The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Continuing to Discuss the [2020 Primary] and Not Other Stuff
Posts
That is certainly the vibe I get.
Dude you literally just explained how if a candidate you don't like wins the primary you'd explain to everyone you know how their policies would be a "disaster" only barely better than Trump.
You care plenty about their policies to the point that you consider you yourself would do little to no good in achieving a win beyond voting and, at best, not talking about it.
Winning is clearly not your sole priority, which is fine.
Eh. The specific named group, sure. They are only like 25 members I think, although I'm not sure that's much lower then it ever was. But there's still plenty of moderate Democrats in competitive districts.
The thing that killed off so many of the blue dog types wasn't fading memories of GWB, it was the slaughter of 2010. Because when you lose a ton of seats, where do you think they are gonna come from? From more moderate Democrats in conservative districts losing and leaving the caucus. But then conversely, when you gain a ton of seats, what do you think they come from? Many of them from more moderate Democrats in conservative districts winning and joining the caucus.
I feel conflicted.
I've not defended Biden. Of course he's responsible for his bad decisions! But the claim that Sanders was taking huge political risks by being anti-war in Vermont is flatly wrong, and the notion that he's a better candidate because he was on the right side of whatever issue first is specious at best. If he's so willing to take political hits to take a moral stand, be on the right side of the issue before everyone else because he puts the strength of his convictions ahead of the political calculus, where is he on gun control? It's the one issue where he'd have to take real, personal political risk in order to be on the moral high ground and magically it's also the one issue where his strident, uncompromising tone suddenly devolves into wishy-washy mumbling about how both sides are too extreme and we've gotta come together across the aisle and find some middle ground.
Though it does appear that the Dems have browbeaten him into a more anti-gun stance at this point.
"Bernie sticks to the strength of his convictions in all cases and the fact that his ideological positions happen to exactly map to the positions that present little personal political risk is mere coincidence" is definitely an assumption a person could make, I guess.
Although if you believe that the Democrats have browbeaten him into a more anti-gun stance when the ideological position his convictions drove him to hold was pro-gun, that does rather seem to undercut the premise of the original position, right? You'd basically be claiming that his pro-gun stance was an ideological position and not political hedging, but that he's now been forced by political risk to hedge into an anti-gun stance - which is basically just a different premise from which to make my argument: Sanders is just as happy as anyone else to hedge against his personal convictions when he finds himself actually exposed to real political risk, he's just historically been less exposed than candidates who represent a constituency more diverse than 600,000 middle-income nonreligious well-educated white people.
On that note, Biden is probably weakest on the biggest issue that democrats can use to kick the shit out republicans on: Healthcare. I doubt the republicans are going to be happy to talk about impeachment either, given all the new shit that comes out, but they probably rather deal with that than to defend their shit record on healthcare. They should probably thank their lucky stars that the democrats haven't started trotting out lots of individuals with treatable conditions, that can't get treatment because our nation's approach is both immoral, malicious and insane on that front, that are slowly watching their lives get robbed by a condition that could be treated, but some assholes decided that money needed to go to their next luxury purchase. It's a big reason why the GOP did poorly in 2018 and a big reason behind democratic gains in Virginia. It also does play well with the shitty conservative trick of "well we can only do one thing!" Tell a rural voter that is watching a love one get ravaged by black lung disease, that the republicans have stated that we can only do one thing. Either we cut taxes, build a wall on the border, give subsidies to big companies to either add jobs or build infrastructure, loosen gun laws or make it so people can get healthcare without needing a job. I imagine a good chunk of those voters will chose the last item on this list without a second thought and will tell people to fuck off if any tries to argue with them on it.
Last time I checked Biden took a shit on the whole idea. Also he want sot play nice with the GOP and the GOP would be super butthurt if they had to defend their cruel and immoral healtchare policies. There is also the issue that he kidn fo took a shit on millenials, which is a sizable chunk of the democratic vote. So sure, mabye he'd pick up a state that Sanders or Warren might not have gotten, but it probably comes at a cost down ticket. Frankly, as long as the democratic candidate beats Trump, it doesn't matter how much of the EC they pick up, what matters is how long their coattails are and I'm not exactly convinced Biden's are that long.
