[Politics] Yang Gang 2020

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Thaluikhain:
I'm not a US citizen, and I'm far from a hard core Sanders supporter, but can the Democrats not do better than Biden? Yeah, he'd be much better than Trump, because a chimpanzee would be, and Trump is a real possibility, but, c'mon.

I'm prepared to sell them Boris Johnson. If I can find him...

Seanchaidh:

Worgen:
Yeah, see your a trump supporter. Maybe not directly but when Biden ends up winning you will bitch and moan and do everything you can to stop other people from voting for him to "teach the democrats a lesson" and we will end up with more trump, like we did in 2016 and the Bernie bros bitching and moaning and protest voting. Because people are too dumb to realize this shit matters and like it or not, you have to make due with a lesser of two evils.

Sanctimonious crap about the virtue of accepting the lesser of two evils aside, getting rid of losing campaigns like Biden's are exactly what primaries are for. He. Does. Not. Have. To. Be. Nominated.

Gergar12:
The problem with upstart progressives is that they don't know how to play politics. While Biden flutters and falls on his stupid potentially election damaging gaffes, his more pragmatic, and more intelligent advisors are going to every union, and left-leaning group, and saying if you don't support us, you will not get government contracts, our support for your issues, etc.

You want to know how I know this it's because the same thing happened with the recent New York Governor race.

Whereas with Warren, and Sanders it takes for granted that unions will be supported no matter whose side they support, which is crazy.

Warren and Sanders are not going to win on flowers, and kittens at this rate.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cuomo-won-punish-wfp-nixon-endorsement-article-1.3943571

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgbpb/a-major-labor-union-just-endorsed-bernie-sanders

Sanders is aggressively courting union support. He not only shows up at strikes, but frequently puts out notices of strike actions on his campaign app so that people can show up and support them. He's also been promoting the unionization of people who aren't unionized as well as working to better their conditions (Amazon, Wal-Mart). Unions would either be foolish or sold out by their leaders to choose Biden (which can certainly happen, and indicates a problem with the structure of the organization and its process of coming to decisions). Why should unions want the VP of the guy who promised but then did nothing to try to deliver card check? It makes no sense.

Exactly, you're proving my point, Sanders, and Warren uses a carrot approach to do this because we are friends, while centrists like Cuomo and Biden use a stick and carrot approach. If you don't support me you will lose access to me. Whereas that's that's not the case with Sanders and Warren.

Now rank and file union members may support the more progressive candidates, and I have met some that do this despite their union leadership, but the leaders are the ones that make the endorsements that are needed to accrue more name recognition.

I don't know why Progressives shouldn't play hardball or at least bluff. Centrists like Biden already have the mainstream media support, and they play hardball while progressives are mainly supported by a few media organizations like TYT, Jacobin, and the Intercept along with online outlets who cater to young people who don't vote like Baby Boomers do who mostly use... mainstream outlets like MSNBC, and CNN, and NYT, and even Wapo.

On the topic thread, I think Yang is a so-so bottom tier candidate who falls into the idealist trap of "this one thing could solve everything" approach to UBI. I've listened to multiple interviews with him, the most recent being the NYTime's semi-critical and editorialized one from last week's Daily (link is to the Google Podcast version and not paywalled, ~30 minutes) and I get the sense that he truly believes in what he is trying to do.

And I definitely think he falls into the "right diagnosis, wrong prescription" category that a lot of people (regardless of education or ideology) fall into when they think they have a novel idea. In his case, it's that the US should base policy on improving overall happiness rather than aiming for particular economic indicators such as employment or GDP and that there's a short-to-medium term risk of a larger employment crisis due to automation. I am personally sympathetic to this argument, but I don't think UBI is the panacea he makes it out to be, particularly if paid for via a VAT rather than through a more progressive taxation system.

Worgen:
The difference is that the polls we have now are current. Its still totally possible Sanders would have gotten more votes, but its also totally possible he would have not got those in the right places and still would have lost the electorate.

The Sanders 2016 polling narrative also came with some pretty big caveats when you asked the pollsters who actually reviewed those polls nubmers.


