Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

You're taking some liberties with what I actually said. Let me address these point by point.

 

1. I didn't say the better candidate always win but I think they generally do. You did not show my argument was ridiculous. You compared American elections to Russian ones as a counterpoint which I still think is a useless parallel because I'm talking about American elections, not Russian ones.

Moiraine has already addressed this, but you're missing the point. My point in bringing up Russia was to show a clear and simple example that the process/system can determine an election result regardless of how good a candidate is.

 

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

2. You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying about 2008. My only point is that the candidate who was initially considered the favorite to win the nomination ultimately lost because her opponent was the better candidate. Just to be clear, your belief is that Obama was considered more establishment than Clinton in the 2008 primary?

No, you said Hillary was supported by the establishment while Obama was not. I'm just showing that the establishment wasn't against Obama nor particularly in favor of Hillary.

 

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

3. I was trying to touch on your comments about money winning elections. You've acknowledged that isn't always the case as otherwise we'd have Senator Beto O'Rourke and Jeb! would've won the 2016 GOP nomination. Beto may not be a progressive but he adopted a progressive campaign finance plank in rejecting PAC money. What is the progressive blueprint for raising enough to win and subsequently reforming campaign finance?

For me, it has to be a Constitutional Amendment to get money out of politics. I'm not sure what every progressive thinks should be done, but Bernie and Beto have shown that small, individual donors can raise sufficient money.

 

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

4. Fair. Frankly I wish the progressive movement would spend less time worrying about what the DNC *might* do and more time getting better at selling their own vision so they could win some actual elections.

Why can't both be done at the same time? It's not like we have to choose one or the other.

 

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It's not unexpected or necessarily unfair that the DNC would have candidates they prefer, and then use its institutional power to promote them.

Using its institutional power to promote them is where it's undemocratic and against their own bylaws. Additionally, to claim the voters are deciding but then using institutional power to subvert that is fraud IMO.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

It's fine to think Bernie lost because things were rigged. I'll continue to think if he ran a better campaign it wouldn't have mattered.

Both are again possible.

 

57 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Seeing as you seem amenable to a Sanders presidency, let me ask you: How does he get any of these policies through Congress? That is what worries me most about a potential Sanders presidency: The potential of another four years of gridlock and failure to whip enough votes to make some of this stuff happen.

Isn't grid lock the new normal? Why would you expect Biden to do any better? Here's Bernie's answer on that:

 

Link to comment

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Moiraine has already addressed this, but you're missing the point. My point in bringing up Russia was to show a clear and simple example that the process/system can determine an election result regardless of how good a candidate is.

 

No, you said Hillary was supported by the establishment while Obama was not. I'm just showing that the establishment wasn't against Obama nor particularly in favor of Hillary.

 

For me, it has to be a Constitutional Amendment to get money out of politics. I'm not sure what every progressive thinks should be done, but Bernie and Beto have shown that small, individual donors can raise sufficient money.

 

Why can't both be done at the same time? It's not like we have to choose one or the other.

 

Using its institutional power to promote them is where it's undemocratic and against their own bylaws. Additionally, to claim the voters are deciding but then using institutional power to subvert that is fraud IMO.

 

Both are again possible.

 

Isn't grid lock the new normal? Why would you expect Biden to do any better? Here's Bernie's answer on that:

 

 

OK, that's fine and I understand your rationale now. I continue to think using it to suggest that's what happened to Bernie in 2016 is silly. I don't think process can't affect an outcome, I just don't think that's what happened to Bernie.

 

Disagree, but fine.

 

I'd be curious to see how grassroots donations would work in a presidential general election, because I tend to think Bernie would get outraised, but we won't know unless he wins the nomination.

 

My *opinion* is that the progressive movement should focus on winning elections so they can affect change, because actions to me matter more than leveling critiques, but again, that's just me.

 

Again, the not-so-popular answer to this is to just get more votes.

 

Yep.

 

To be honest I think TYT are Bernie propagandists and have no journalistic credibility. Just my opinion. But this video illustrates Bernie's fundamental ignorance about how to get things done in Washington, just as Biden is ignorant about Republicans suddenly working with him. Holding rallies in West Virginia isn't gonna do jack to make Joe Manchin suddenly vote for Medicare-for-All. If that worked the Republican Senate would've signed off on building a border wall long ago in fear of rallies with thousands of Trumpers screaming "Build that wall!"

 

I trust Biden to get something done because he's proven to be a more shrewd legislator than Bernie in their decades as politicians. You can criticize Biden's bills all day long, but he got way more done. He's written 42 bills into law whereas Bernie has written 7. The blueprint to a successful Biden presidency would be electing a Democratic Congress that would put more liberal bills on Biden's desk than he may be comfortable with and giving him no option but to sign them.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Also, a bit pedantic, but you can't gerrymander a national election.

 

 

True, however the way House of Rep #s are calculated, the presidential election is naturally gerrymandered in a way. We aren't giving enough points to states with higher populations due to the cap on Reps.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

True, however the way House of Rep #s are calculated, the electoral college is naturally gerrymandered in a way. We aren't giving enough votes to states with higher populations.

 

Definitely.

Which is why this census citizenship question case being heard by SCOTUS is so problematic. They're trying to exacerbate that problem by shifting representation and resources away from areas with more noncitizens (typically Democratic) and toward white, more Republican areas. Completely jacked up.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

To be honest I think TYT are Bernie propagandists and have no journalistic credibility. Just my opinion. But this video illustrates Bernie's fundamental ignorance about how to get things done in Washington, just as Biden is ignorant about Republicans suddenly working with him. Holding rallies in West Virginia isn't gonna do jack to make Joe Manchin suddenly vote for Medicare-for-All. If that worked the Republican Senate would've signed off on building a border wall long ago in fear of rallies with thousands of Trumpers screaming "Build that wall!"

 

I trust Biden to get something done because he's proven to be a more shrewd legislator than Bernie in their decades as politicians. You can criticize Biden's bills all day long, but he got way more done. He's written 42 bills into law whereas Bernie has written 7. The blueprint to a successful Biden presidency would be electing a Democratic Congress that would put more liberal bills on Biden's desk than he may be comfortable with and giving him no option but to sign them.

 

TYT is literally called the “home of progressives”. They dont hide it. They like Bernie, Warren, Gabbert, and Yang. Bernie stands for everything they believe in, so of course they like him and do positive stories about him. The only place you can really find a positive story about him. But they also use facts, which make them better than most of mainstream media that just make s#!t up half the time. 

 

People of WV will listen to POTUS more than they listen to Senator from Vermont. If the POTUS is coming out and saying your senator is voting against your best interests, it will cause more people to pay attention. Manchon will change his vote if people force him to. As to working with Republicans, I dont want to work with them. They are evil people and deserve nothing to ever go their way again. 

 

I will criticize Bidens bills because he can have 100 bills written to Bernies 7. If they all suck, who gives a s#!t. The purpose is to get good bills written into law, not ones that screw minorities like his crime bill in 1994 did. The more Biden works with republicans the further right the entire country moves. And for some reason he thinks the republicans will all of a sudden come around when Trump is gone. Good luck with that. 

 

Btw, I agree with most of what you say on political topics. I just dont agree with you on this aspect and thats fine. Still enjoy your banter:)

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

To be honest I think TYT are Bernie propagandists and have no journalistic credibility. Just my opinion. But this video illustrates Bernie's fundamental ignorance about how to get things done in Washington, just as Biden is ignorant about Republicans suddenly working with him. Holding rallies in West Virginia isn't gonna do jack to make Joe Manchin suddenly vote for Medicare-for-All. If that worked the Republican Senate would've signed off on building a border wall long ago in fear of rallies with thousands of Trumpers screaming "Build that wall!"

I strongly disagree that TYT are propagandists unless you consider every single source of media as propaganda. But they definitely have a bias since they call themselves the "Home of Progressives".

 

I also disagree with you that Bernie is wrong. He's following the same playbook Teddy Roosevelt used to get antitrust legislation passed and break up the monopolies and that Reagan used to get the tax cuts passed in the 80's. It's certainly not guaranteed to work, but it's not ignorant.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

I trust Biden to get something done because he's proven to be a more shrewd legislator than Bernie in their decades as politicians. You can criticize Biden's bills all day long, but he got way more done. He's written 42 bills into law whereas Bernie has written 7. The blueprint to a successful Biden presidency would be electing a Democratic Congress that would put more liberal bills on Biden's desk than he may be comfortable with and giving him no option but to sign them.

Getting more bills done is only a good thing if those bills are helpful and not hurtful, so the context of Biden's bills matter a lot.

 

Electing a Democratic Congress is the blueprint to success for any of the Dem candidates. But Biden (like Obama) will get absolutely nothing done if Repubs hold either the Senate or the House, whereas Bernie at least has a plan on how to exert political pressure to make change happen.

 

At the end of the day though, I don't think who gets elected President matters even 1% as much as who controls the Senate and the House. I'd take another term of Trump if it meant the Dems got control of the Senate and the House.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I strongly disagree that TYT are propagandists unless you consider every single source of media as propaganda. But they definitely have a bias since they call themselves the "Home of Progressives".

 

I also disagree with you that Bernie is wrong. He's following the same playbook Teddy Roosevelt used to get antitrust legislation passed and break up the monopolies and that Reagan used to get the tax cuts passed in the 80's. It's certainly not guaranteed to work, but it's not ignorant.

 

Getting more bills done is only a good thing if those bills are helpful and not hurtful, so the context of Biden's bills matter a lot.

 

Electing a Democratic Congress is the blueprint to success for any of the Dem candidates. But Biden (like Obama) will get absolutely nothing done if Repubs hold either the Senate or the House, whereas Bernie at least has a plan on how to exert political pressure to make change happen.

 

At the end of the day though, I don't think who gets elected President matters even 1% as much as who controls the Senate and the House. I'd take another term of Trump if it meant the Dems got control of the Senate and the House.

 

RD, just wondering how old you are? Just curious because you and I have the same views about pretty much everything when it comes to politics. I assume you consider yourself progressive also since you watch TYT, Kyle Kulinski and the Humanist Report.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

 

RD, just wondering how old you are? Just curious because you and I have the same views about pretty much everything when it comes to politics. I assume you consider yourself progressive also since you watch TYT, Kyle Kulinski and the Humanist Report.

I'm in my mid 40's. I only sometimes watch TYT and Secular Talk, and very rarely the Humanist Report. I much prefer The David Pakman Show. If you can get past the snark and poor attempts at humor, the Majority Report is also good.

Link to comment

50 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

 

Trump should have to pay for any crimes he may have committed, but for the love of God I wish they would all stop saying they’re going to do these things. They’re giving him more reason to refuse to give up control.

 

 

And although it would be just for him to pay for any crimes he may have committed, it’s far more important for the country that we change the laws/branches to prevent future presidents from getting away with it while they’re in office. Making Trump pay after the fact isn’t as important.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Trump should have to pay for any crimes he may have committed, but for the love of God I wish they would all stop saying they’re going to do these things. They’re giving him more reason to refuse to give up control.

 

 

And although it would be just for him to pay for any crimes he may have committed, it’s far more important for the country that we change the laws/branches to prevent future presidents from getting away with it while they’re in office. Making Trump pay after the fact isn’t as important.

I actually like Harris.  But, her answer here is not what she should have said.


The answer simply needs to be that she would allow the justice department to do their jobs and decide what needs to happen.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

 

TYT is literally called the “home of progressives”. They dont hide it. They like Bernie, Warren, Gabbert, and Yang. Bernie stands for everything they believe in, so of course they like him and do positive stories about him. The only place you can really find a positive story about him. But they also use facts, which make them better than most of mainstream media that just make s#!t up half the time. 

 

People of WV will listen to POTUS more than they listen to Senator from Vermont. If the POTUS is coming out and saying your senator is voting against your best interests, it will cause more people to pay attention. Manchon will change his vote if people force him to. As to working with Republicans, I dont want to work with them. They are evil people and deserve nothing to ever go their way again. 

 

I will criticize Bidens bills because he can have 100 bills written to Bernies 7. If they all suck, who gives a s#!t. The purpose is to get good bills written into law, not ones that screw minorities like his crime bill in 1994 did. The more Biden works with republicans the further right the entire country moves. And for some reason he thinks the republicans will all of a sudden come around when Trump is gone. Good luck with that. 

 

Btw, I agree with most of what you say on political topics. I just dont agree with you on this aspect and thats fine. Still enjoy your banter:)

 

That's fine, thanks for saying so. I realize this is a bit of a contrarian take and I'm OK catching flak for it.

 

I've seen positive stories about Bernie on lots of political news outlets FWIW, just maybe not the frequency which you'd like as a supporter. Part of it might be the fact there's such a wide field and he seems firmly entrenched in second place without too much movement up or down. As others have said, maybe the debates will change that.

 

I remain skeptical about this concept of rallies ginning up enough support to flip votes theory. Obama put almost two years into passing the ACA including a lot of heavy lifting and it BARELY got across the finish line. He wasn't even able to convince Lieberman to support a public option. I remain skeptical of how passing a more progressive healthcare plan that involves more government involvement will somehow be so simple.

 

Progressives hate a lot of Biden's bills and that's fine. Some of them had nasty unintended consequences. But I also take the view that some politicians can evolve on issues with public sentiment and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

 

Also extremely unpopular take here, but I think the long-term health of U.S. politics requires the GOP to reform itself and the parties to find a way to compromise and work together again. I don't buy Biden's shtick about working together again though.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I strongly disagree that TYT are propagandists unless you consider every single source of media as propaganda. But they definitely have a bias since they call themselves the "Home of Progressives".

 

I also disagree with you that Bernie is wrong. He's following the same playbook Teddy Roosevelt used to get antitrust legislation passed and break up the monopolies and that Reagan used to get the tax cuts passed in the 80's. It's certainly not guaranteed to work, but it's not ignorant.

 

Getting more bills done is only a good thing if those bills are helpful and not hurtful, so the context of Biden's bills matter a lot.

 

Electing a Democratic Congress is the blueprint to success for any of the Dem candidates. But Biden (like Obama) will get absolutely nothing done if Repubs hold either the Senate or the House, whereas Bernie at least has a plan on how to exert political pressure to make change happen.

 

At the end of the day though, I don't think who gets elected President matters even 1% as much as who controls the Senate and the House. I'd take another term of Trump if it meant the Dems got control of the Senate and the House.

 

I pay no more attention to TYT for news than I do Fox News. But as long as everyone's honest about their biases I don't mind if others like them.

 

Do you honestly think politics now is the same as it was for Roosevelt or Reagan? This is a major reason people ding Biden for thinking he can work with Republicans. Even the more recent Reagan tax cuts passed the Senate with somewhere between 70-90ish yea votes, depending on which specific vote you cite. I think if you think Bernie can gin up that amount of support for M4A you're kidding yourself. I think it'd be difficult to get moderates like Manchin or Sinema on board even we nuked the filibuster. But again, just my opinion so I could be wrong in this.

 

I already addressed Biden's legislative history above. I think that Biden currently runs stronger in some battleground states where important Senate races will happen (think IA/NC/ME/GA/AZ... etc etc.) matters. But polling is obviously subject to change.

 

The bolded is absolutely true. In a way Trump has helped a lot of Dems understand the importance of separation of powers and even federalism! I don't know that I'd take another term of Trump for that trade, though. That likely means another Bert Kavanaugh takes RBG's seat on SCOTUS and probably Thomas's as well and any progressive legislation during our lifetimes is pretty much guaranteed to be p#ssing into the wind if sent to the courts. The plan has to be win now and win big.

 

 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I actually like Harris.  But, her answer here is not what she should have said. 


The answer simply needs to be that she would allow the justice department to do their jobs and decide what needs to happen. 

 

Much like Trump did in 2016 with things like the Muslim ban and the wall, she's just playing to her audience.

 

Remember how popular his quip about Clinton being in prison in the debates was?

 

But it's gross and Moiraine is correct. She should be campaigning on fixing the loopholes that let a scumbag like Trump commit all the crimes he's committed scot-free, not on throwing him in the clink.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...