The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
 

tstorm823:

I was trying to guess what the movement behind Sanders was all about. You weren't specific, so I went with the contempt for wealth and condemnation of anyone who disagrees.

A reminder that you perennially defend a candidate who calls political opponents "losers", "crazy", "deranged", "fat", "Dumbo", "braindead", "dumb", "goofy", etc, etc, etc. You don't have a leg to stand on talking about "condemning" language: nobody has done more to degrade the political discourse and steer it towards aggressive, demeaning rhetoric.

tstorm823:

Seanchaidh:

tstorm823:

Stunning lack of empathy for anyone who isn't both poor and a communist?

..?

I was trying to guess what the movement behind Sanders was all about. You weren't specific, so I went with the contempt for wealth and condemnation of anyone who disagrees.

Sanders usually attacks those who have vast amounts of unearned wealth.

Take Randy Pitchford for example. He promised bonuses to workers for Borderlands 3 and they put up with the crunch and a pay cut. Suprise, suprise, while Borderlands 3 was success, mo bonuses showed up. Except, of course, his $12mil. See also Blizzard/ Activison who got bonus but cut staff due to decreased sales.

Compare this to Nintendo. They weren't doing well before the Switch arrived. So, instead of cutting staff, the whole board took a pay cut.

Sanders would be attacking the first, not the second

Edit: You realise that poor or Communist makes up 90% of the population right?

trunkage:

Sanders would be attacking the first, not the second

I agree. But I have a peculiar take on Sanders. I don't think he is the idealist that people believe he is. I think he's just as much a political pragmatist as the other people in Washington, just one who has chosen a unique strategy.

But the movement behind Bernie Sanders has a lot of actual idealists in it. And like, alarmingly extreme ones. I have a modest amount of respect for Bernie Sanders considering how entirely I disagree with most of what he says, I don't believe he's someone who would glorify the Reign of Terror and call for guillotines. I believe he has more sense than to do that, and frankly more genuine compassion for others. Some of his fans though, that's a different story. And like, that's obviously true of every politician, there will be more extreme followers than the leader, but it's easier to aim at Bernie people because of how tied they are to a single prominent figure.

Edit: You realise that poor or Communist makes up 90% of the population right?

I do, but I didn't say poor or Communist, I said poor and communist. Poor people who aren't communists get no sympathy because they are considered fools (and probably bigots) who vote against their own interests. Rich people get no sympathy regardless of their ideology because they are thought to have only gotten there at the expense of others. You have to be both poor AND communist to be considered fully human by the furthest left on the internet.

Yes, all of this is a strawman, but hey I was taking jabs, there was never gonna be a totally fair rationale behind it.

trunkage:

tstorm823:

Seanchaidh:

..?

I was trying to guess what the movement behind Sanders was all about. You weren't specific, so I went with the contempt for wealth and condemnation of anyone who disagrees.

Sanders usually attacks those who have vast amounts of unearned wealth.

Take Randy Pitchford for example. He promised bonuses to workers for Borderlands 3 and they put up with the crunch and a pay cut. Suprise, suprise, while Borderlands 3 was success, mo bonuses showed up. Except, of course, his $12mil. See also Blizzard/ Activison who got bonus but cut staff due to decreased sales.

Compare this to Nintendo. They weren't doing well before the Switch arrived. So, instead of cutting staff, the whole board took a pay cut.

Sanders would be attacking the first, not the second

Kind of? His rhetoric wasn't exactly discriminatory when it came to the wealthy. Hell, at least one writer noted that the wealthiest black entrepreneurs seemed to get erased in the campaigns rhetoric.

Still, I do think there was an empathy problem for those who didn't already subscribe to Sanders' worldview and were supporting him, though I think tstorm mostly stirring shit. Like, if you liked Obama, Clinton, and Pelsoi, Sanders essentially was trashing them under the banner of "the Establishment," and did little to appeal to their interests, especially older black voters who view the Democratic establishment, and Obama in particular, with pride. Most of them saw GOP efforts to hamper those politicians and the party and don't hold them responsible for not getting more done (though the truth to that varies widely based on when and what policy is at issue). And, as we can see in even lower-stake issues around identity and around even minor celebrities, Sanders trashing those individuals (even if indirectly), primed them to oppose him rather than give him a shot.

At its core, I think Sanders' loss fundamentally is not a failure of policy, but of politics. Sanders' Medicare for All bill in congress got widespread reflexive support from multiple presidential candidates who cosigned on it. Progressive policies are becoming increasingly popular. The biggest problem with Sanders has never been his policies, it's been his politics. It's just not a viable electoral strategy to alienate large portions of the applicable electorate (in this case the primary) by slamming the mainstream establishment politicians they generally support. He also couldn't pull in the voters who the campaign alleged were just waiting in the wings for his style of politics and policy, largely because it doesn't appear they're there in any substantial way, at least in the primary (there's evidence they barely exist at all).