Winning and doing or accomplishing nothing sets you up for serious future failure.
This isn’t about winning an extra state. This is about winning in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. No other states really matter. Who gives us the best shot at those states. Biden gives you Penn.
Fuck Ohio. And Florida, frankly. You We're likely to take back PA and MI and then to win the White House we need WI or AZ (or FL or OH etc) but those first two are most likely.
Also going to call bullshit on a war with Iran being good for Trump. I see that backfiring spectacularly on him. It would be another broken promise. It would be another war killing America's young men and I'm pretty sure a fair number of the electorate, even if republican country, are still fucking tired of Iraq. Not to mention, this little stunt seems cynically timed to exploit the rally around the flag, since Trump is looking extremely weak as a candidate and also like a distraction from all his other scandals. Also pretty sure Biden doesn't have the monopoly on Pennsylvania. Democrats can win without Ohio and Florida and there are probably better pickups than those two states for democrats.
1) War with Iran is enormously unpopular.
2) It notably ignores LBJ. Truman barely won.
Michigan had the narrowest margin of votes out of the rust belt so any win scenario that's plausible has us flip that one back.
Getting over the hump in PA is plausible as is pulling in Arizona but losing those other battleground Midwest states.
Something seems to be going on in Arizona on the ground (possible reasons why are easy to name) but there doesn't seem to be much talk about it.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
2. The nation is still incredibly sexist, it is unknown how comfortable the population is, putting a female into the roll of leading our warfighters in a war.
Also healthcare is probably the best issue for democrats. Republicans are shit on; especially, Trump, but Biden is probably the weakest candidate on that out of the top three.
IMO the over focus on most electable is looking at running up the score where we don't need it run up. I doubt that we have a scenario this November where Biden would have been the only candidate that could win. The reality is probably going to be either the candidate chosen from the top three doesn't matter because they'll beat Trump or it won't matter because they can't. At which point the question is, who is more likely to energize the base enough to take the Senate back? IMO it's not Biden and it always looks bad when your argument for being picked is "I'm the most electable!" it short of screams "I don't want to talk about my policy positions because the base probably thinks they are shit."
It's my first priority. All else is secondary to Trump losing!
i mean sure whatever and such, but you're not engaging with what is actually the fundamental problem with this argument.
This argument started with the claim that those in safe positions have no ground to criticize those in positions where their vote might cost them. Specifically, it was made about Biden vs Sanders. Sanders is the guy in a D+20 district who, admirable though his positions are, didn't have to worry about his position like Joe Biden had to.
But as wandering pointed out, this is a ridiculous thing to say. Biden was senator of a D+20 district! He was senator for Delaware!!! It is absurd to claim that Joe Biden in 2003 had to make a tough decision and Sanders didn't. "Oh sure it's easy to be against a war in your safe seat, but what if you're incredibly popular senator for Delaware Joe Biden who has been senator since 1972?"
I doubt Biden gets that for us. He probably gets split ticket voters because he's not interested in pushing the one policy idea that really could increase democratic chances in the redder states for the Senate. I actually think both Warren or Sanders would be better at driving out turnout than Biden and getting convertible votes on healthcare.
I don't think there is much point to ascribing purely personal gain reasons to politicians to explain their positions. It's incredibly cynical and also just makes the whole idea of elections seem pointless. If positions are simply dependent on what the electorate wants, why have elections at all? They're just empty vessels that will do whatever is the safe choice, no reason to prefer Biden over Sanders. The logical conclusion of this argument is that Biden would have done the same things as Sanders if he had been senator in Vermont.
For very obvious reasons I think we should reject this idea and switch to a model of believing people when they give their reasons. Or at least, assume they have beliefs at all. I don't think Biden voted for the Iraq war because he feared losing his seat (on account of that being dumb), and I don't think Sanders has the position on guns that he has purely because of the pro-gun beliefs of Vermontians.
the main reason is probably because being in a safe seat is exactly the place where you can take a "risk"? It is precisely those who are very popular who can make choices that are unpopular without fear. Unless you're going to argue that a different position on gun control would seriously endanger a 20 point lead, the suggestion that he is holding back is nonsensical.
You're carefully using the word 'purely' here in order to argue against a strawman version of a point that's already a strawman.