It should be noted that Clinton's numbers did improve once the nomination was settled as described. In fact, most of the national polling was fairly accurate in 2016.

And my personal caveat: I will forever hold Sanders in contempt for 2016 for peddling narratives that said he could have won the nomination contest when he had no serious path for doing so and feeding into a narrative that was predictably taken up by Trump into the general election without any real attempt to counter that narrative.

On 2020, I think there's a good chance Biden could lose the nomination to Warren by underpreforming in Iowa or New Hampshire and giving her campaign just enough more steam to take the lead in the major nominating contests that followed afterwords. This is particularly possible if trends continue into the late fall and winter where Biden remains stable, Warren continues to slowly gain, and Sanders continues to very slowly decline (today's NBC/WSJ poll should be particularly worrying to them if it doesn't become an outlier). If Sanders doesn't make the top three out of Iowa or New Hampshire or is farther behind Warren by mid February than Warren is Biden, his campaign will effectively be over. After that, he'll need to make a decision as to whether he wants to not endorse Warren to give her a fighting chance, whom he is more ideologically aligned, or sit on his hands and pretty much hand the primary to Biden.

RCP: Not Enough Room in 2020 Primary for Sanders and Warren:
Moreover, neither Sanders nor Warren could immediately claim the entirety of the other?s support if one did drop out. According to the Morning Consult poll, the second-choice of most Sanders supporters is not Warren, but Biden. About a quarter of Sanders supporters would shift to Warren, presumably because of their ideological proximity. But almost one-third would go to Biden, evidence that ideology is not the only factor driving voter decisions. (For Warren supporters, Sanders is the top second choice, with 25%. But 22% would go to Harris and another 17% would go to Biden.) Demographic appeal and electability concerns are also likely factors.

So, while I agree the safe money is on Biden, I think that Warren is a much realer possibility than any other the other non-Biden candidates.

EDIT: I debated adding this to my argument, largely because it is inconsistent with US voting procedures and a good chunk of other polling (and it doesn't add much), but a recent ranked choice poll found Warren to be the overall winner of the Democratic pack. BUT that was only in the last round when Sanders was eliminated and his votes were distributed. So, yeah, it's very likely Sanders could turn the tide in the final choice between Warren and Biden.

Tireseas:
snip

Oh politifact, never change. Shut down instead.

We'll ignore the hand wringing about how far out polls are (that gets ignored to tell people to support the most right wing Democrat candidate "because they're going to win anyway") and instead focus on how they not at all subtly try to imply Sanders is as dislikable as Clinton, as if they were somehow equal in that regard.

Gergar12:
I don't know why Progressives shouldn't play hardball or at least bluff.

Maybe because they actually support unions rather than merely use them as a tool for their own career advancement. "Playing hardball" in such a way with one's allies can easily backfire hard.

Tireseas:
On the topic thread, I think Yang is a so-so bottom tier candidate who falls into the idealist trap of "this one thing could solve everything" approach to UBI. I've listened to multiple interviews with him, the most recent being the NYTime's semi-critical and editorialized one from last week's Daily (link is to the Google Podcast version and not paywalled, ~30 minutes) and I get the sense that he truly believes in what he is trying to do.

And I definitely think he falls into the "right diagnosis, wrong prescription" category that a lot of people (regardless of education or ideology) fall into when they think they have a novel idea. In his case, it's that the US should base policy on improving overall happiness rather than aiming for particular economic indicators such as employment or GDP and that there's a short-to-medium term risk of a larger employment crisis due to automation. I am personally sympathetic to this argument, but I don't think UBI is the panacea he makes it out to be, particularly if paid for via a VAT rather than through a more progressive taxation system.

Worgen:
The difference is that the polls we have now are current. Its still totally possible Sanders would have gotten more votes, but its also totally possible he would have not got those in the right places and still would have lost the electorate.

The Sanders 2016 polling narrative also came with some pretty big caveats when you asked the pollsters who actually reviewed those polls nubmers.


It should be noted that Clinton's numbers did improve once the nomination was settled as described. In fact, most of the national polling was fairly accurate in 2016.

And my personal caveat: I will forever hold Sanders in contempt for 2016 for peddling narratives that said he could have won the nomination contest when he had no serious path for doing so and feeding into a narrative that was predictably taken up by Trump into the general election without any real attempt to counter that narrative.

On 2020, I think there's a good chance Biden could lose the nomination to Warren by underpreforming in Iowa or New Hampshire and giving her campaign just enough more steam to take the lead in the major nominating contests that followed afterwords. This is particularly possible if trends continue into the late fall and winter where Biden remains stable, Warren continues to slowly gain, and Sanders continues to very slowly decline (today's NBC/WSJ poll should be particularly worrying to them if it doesn't become an outlier). If Sanders doesn't make the top three out of Iowa or New Hampshire or is farther behind Warren by mid February than Warren is Biden, his campaign will effectively be over. After that, he'll need to make a decision as to whether he wants to not endorse Warren to give her a fighting chance, whom he is more ideologically aligned, or sit on his hands and pretty much hand the primary to Biden.

RCP: Not Enough Room in 2020 Primary for Sanders and Warren:
Moreover, neither Sanders nor Warren could immediately claim the entirety of the other?s support if one did drop out. According to the Morning Consult poll, the second-choice of most Sanders supporters is not Warren, but Biden. About a quarter of Sanders supporters would shift to Warren, presumably because of their ideological proximity. But almost one-third would go to Biden, evidence that ideology is not the only factor driving voter decisions. (For Warren supporters, Sanders is the top second choice, with 25%. But 22% would go to Harris and another 17% would go to Biden.) Demographic appeal and electability concerns are also likely factors.

So, while I agree the safe money is on Biden, I think that Warren is a much realer possibility than any other the other non-Biden candidates.

EDIT: I debated adding this to my argument, largely because it is inconsistent with US voting procedures and a good chunk of other polling (and it doesn't add much), but a recent ranked choice poll found Warren to be the overall winner of the Democratic pack. BUT that was only in the last round when Sanders was eliminated and his votes were distributed. So, yeah, it's very likely Sanders could turn the tide in the final choice between Warren and Biden.

I do hope that things turn out how you have speculated here. It does sound likely and I think you are right that it all comes down to what happens with Sanders since the two big ones seem to be Biden and Warren and I much much prefer Warren.

ObsidianJones:

But the polls were correct. Most people voted for Hillary. People answered truthfully. It just didn't matter because of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College need to be polled, not the individual.

Polls are already weighted to account for the Electoral College and demography. Polling is rarely as simple as just asking X people and reporting that directly.

Worgen:

The difference is that the polls we have now are current. Its still totally possible Sanders would have gotten more votes, but its also totally possible he would have not got those in the right places and still would have lost the electorate.

Of course they're current. That's the point. They will not be current when Americans go to the polls.

It's all possible, yes-- including Biden performing terribly. My entire point is that you cannot trust polls from this stage of the process, especially when we have compelling evidence pointing in the other direction, such as Clinton's experience.

Silvanus:

ObsidianJones:

But the polls were correct. Most people voted for Hillary. People answered truthfully. It just didn't matter because of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College need to be polled, not the individual.

Polls are already weighted to account for the Electoral College and demography. Polling is rarely as simple as just asking X people and reporting that directly.

Worgen:

The difference is that the polls we have now are current. Its still totally possible Sanders would have gotten more votes, but its also totally possible he would have not got those in the right places and still would have lost the electorate.

Of course they're current. That's the point. They will not be current when Americans go to the polls.

It's all possible, yes-- including Biden performing terribly. My entire point is that you cannot trust polls from this stage of the process, especially when we have compelling evidence pointing in the other direction, such as Clinton's experience.

No, they weren't, its impossible for them to have been current since the moment he lost the nomination all the attention was on Clinton so all the polls during the general were based on old data without him having been attacked by republicans and the general populous not examining his positions more carefully. It just comes down to a rose colored picture of how he might have done, can you prove that the republicans wouldnt have been really successful on hitting him for socialist shit?

Worgen:
can you prove that the republicans wouldnt have been really successful on hitting him for socialist shit?

Can you prove they would have been?

Abomination:

Worgen:
can you prove that the republicans wouldnt have been really successful on hitting him for socialist shit?

Can you prove they would have been?

Considering how trump is, you can bet he would have gotten on the evils of socialism train and kept that going as long as he could have. And considering that americans are pretty dumb when it comes to the socialist boogyman I can see it working, or maybe Sanders would get lucky and the population would suddenly smarten up and realized what socialism actually means, the point is, we can't know since it didn't happen.

Worgen:

Abomination:

Worgen:
can you prove that the republicans wouldnt have been really successful on hitting him for socialist shit?

Can you prove they would have been?

Considering how trump is, you can bet he would have gotten on the evils of socialism train and kept that going as long as he could have. And considering that americans are pretty dumb when it comes to the socialist boogyman I can see it working, or maybe Sanders would get lucky and the population would suddenly smarten up and realized what socialism actually means, the point is, we can't know since it didn't happen.

So it's a bit of a moot point either way.

What we do know is that Clinton was certainly a more-of-the-same candidate but Sanders was at least willing to genuinely push the nation to the Left. But its about getting people to vote for the Left, rather than convincing swingers. Hillary had the charismatic appeal of roadkill, she was as plastic as they come. Her very nomination was plagued with controversy - as has her political career. I can say with 100% certainty the Right had far more ammunition to throw at Hillary than they would have at Sanders.

Abomination:

Worgen:

Abomination:
Can you prove they would have been?

Considering how trump is, you can bet he would have gotten on the evils of socialism train and kept that going as long as he could have. And considering that americans are pretty dumb when it comes to the socialist boogyman I can see it working, or maybe Sanders would get lucky and the population would suddenly smarten up and realized what socialism actually means, the point is, we can't know since it didn't happen.

So it's a bit of a moot point either way.

What we do know is that Clinton was certainly a more-of-the-same candidate but Sanders was at least willing to genuinely push the nation to the Left. But its about getting people to vote for the Left, rather than convincing swingers. Hillary had the charismatic appeal of roadkill, she was as plastic as they come. Her very nomination was plagued with controversy - as has her political career. I can say with 100% certainty the Right had far more ammunition to throw at Hillary than they would have at Sanders.

Yeah, its totally moot.

Yeah both trump and Bernie were both populous candidates and Hillary was the career politician, despite Bernie being the same thing, just more left wing. I think she had fine charisma, the problem with Hillary is that the republicans have been hitting her since the 90s, shes been probably the most hated politician in the nation besides maybe Nancy Pelosi.

Worgen:
Hillary was the career politician, despite Bernie being the same thing, just more left wing.

"just more left wing" is doing Atlas-like levels of work there. Seems like a great way to elide their very different sources of funding and consequently their fundamentally different political aims. Stabilize capitalism, quell the growing unrest versus represent that unrest and leverage it into turning our oligarchy into something more democratic. The idea that they were anything close to alike is corporate propaganda.

Seanchaidh:

Worgen:
Hillary was the career politician, despite Bernie being the same thing, just more left wing.

"just more left wing" is doing Atlas-like levels of work there. Seems like a great way to elide their very different sources of funding and consequently their fundamentally different political aims. Stabilize capitalism, quell the growing unrest versus represent that unrest and leverage it into turning our oligarchy into something more democratic. The idea that they were anything close to alike is corporate propaganda.

I think he just means that Sanders was involved in politics since the fall of the roman empire, just like Hillary. He is the same in that he is also a career politician, not in everything else.

Worgen:

No, they weren't, its impossible for them to have been current since the moment he lost the nomination all the attention was on Clinton so all the polls during the general were based on old data without him having been attacked by republicans and the general populous not examining his positions more carefully.

What're you arguing against? I never said they were current; I said the very opposite, and added that the polls you're looking at for the 2020 context will not be current either when it matters.

It just comes down to a rose colored picture of how he might have done, can you prove that the republicans wouldnt have been really successful on hitting him for socialist shit?