The future for progressive policies remains coalition building and working within the party system to supplant more moderate members without alienating their voting base (i.e. keeping intra-party fights in the primaries and leadership contests rather than in general elections without turning ugly). Reaching voters where they are rather than demanding they come to you, getting them on board with a campaign that feels actually inclusive (Sanders regularly touted diversity and inclusion in his campaign, but had a problem doing with the largest voting blocks of older black voters), and not treating primary voters who aren't aligned with your campaign like trash or puppets so that next time around you can try to convince voters who's last memory of progressives isn't negative. Get them to slowly identify as progressive (or dress up progressives as moderates in some cases, particularly in swing districts) and we can win the political battle that's needed to win the policy battle.

Tireseas:

Get them to slowly identify as progressive (or dress up progressives as moderates in some cases, particularly in swing districts) and we can win the political battle that's needed to win the policy battle.

Progressivism in the real sense is pragmatic and moderate.

If you want success in the progressive movement, learn to identify when someone isn't actually being progressive and call them out. Progressivism is about the incremental improvement of society to better the human experience, nobody can succeed in that goal if their base of support is communists and political transgressives who want to burn society to the ground. That's why Bernie's never succeeded nationally, because actual progressives get turned off when they see how much he appeals to people who think society is a bad thing.

Tireseas:
*

Your analysis of the campaign did not even mention media bias nor acknowledge that Bernie was at one point winning so hard that he was making Chris Matthews shit his pants comparing him to Hitler on live television, and therefore can be disregarded as not serious. The explanation for Bernie's loss lies in a particular series of events, not the grand theory of political change that you want it to.

Tireseas:

The future for progressive policies remains coalition building and working within the party system to supplant more moderate members without alienating their voting base (i.e. keeping intra-party fights in the primaries and leadership contests rather than in general elections without turning ugly). Reaching voters where they are rather than demanding they come to you, getting them on board with a campaign that feels actually inclusive (Sanders regularly touted diversity and inclusion in his campaign, but had a problem doing with the largest voting blocks of older black voters), and not treating primary voters who aren't aligned with your campaign like trash or puppets so that next time around you can try to convince voters who's last memory of progressives isn't negative. Get them to slowly identify as progressive (or dress up progressives as moderates in some cases, particularly in swing districts) and we can win the political battle that's needed to win the policy battle.

I think you're right. To add to this, as other people have said about Sanders before: The USA is not ready for a massive reform to mimic Nordic Model social democratic policies. No matter if I, sitting an ocean away, think Bernie have the best policies, the simple truth is that neither American voters nor the American system are ready to significantly raise the tax burden, expand federal oversight and massively overhaul and expand social services and healthcare. Sanders end goal is noble and admirable (and probably good for the USA) but his plan for getting there in 4 or 8 years is a pipe dream.

It took the Nordic countries over half a century of persistent reforms to reach the state they are in today, and Sanders wants to do the same journey in a tenth of the time. It took that long because systems had to be changed or created and voters had to be slowly convinced that every small change actually worked. Even when majority support was achieved for the social democrats, it took time because you can't simply seize privately owned hospitals and turn them into state owned hospitals and you don't build a pervasive social security network over night. You need tons of welfare workers, you need robust guidelines and oversight (to avoid people defrauding the system) and you need for voters to see that handing out their hard earned money to a homeless guy actually does something positive for them.

Sanders has the best end state for the USA, but I think pretty much every other ever so slightly progressive nominee from the Democrats would be a better choice in practice. Because sweeping progressive reforms of the USA will take decades, not years, and a large part of it, as you identify, is making sure that voters see the benefit of the progressive reforms.

Gethsemani:
You need tons of welfare workers, you need robust guidelines and oversight (to avoid people defrauding the system) and you need for voters to see that handing out their hard earned money to a homeless guy actually does something positive for them.

The Medicare/medicaid bureaucracy already exists, and single-payer, though applicable to more people, is much simpler than a means-tested program.

Gethsemani:
No matter if I, sitting an ocean away, think Bernie have the best policies, the simple truth is that neither American voters nor the American system are ready to significantly raise the tax burden, expand federal oversight and massively overhaul and expand social services and healthcare.

The United States was close to passing national health insurance in 1948. It's a popular idea now. What obscures your perception of American politics is that we absolutely do not have in any sense a political system that could accurately be called democratic. Your country, I'm sure, comes much closer to a democratic ideal. We are utterly dominated by money. It is easy to assign policy outcomes to voters if you think they're the ones calling the shots but in this country they just are not.

Seanchaidh:
The Medicare/medicaid bureaucracy already exists, and single-payer, though applicable to more people, is much simpler than a means-tested program.

I mean, yes but also no. A bureaucracy already exists, but it is largely structured so that privately owned caregivers can get money from semi-public insurance firms. Very little of that would survive the transition to publicly owned caregivers paid by federal or state programs.

As someone who works in a healthcare bureaucracy that's nominally single payer I can tell you that there are a ton of hurdles you need to clear and the US would face the same problem that Sweden does now if it transitioned: Who pays? Is it the federal government and if so, do they pass the money to the states or do they operate federal hospitals in the states? If the states pay, how do you ensure that the poorer states aren't shafted by much higher healthcare costs? These aren't trivial issues and none of the existing bureaucracy can be transitioned to work them out, because the current bureaucracy is designed to keep the state and federal government out of healthcare as much as possible, by letting private caregivers do their thing irregardless of if it gives consistent healthcare coverage.

Just because the system is single payer it is not much simpler, because it isn't just as easy as handing a hospital a bag of tax-payer money and telling them to treat everyone. You need some way to decide which level of government is paying, for what they are paying and how to ensure that individual hospitals aren't getting shafted or enriching themselves. I could go on about this if you'd like, seeing as how it is one of my pet peeves in healthcare, but I feel it is only slightly tangential to the actual discussion about Sanders. If you want to continue though, let me know.

Seanchaidh:
The United States was close to passing national health insurance in 1948. It's a popular idea now. What obscures your perception of American politics is that we absolutely do not have in any sense a political system that could accurately be called democratic. Your country, I'm sure, comes much closer to a democratic ideal. We are utterly dominated by money. It is easy to assign policy outcomes to voters if you think they're the ones calling the shots but in this country they just are not.

I know and I'm not really sure it disproves anything I wrote. Whether the voters themselves hold power or are merely pawns moved around by lobbyists with deep pockets is sort of inconsequential to the idea that the "powers that be" (be it voters or lobbyists) are quite averse to sweeping, drastic progressive change and will resist it.

Gethsemani:

Seanchaidh:
The Medicare/medicaid bureaucracy already exists, and single-payer, though applicable to more people, is much simpler than a means-tested program.

I mean, yes but also no. A bureaucracy already exists, but it is largely structured so that privately owned caregivers can get money from semi-public insurance firms. Very little of that would survive the transition to publicly owned caregivers paid by federal or state programs.

M4A has privately owned caregivers getting money from the government, as in Medicare or Medicaid. In the United States a transition to single-payer is almost purely a matter of expanding the coverage provided and eligibility for existing programs-- which is no more administratively demanding than having a public option insurance plan, and quite a bit less complicated overall.

Gethsemani:
As someone who works in a healthcare bureaucracy that's nominally single payer I can tell you that there are a ton of hurdles you need to clear and the US would face the same problem that Sweden does now if it transitioned: Who pays? Is it the federal government and if so, do they pass the money to the states or do they operate federal hospitals in the states? If the states pay, how do you ensure that the poorer states aren't shafted by much higher healthcare costs? These aren't trivial issues and none of the existing bureaucracy can be transitioned to work them out, because the current bureaucracy is designed to keep the state and federal government out of healthcare as much as possible, by letting private caregivers do their thing irregardless of if it gives consistent healthcare coverage.

Just because the system is single payer it is not much simpler, because it isn't just as easy as handing a hospital a bag of tax-payer money and telling them to treat everyone. You need some way to decide which level of government is paying, for what they are paying and how to ensure that individual hospitals aren't getting shafted or enriching themselves. I could go on about this if you'd like, seeing as how it is one of my pet peeves in healthcare, but I feel it is only slightly tangential to the actual discussion about Sanders. If you want to continue though, let me know.

OK, but these are all problems which have already been solved by existing federal programs. Not only do Medicare and Medicaid exist, we also have community health centers and the Veteran's Health Administration to look at (or even use) if and when private providers fall short.

Gethsemani:

Seanchaidh:
The United States was close to passing national health insurance in 1948. It's a popular idea now. What obscures your perception of American politics is that we absolutely do not have in any sense a political system that could accurately be called democratic. Your country, I'm sure, comes much closer to a democratic ideal. We are utterly dominated by money. It is easy to assign policy outcomes to voters if you think they're the ones calling the shots but in this country they just are not.

I know and I'm not really sure it disproves anything I wrote. Whether the voters themselves hold power or are merely pawns moved around by lobbyists with deep pockets is sort of inconsequential to the idea that the "powers that be" (be it voters or lobbyists) are quite averse to sweeping, drastic progressive change and will resist it.

