a large percentage of the electorate.

I would say the Bernies are about 8-10 years ahead of themselves at present. 1980 has nothing to do with anything except those were Trump's glory years and he thinks the world was created the day he was born.

We don't have 8-10 years to give up. I predicted in these pages way back in 2017 that Donnie would cost us about 25 years for every 4 years he was in office. I was wayyyyyyyy wrong. He has set us back 25 years in his first two years and four years of Donnie will cost us more like 50 years. I have no interest in going back to the 1920s in any way shape or form and Donnie could take us there in every way shape and form. Trump makes Hoover look like a God Damn genius and that is saying something.

I doubt they thought it was the most important. More likely they thought it was an easy thing to pay lip service to without taking on a serious policy challenge. They hoped progressives would listen to the nice words, and then sit down and shut up about more difficult topics like healthcare. Obviously, that was a stupid decision. Maybe I'm a cynic but it seems like a lot of social issues are treated that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom