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.
The Increasingly Wearily-Moderated [Primaries] Thread
Posts
Not passing judgment either way as that's a level of chess I don't think I can play at.
opposed Iraq, voted to draw down funds on Libya, pro-gun control, recent and seemingly good climate/environment bill, reformist on marijuana regs.
Seems like a good fit, but who would step up for her Representative seat should a hypothetical Sanders/Lee ticket win?
Her district is d+40, Im sure theyll find someone
I think Warren kind of does that where it counts. I'm really fucking skeptical of these moderates that the DNC keeps trying to bring out when it's the marginalized and hardcore progressives that seem to make or break elections. Bringing Warren on in a major capacity (or vice versa) helps mend any perceived divisions between their camps before the general, and I feel like the two of them could create an incredibly strong populist platform vs. Trump.
I like the idea of Sanders Warren a little better, because I feel it would work to their individual strengths a lot better. A president doesn't really have time to get into the guts of things like Warren's capable of. Simultaneously, I think Sanders is much more useful as a firebrand, rallying the masses. He's totally going to fall if he doesn't assemble a strong team around him.
Problem is, when it comes to folks in the progressive left and socialist left, our picks either are elderly or have a couple of years before they have constitutional viability, or are still only in their first term or two of the legislature.
The bench is still getting built but we're kind of reliant on the better parts of the gerontocracy for the time being.
The whole discussion here is sort of based on an assumption that we have more information than what (most of) the polls actually provide.
All these polls are asking some variation of this question: "If the election/primary were held today, which of these candidates is the one you would vote for?"
That's it. There are no questions like "who do you support?" or "who would you like to see win?" being asked enough that would allow us to guess at the depth and range of support that candidates have. More than a third of black people say they would vote for Biden if they had to vote today. You can attribute that to age and conservatism or Obama or whatever, but ultimately the vote isn't today so confidence in one's explanation for these numbers is misplaced. The latest Quinnipiac poll tells us that 2/3 of voters say they haven't made up their mind and might chance it. All sweeping generalizations about this are meaningless, there is no data to back it up.
Very much agree with this but they've done an utterly shit job at cultivating Gen X politicians.
Folks were talking about Barbara Lee as a potential pick and she's 73.
This is another thing that is just heavily limited by what polling actually can do.
The question asked there certainly isn't anything like: "Suppose the Democratic Party/the USA implemented a ranked choice voting system, who would you put as second after your first pick?". The second choice question brings with it a lot of assumptions, some of which aren't even shared among every respondent. But people still assume the basics of the system as it is now, and that obviously has a big influence on how they consider their second or third choices.
Not so much "failed at cultivating" as "deliberately shut out."
Nearly every Democratic Senator should have retired ages ago.
And still are, given the DCCC blacklist policy
This “hold onto power until the last” shit is unhealthy unless the folks in charge of the party want it to die off with the boomer generation
Nice opportunity for the millenials, though...
yeah different standards and all that but another difference is actually that Sanders just simply admitted he would raise taxes. Warren's refusal to get caught in a sound byte or whatever was actually just really dumb and the media would obviously hammer almost any candidate clearly avoiding the question. I don't even understand why she would avoid it, raising taxes is an acceptable stance in the Democratic primary. People understand "more taxes, less costs in the end", you don't have to avoid the word like it's a general election 20 years ago.
I don't understand why it's so difficult to explain that your extra taxes are more than offset by not paying premiums, deductibles, and copays
Because american politics are stupid and if you're explaining your losing. All your opponent has to say is "you want to raise taxes" and all your "but you get..." is lost.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I disagree! I think $0 premium, $0 deductible, $0 copay is a pretty easy sell
Yet Sanders admitted he would and is doing great.
"raising taxes" in a vacuum is not a popular position in any part of the world. But people aren't idiots. There is nothing inherent to American people that they can't understand the "pay more in taxes, but save even more in costs" argument.
Plus these are Democrats! The party of fucking FDR! The concept of raising taxes is not anathema to the voters. They are ok with it, they still overwhelmingly support M4A even when told they would pay more taxes.
Which is funny because this is not door to door canvassing so it's a bit toothless. I've had cops called on me by terrible jackasses before, folks! You yelling something that gets you put in the GOP column while I hang up is not a big deal.
Mostly just nice though! I got cookies and met a small dog.
tbh I wasn't really considering the rhetoric. I just picked a fragment where he fully admits that he would raise taxes.
i'm pretty sure he explains it that way too elsewhere, but this seems to work here so whatever. the gist is ultimately the same.
I don't believe in American Exceptionalism in a negative way either. Sure the discussion gets heavily weighed to one side, but it's not impossible to make good and convincing points. (Also again, this is the Dem primary.)
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Sanders is gonna raise your taxes" is already baked in to his support. Because he's a known quantity. It's why his support has basically been steady this entire primary.
It sure is. The problem is when you try to link that to various things that come with it that aren't popular. Which is probably why support for M4A has been dropping over the past like 6 months.
He's rarely shy about basically anything he wants to do. When Warren hedged or told people their taxes wouldn't go up it was always going to be immediately written off as a Democrat being a Democrat.
Is there any evidence it hurt her?
It seems mostly her problem was that the Des Moines Register poll made her the "frontrunner" and thus a huge target and being forced to more explicitly support M4A led to a bunch of attacks. (including, from disguised healthcare industry lobbyists)
I've not seem anything really to suggest the tax thing was a major issue for her.
He's been rising in the polls this last month.
More to the point, are you saying that Sanders supporters are fine with raising taxes and all the other voters aren't? Because that sounds dubious plus a lot of people have him as second choice. I don't know what "known quantity" is supposed to mean here but yeah people like Sanders and are fine with him raising taxes.
because people don't a priori oppose all taxes as if it is an inherent biological trait. No candidate needs to act as if the mere concept of increased taxes is a death sentence for their campaign. It's just dumb.
Sanders is losing.
And raising taxes of anyone but the mustache twirling rich is broadly unpopular with every group. Sanders isn't campaigning on raising taxes on anyone other than corporations or billionaires. You can't find that on his website, because he is not an idiot.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Edit: that "Sanders is losing" shit needs to have a biiiiiig ol' asterisk next to it if you're even attempting intellectual honesty.
He's doing better now than ever before this race and pulling significantly ahead of his only real progressive challenger who tried to avoid saying she'd raise taxes. His messaging strategy was obviously superior.
he's failed to do this a couple of times in debates and it annoys me
just say you're going to make healthcare cheaper for everyone
in the last debate they had that question which was like "senator sanders, do the american people deserve to know that you're going to bankrupt the country??". obviously a hilariously bad question but it should be super easy to handle and not handling it could have real consequences
Eh. Like I linked back on page 4, it's not clear what is really going on since polling is actually kinda all over the place.
It's not guaranteed. But it is very much expected that, as the nominee, he would face harsher and louder opposition from the Republican side than whatever they're aiming at him currently. (Certainly no more stupid tweets about Sanders being treated unfairly from Trump Jr.)
Yes, it would be somewhat beneficial for Sanders to adopt the popular policy of being Obama’s vice president for 8 years (not as much as it is for Biden). But that’s not really in the cards.
You could get a lineup of 30 candidates, they could all run superior campaigns based on whatever it is Biden says he’s gonna do, and everyone of them would implode, because it’s not any kind of replicable politics that’s keeping him up there in the polls.
What Biden is campaigning on means jack shit, he's coasting because he was Obamas VP and looks like someone to vote for.