Who holds the power would be contested by a Sanders presidency in a way which it simply wouldn't with any of the other choices that ran in the Democratic Party. Lobbyists would be contending with a President that is (without US precedent in living memory) not financially beholden to their employers and who has a large grassroots army pressuring legislators in the other direction. The effect of this would be much more potent than whatever benefits could come from having a less ambitious approach.

Biden releases xenophobic anti-China ad trying to outflank Trump from the right. "Trump is a ____ puppet" is all the establishment of the Democratic Party has, as they are not willing to do anything remotely adequate to help ordinary people.

Seanchaidh:
Biden releases xenophobic anti-China ad trying to outflank Trump from the right. "Trump is a ____ puppet" is all the establishment of the Democratic Party has, as they are not willing to do anything remotely adequate to help ordinary people.

Arguably, if key swing voters buy that message, not a bad idea. The pragmatism (or selling-out, if you prefer) involved in elections, eh?

Although it bears a risk of giving Trump more credibility when he's trying to shift attention away from himself and onto China when he's trying to fob off blame for a poor response to covid-19. Trump's re-election hinges on perception of how he's handled it, and the Democratic Party needs to hammer him over it for all its worth.

Let's face it, Trump's hammering away all he can. Holding all those cheques of government money going out so they can have his name written on it (even though Congress authorised the money), which seems to me abusing theoretically neutral government for political advertising. Or his coronvirus update briefings, where he increasingly seems to be using taxpayer-funded resources and time to air campaign videos in potential breach of electoral law. No-one's ever going to do anything about it because it's clear the laws on such abuses are feeble to the point of useless, and even if they weren't by now Trump knows he can get away with just about anything.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
Biden releases xenophobic anti-China ad trying to outflank Trump from the right. "Trump is a ____ puppet" is all the establishment of the Democratic Party has, as they are not willing to do anything remotely adequate to help ordinary people.

Arguably, if key swing voters buy that message, not a bad idea. The pragmatism (or selling-out, if you prefer) involved in elections, eh?

Although it bears a risk of giving Trump more credibility when he's trying to shift attention away from himself and onto China when he's trying to fob off blame for a poor response to covid-19. Trump's re-election hinges on perception of how he's handled it, and the Democratic Party needs to hammer him over it for all its worth.

Let's face it, Trump's hammering away all he can. Holding all those cheques of government money going out so they can have his name written on it (even though Congress authorised the money), which seems to me abusing theoretically neutral government for political advertising. Or his coronvirus update briefings, where he increasingly seems to be using taxpayer-funded resources and time to air campaign videos in potential breach of electoral law. No-one's ever going to do anything about it because it's clear the laws on such abuses are feeble to the point of useless, and even if they weren't by now Trump knows he can get away with just about anything.

It's an especially poor tactic because Trump has already been pointing out that Obama and Biden funded the lab in Wuhan next to where this all started. If Biden makes it look more authentic that the government had something to do with this, it's just going to boomerang back on his face because he's not paying attention.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
Biden releases xenophobic anti-China ad trying to outflank Trump from the right. "Trump is a ____ puppet" is all the establishment of the Democratic Party has, as they are not willing to do anything remotely adequate to help ordinary people.

Arguably, if key swing voters buy that message, not a bad idea. The pragmatism (or selling-out, if you prefer) involved in elections, eh?

Although it bears a risk of giving Trump more credibility when he's trying to shift attention away from himself and onto China when he's trying to fob off blame for a poor response to covid-19. Trump's re-election hinges on perception of how he's handled it, and the Democratic Party needs to hammer him over it for all its worth.

Let's face it, Trump's hammering away all he can. Holding all those cheques of government money going out so they can have his name written on it (even though Congress authorised the money), which seems to me abusing theoretically neutral government for political advertising. Or his coronvirus update briefings, where he increasingly seems to be using taxpayer-funded resources and time to air campaign videos in potential breach of electoral law. No-one's ever going to do anything about it because it's clear the laws on such abuses are feeble to the point of useless, and even if they weren't by now Trump knows he can get away with just about anything.

It's not so much selling out as never having had principles to begin with. Joe Biden's been a Republican wearing the Democratic label his whole career.

I don't think this nationalistic crap is half as pragmatic as the Biden campaign thinks it will be.

Apparently the mother of the chick Biden fingered called Larry King back in 1993 and spoke about this issue and people have found the footage. She didn't name him by name but her story matches what we've been told.

Welp, I hope they don't replace him with anyone but Bernie if they do at the convention.

It's kind of funny that many people here always seem to give the Cons a pass or play down what they did, but when Democrats do something similar everyone becomes overly critical and attacks like hungry dogs smelling steak.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.