Nope! Can you prove anything about how Biden will perform?

My entire point has been that you cannot rely on polls from this stage in the process. I get the impression you think I'm arguing something I'm not, and you're overlooking what I am saying.

Looks like Andrew is beating Kamila in the polls on her own state. It is always nice to see an underdog gain momentum.

Marik2:
Looks like Andrew is beating Kamila in the polls on her own state. It is always nice to see an underdog gain momentum.

Yeah.

On the other hand, that really isn't saying much. Kamala Harris is doing terribly.

Seanchaidh:
On the other hand, that really isn't saying much. Kamala Harris is doing terribly.

I'm still hoping Tulsi pulls a rabbit out her ass and qualifies for the fourth debate, but if not at least she'll go down having taken Harris with her. Fuck Harris.

Worgen:
I do hope that things turn out how you have speculated here. It does sound likely and I think you are right that it all comes down to what happens with Sanders since the two big ones seem to be Biden and Warren and I much much prefer Warren.

For whatever reason, corporate media would like to promote that idea. That doesn't seem to be the real state of the race, though.

Seanchaidh:

Worgen:
I do hope that things turn out how you have speculated here. It does sound likely and I think you are right that it all comes down to what happens with Sanders since the two big ones seem to be Biden and Warren and I much much prefer Warren.

For whatever reason, corporate media would like to promote that idea. That doesn't seem to be the real state of the race, though.

What polls is he talking about? Cause it still looks like Biden is the strong front-runner with Warren coming up and Bernie being a close 3rd. Which might be telling since he had a full other election cycle to establish himself, so he might just be a no go at this point. Warren is kinda new blood in this arena and Biden is the name that is linked to a popular politician.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Silvanus:

Worgen:

No, they weren't, its impossible for them to have been current since the moment he lost the nomination all the attention was on Clinton so all the polls during the general were based on old data without him having been attacked by republicans and the general populous not examining his positions more carefully.

What're you arguing against? I never said they were current; I said the very opposite, and added that the polls you're looking at for the 2020 context will not be current either when it matters.

It just comes down to a rose colored picture of how he might have done, can you prove that the republicans wouldnt have been really successful on hitting him for socialist shit?

Nope! Can you prove anything about how Biden will perform?

My entire point has been that you cannot rely on polls from this stage in the process. I get the impression you think I'm arguing something I'm not, and you're overlooking what I am saying.

If they aren't current then they don't really matter for more then speculation. The 2020 ones are current, we just aren't at the actual primary yet.

Of course I can't prove how he will perform, we still aren't at the primary, maybe he will fuck up. But right now if the primary was run the good money is on Biden.

Worgen:

What polls is he talking about? Cause it still looks like Biden is the strong front-runner with Warren coming up and Bernie being a close 3rd. Which might be telling since he had a full other election cycle to establish himself, so he might just be a no go at this point. Warren is kinda new blood in this arena and Biden is the name that is linked to a popular politician.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

I'd be inclined to agree. If Sanders was going to make it, I'd expect him to be in a much stronger position currently. As is, he's got the brand and the reputation built, took 40%+ in 2016, and that he only started 20-25% and has then gone down since looks terminal.

The interesting thing will be what happens when the no-hopers pull out and reveal who've they've been sucking votes from. There's about 30-40% of votes there, enough to completely change the picture.

Biden strikes me as the prime Democratic Party establishment candidate - the nice, safe, status quo option. Warren is also an establishment candidate, but offering a more progressive angle that is probably drawing away the more risk-averse potential Sanders backers - and that sort of steady, sustained rise in support throughout looks good for her chances: doesn't seem to be a flash-in-the-pan excitement that just fades back to baseline.

Agema:

Worgen:

What polls is he talking about? Cause it still looks like Biden is the strong front-runner with Warren coming up and Bernie being a close 3rd. Which might be telling since he had a full other election cycle to establish himself, so he might just be a no go at this point. Warren is kinda new blood in this arena and Biden is the name that is linked to a popular politician.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

I'd be inclined to agree. If Sanders was going to make it, I'd expect him to be in a much stronger position currently. As is, he's got the brand and the reputation built, took 40%+ in 2016, and that he only started 20-25% and has then gone down since looks terminal.

The interesting thing will be what happens when the no-hopers pull out and reveal who've they've been sucking votes from. There's about 30-40% of votes there, enough to completely change the picture.

Biden strikes me as the prime Democratic Party establishment candidate - the nice, safe, status quo option. Warren is also an establishment candidate, but offering a more progressive angle that is probably drawing away the more risk-averse potential Sanders backers - and that sort of steady, sustained rise in support throughout looks good for her chances: doesn't seem to be a flash-in-the-pan excitement that just fades back to baseline.

Well, a lot of the no hopers are mainly from the democratic base and more moderate so there is an ok chance their backers mostly favor Biden or Warren. I think if Bernie decides its not going to happen and does back a candidate then it would be Warren and his backers would mostly go for her and that would beat Biden, but I don't know if it would happen the other way round. If Warren steps down I think her backers would be more split between Biden and Bernie.

Agema:
Warren is also an establishment candidate, but offering a more progressive angle that is probably drawing away the more risk-averse potential Sanders backers - and that sort of steady, sustained rise in support throughout looks good for her chances: doesn't seem to be a flash-in-the-pan excitement that just fades back to baseline.

If she was smart she'd get it out in the rumor mill that if she wins the primary she'd pick Sanders for VP. That would probably cinch her the position since it wouldn't cost her much if any voters but might draw support from folks who really want someone farther out there than Warren and worry about her sliding back to corporate establishment Dem as soon as she no longer has to differentiate herself from Biden.

Schadrach:

Agema:
Warren is also an establishment candidate, but offering a more progressive angle that is probably drawing away the more risk-averse potential Sanders backers - and that sort of steady, sustained rise in support throughout looks good for her chances: doesn't seem to be a flash-in-the-pan excitement that just fades back to baseline.

If she was smart she'd get it out in the rumor mill that if she wins the primary she'd pick Sanders for VP. That would probably cinch her the position since it wouldn't cost her much if any voters but might draw support from folks who really want someone farther out there than Warren and worry about her sliding back to corporate establishment Dem as soon as she no longer has to differentiate herself from Biden.

I'm skeptical. Usually VP picks are effectively after the primary and by then there won't be enough of a contest to swing it one way or another. VPs are also usually picked to balance out the PR concerns with the main candidate (Biden's experience and cultural appeal to white working class voters, Kane's relative warmth and applicability, Ryan's conservative ideology, Pence's social conservatism, etc.). Sanders doesn't really offset any concerns of Warren's (and, judging by his Senate career, would be an absolute pain to work with), and his age means that it continues a narrative of a older Democratic leadership.

Better options for Warren are likely younger and more moderate, along with armed forces, foreign policy, or entrepreneurial experience: Buttigieg would be a major frontrunner (if he's willing to gamble with being VP statistically a political career-ender even if you do get the office) along with Hickenlooper. Inslee would likely be a good choice if Warren wants to focus on climate change. A non-primary candidate is also extremely likely. If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Tireseas:
Sanders doesn't really offset any concerns of Warren's

And that is where you are quite wrong.

She didn't back Sanders against Clinton; that's a big concern to a lot of progressives. Her foreign policy is basically the same as someone like Clinton in that it is more or less what Raytheon wants. Lots of people have critiques of her from the left and, if there's anything you should have learned in 2016, that means turnout problems.

Tireseas:
If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

So that what, she can chip into the segregationist vote? (I mean, that's essentially why Obama picked him...) Biden's support comes from people who assume he's electable because he's been VP. He's not a great candidate, he wouldn't be a great VP pick even if he were younger-- indeed, if he were younger he'd have fewer excuses for his horrible policy platform and incoherent and racist debate answers.

Seanchaidh:

Tireseas:
Sanders doesn't really offset any concerns of Warren's

And that is where you are quite wrong.