"Being anti-war in an anti-war district isn't a political risk and Sanders is weak on the one issue that would be a risk for him" doesn't magically mean "Politicians have no beliefs and take their positions purely based on personal risk" just because the dumb version is easier for you to argue against.
Anyway, Vermont is friendly to Sanders' ideas, that's why they wanted him to represent them. Sure that applies to everyone whose ideas align well with a safe seat, but I wouldn't be giving them extra points either. That person's job is not on the line, they will get to go back even if everyone else in the Senate thinks they're awful. Voting to do the right thing even if it runs counter to what your constituents sent you to say is incredibly brave, you could lose everything.
Both did the right thing and both will land on the right side of history, but one will come home to applause and the other might need to move. When scoring those two on bravery and strength of conviction, I wouldn't grade them on the same curve and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. I dunno, I feel like we've stepped into some bizarre argument about political privilege, and if that's the case then I guess I'm only a little surprised as to who's coming down on which side of it.
There is no point to them having the seat if they are just going to be a republican in a D suit.
What this all comes back to is I'm going to have more faith in the person who made the right choice. I'm not going to sit here and triangulate some reason or excuse or benefit of the doubt as to why someone made a bad choice.
I, and the thousands of dead people I'm sure, give very little concern to the unfortunate well off suit who loses his seat and would have to settle with being rich some other way. Oh no, he doesn't get to vote to murder people and instead has to make six figures on a talking tour.
Maybe I'm wrong though and all the people who died needlessly are totally on board that the distract was risky. I mean it is pretty important to stay in power entirely for the sake of being in power.
All this triangulation and third way politics is exactly how we got where we are. It's stunning to see people still defend it as a good idea as the nation continues to slide 'inexplicably', but for real it's obvious enough, towards the abyss. Tack harder though. Maybe we'll end in some kind of Randian Paradise before long and she'll turn out to be right?
I don't necessarily disagree with you here in general, but the problem is that we're already at the "serious failure" point. Any more failure here is, quite possibly, past the point of no return.
Stalling on the slim hope of a better future is still loads better than just reaching a failure endgame now.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
How is the idea that politicians are vessels for the will of the electorate an incredibly cynical idea? You live in a republic, that is exactly how it's supposed to work.
I really hope the people I see talking like this can step the fuck up if he makes it, because right now I just don't see it happening and that is scary to me because people I love dearly could be seriously hurt if things get out of hand. I'm willing to bet that's the case for everyone here whether they can see it or not. If it isn't him Sanders will wholeheartedly support the nominee because he isn't fucking stupid, and he is capable of making the right choice that may not look right to you. I sure hope the people who say they care about others will do the same, or they will contribute to making things actually actively worse for the whole world. But then, that's exactly how we got where we are.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Sanders is going to do well in IA and NH, and the media is going to portray it as a gamechanger in the Democratic primary, even though Biden is likely to have a pretty decisive win in NV two weeks later, then a dominating win in SC a week after that. On top of that, it looks like Biden and Sanders are performing roughly equally in IA at the moment. They're going to want the perception of a horse race, even if that's not the actual reality of the situation.
Then, on Super Tuesday, Biden is likely to significantly increase his lead. Sanders's donations (and the reliability of his core supporters) means that he can keep campaigning into the summer as the tertiary and secondary tier candidates are forced to drop out. I know we don't want to keep rehashing 2016, but especially with Sanders continuing to harp on taking on the Democratic establishment and his top advisers doing the same, it feels like a rehash of 2016.
Does Biden as president lessen suffering, suffering to immigrants in detention camps, suffering for trans people, suffering for people dieing because they can’t afford treatment? Yes. I believe he will lessen suffering. That is a net good.
Now I think Warren will do a better job, as president. I think a Warren Julian Castro ticket is a really strong ticket. Not just because of his Latin surname (That helps though), but because he’s a “fighter.”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
So you need to win four since a winning day has you keeping all of your current seats but most likely losing Doug Jones in Alabama.
So we need to win: Colorado, Maine, Arizona then either pull out North Carolina or Georgia or even less likely Kentucky or South Carolina which are only in play because of how unliked those Senators are.
It's a tough road
Come Overwatch with meeeee