She didn't back Sanders against Clinton; that's a big concern to a lot of progressives. Her foreign policy is basically the same as someone like Clinton in that it is more or less what Raytheon wants. Lots of people have critiques of her from the left and, if there's anything you should have learned in 2016, that means turnout problems.

Because Warren was somehow expected to back a challenger with whom she has fundamental differences over someone she had vocally supported for a president to the point of publicly urging for her to run in 2014? Do you realize how fucking mental that sounds?

A few things:

1) defense and foreign policy spending is set by the Congress, with all the strings and caveats as well. If you're pissed off at defense contractors, then your beef is with the appropriations committee, not the State Department and Department of Defense.

2) Continuity of the previous administrations foreign policy is currently falling into the "definitely would have rather had that then the incompetent-to-blatantly-corrupt policy we currently have." We are literally on a very short path to war with Iran, in no small part from pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. North Korea is effectively unchecked. Russia's interference in the 2016 election is not only not barely acknowledged, much less addressed through policy, but is practically being rooted for. Saudi Arabia de facto runs our middle east policy. Our foreign relations with allies are in tatters at the time we most need to band together to address major security issues such as cyber-security and climate change. The State Department has pretty much been hollowed out of its expertise and experience. Two potential (if not in progress) ethnic cleansings in Eastern China and Kashmir are completely unresponded to. Multiple trade wars on top of instability and unpredictability threaten to cause a global economic crisis.

So, yeah, "more of the same" from the Obama admin sounds pretty good right about now. If Warren is elected, she'll be spending a massive amount of her foreign policy capital just repairing our foreign relations with allies. And Sander's just sounds like Obama circa 2008, as do most of the other Democratic candidates because foreign policy is rarely decided ahead of time and more trying to create the reasonable reaction that the US will take to events as they happen rather than trying to say with any specificity, because circumstances determine options and options determine choices.

Tireseas:
If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

So that what, she can chip into the segregationist vote? (I mean, that's essentially why Obama picked him...) Biden's support comes from people who assume he's electable because he's been VP. He's not a great candidate, he wouldn't be a great VP pick even if he were younger-- indeed, if he were younger he'd have fewer excuses for his horrible policy platform and incoherent and racist debate answers.

A vote is a vote is a vote. The end goal is to make sure you have more than the other candidate. Where that vote comes from is irrelevant to that calculus if you get more votes than you lose.

Yeah, Biden's willingness to play nice with racists in the past was a major plus with his VP candidacy, and still would be. It's hard to not see plainly that the pace of racial and cultural change is causing a lot of potential voters to act rashly and cling to the person who is selling them racial and cultural animus as the cure for their anxiety rather than looking rationally at the situation and see the republicans have been selling them a bill of goods. If those voters feel less threatened by the pair at the top of the democratic ticket, they may be willing to let them win by not voting (or even vote for them if they're particularly turned off by the republicans).

And here's the thing: Obama still helped push along key protections for minorities even with Biden at the Navel Observatory. Gay and Trans Americans went from being near-pariahs to integral parts of the American fabric. There were major pushes for police reform through consent decrees and immigration reform. Biden didn't put a stop to any progressive measure, and often assisted.

Plus, his experience on the foreign policy and judicial committee sure helped as well.

But, hey, if you decide to not back the democrat because you care more about your pride than trying to move the country in a more progressive direction, then you've made your choice.

Seems some people are missing here:

Marianne Williamson but not Andrew Yang? And is that Seth Moulton or whatever-his-first-name-is Bullock[1]? I literally can't tell which nondescript white candidate that is in top middle. Regardless, that guy and not Bernie Sanders (who polls tied for first in IA)? What?

Thankfully, the DNC's MSNBC's damnatio memoriae is a lot less powerful than what it was thirty years ago.

Tireseas:

Seanchaidh:

Tireseas:
Sanders doesn't really offset any concerns of Warren's

And that is where you are quite wrong.

She didn't back Sanders against Clinton; that's a big concern to a lot of progressives. Her foreign policy is basically the same as someone like Clinton in that it is more or less what Raytheon wants. Lots of people have critiques of her from the left and, if there's anything you should have learned in 2016, that means turnout problems.

Because Warren was somehow expected to back a challenger with whom she has fundamental differences over someone she had vocally supported for a president to the point of publicly urging for her to run in 2014? Do you realize how fucking mental that sounds?

Whoa, you're supposed to keep her ties to Clinton on the down low nowadays, not focus on them! It's bad enough there's that article out there about how she's been talking to Hillary Clinton recently. But precisely, point made: Sanders would have A LOT to offer her as a VP pick. She would desperately need to shore up the support of progressives.

And for the record, you can't say that "she should have endorsed him in 2016" sounds 'mental' while at the same time the narrative is that Warren's policies are basically the same, so why not just vote for her instead of Bernie? Regardless, the fact is she didn't, and that's a problem. It really doesn't matter why she didn't. And the why makes her even more problematic.

Tireseas:
A vote is a vote is a vote.

And we're voting after a campaign, not tomorrow. Joe Biden is leaking oil, it's bad.

[1] my best guess is actually Michael Bennet, but I'm not sure

Worgen:

If they aren't current then they don't really matter for more then speculation. The 2020 ones are current, we just aren't at the actual primary yet.

That's right. They don't matter for more than speculation. Nor will those you've mentioned when the actual election comes, because they will no longer be current.

Of course I can't prove how he will perform, we still aren't at the primary, maybe he will fuck up. But right now if the primary was run the good money is on Biden.

Meaning that he could win the primary, not the Presidential election.

Tireseas:

Because Warren was somehow expected to back a challenger with whom she has fundamental differences over someone she had vocally supported for a president to the point of publicly urging for her to run in 2014? Do you realize how fucking mental that sounds?

Uhrm, this seems to imply she doesn't have fundamental differences with Clinton... which would obviously be an electoral red flag.

Silvanus:

Worgen:

If they aren't current then they don't really matter for more then speculation. The 2020 ones are current, we just aren't at the actual primary yet.

That's right. They don't matter for more than speculation. Nor will those you've mentioned when the actual election comes, because they will no longer be current.

Of course I can't prove how he will perform, we still aren't at the primary, maybe he will fuck up. But right now if the primary was run the good money is on Biden.

Meaning that he could win the primary, not the Presidential election.

Tireseas:

Because Warren was somehow expected to back a challenger with whom she has fundamental differences over someone she had vocally supported for a president to the point of publicly urging for her to run in 2014? Do you realize how fucking mental that sounds?

Uhrm, this seems to imply she doesn't have fundamental differences with Clinton... which would obviously be an electoral red flag.

Yeah, what I'm saying right now, is based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency. But we can't know what could happen between now and then, he is just a safe bet. Although also based on the best info we have now most of the democratic candidates would probably win the presidency, although really if nothing too bad happens during the next year then that might help trump win since its actually rather uncommon to have a single term president anymore.

Worgen:
based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Seanchaidh:

Worgen:
based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Well, technically anyone who is mean to trump could also be guilty of elder abuse, but fuck that noise.

Krystal Ball of The Hill interviewed Andrew Yang, which I imagine might be of some interest to those considering whether to support him or who already support him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GTulhxZmM

Worgen:

Seanchaidh:

Worgen:
based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Well, technically anyone who is mean to trump could also be guilty of elder abuse, but fuck that noise.

OK, but I'm talking about his own campaign, people who you would think have a bit more of a duty to care about the well-being of the candidate they are trying to get elected.

Seanchaidh:
Krystal Ball of The Hill interviewed Andrew Yang, which I imagine might be of some interest to those considering whether to support him or who already support him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GTulhxZmM

Worgen:

Seanchaidh:

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Well, technically anyone who is mean to trump could also be guilty of elder abuse, but fuck that noise.

OK, but I'm talking about his own campaign, people who you would think have a bit more of a duty to care about the well-being of the candidate they are trying to get elected.

She's such a good interviewer. Heres another good one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o954RBH3S6o

Tireseas:
If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Wait...10 years ago...30 years younger...did someone give Biden a time machine?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here