Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Jumpin said:

Not a bad lineup to be honest. While Biden is a bit of a conservative/moderate, he is still a left leaning one.

Now, I don't mean to rant, but:

I get a little surprised when I see Andrew Yang criticized as being a right-winger. This is clearly not the case as he is pushing for the most massive boost to low-income/no-income earners of anyone in US history. He's one of my favourites, probably 4th or 5th... I'll say tied for 4th with Castro.

I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren's no-more-corporate-bullshit approach - breaking up big tech would be healthy for the Western economy, and if Warren brings in the US Wealth-Tax then I can see EU countries following very shortly after. The big issue with wealth taxation in the past is that it is done in some countries but not others, and wealthy people can simply move their assets or accounts. I think an agreement across developed nations for a 2% Wealth tax would work wonders for public funding.

Bernie Sanders is my #2 pick, his policy positions are almost as good as Elizabeth Warren. What puts him behind her, for me, is that he tends to be very vague in what he is talking about, he lacks the precision of Elizabeth Warren. He's no more a socialist than Ron Paul is a libertarian. Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, just like Elizabeth Warren, which is a capitalist (and Ron Paul is/was a neoliberal). Normally, this wouldn't bother me at all, but people in this forum have actually tried to argue that he is a "market socialist" and have linked the wikipedia article - three problems with calling Bernie Sanders a market socialist: 1. Bernie Sanders has never called himself a market socialist, he has called himself a democratic socialist; 2. The core mechanic of market socialism still abolishes the capitalist stock market, which Bernie Sanders doesn't advocate; 3. Bernie Sanders favours big FDR-style social democratic government programs, which Market Socialism is against.

My third favourite is probably Cory Booker, he put a lot of people off recently with his support of nuclear power; but he was describing Thorium reactor technology (though he didn't use the word Thorium). Fusion reactors are also a potential for the future. But he is the healthiest seeming of all of the candidates, and so I trust his healthcare stance - he advocates local level healthcare improvements (which seems to be something the US is anemic on); healthy food, encouragement for exercise, pedestrian activities, etc... Since people have worried that donors giving to progressives will change their stances, Booker has proven otherwise in how he has voted against the interests of pharmaceutical corporations while also receiving donations from them. I don't think anyone is going to be corrupted by corporate donations, the problem with corporate donations is that they tend to heavily favour pro-corporate politicians, and that is why they should be banned: but playing the game (as Booker has done) and taking their money to work against them is something I support a lot more than the "refusal on principle" approach of Warren and Sanders (which I think is plain foolish).

I'll end my rant here.

tsogud said:

What? How could you call him a social democrat and then say that one of the reasons he's not a market socialist is because he's never called himself a market socialist but a democratic socialist? If we're going by what he's called himself then he's a democratic socialist not a social democrat. If we're not going by what he's called himself then I guess some people could call him a market socialist because reasons just as you did when you stated he's a social democrat. I just find that very inconsistent on your part. Nevertheless, for me, I'll just go by what he self-identifies as, which is a democratic socialist.

How is Sanders more vague compared to Warren? I've followed both of them and have looked at both of their policy proposals and they both seem to have about the same amount of detail to me. Could you give me examples because I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that and would like to understand? Here's Sanders' issues page on his website and here's Warren's for quick reference.

I think Jumpin is referring to the different ways that Sanders and Warren tend to talk about the issues and their ideas. At this point, both Warren and Sanders have a wide range of fairly clear policy prescriptions that they're running on (although one of those candidates has led the way in that regard).

Also, let's just settle this matter: no one running for president (at least on a major party ticket anyway), and for that matter no one in the U.S. Congress either, is actually a socialist. There is no candidate running (again, on a major party ticket anyway) who believes that the means of production should be social property in any way, shape, or form. The closest we come to this is support for increased unionization and Elizabeth Warren's proposal for some degree of worker co-ownership of major businesses in the style of how things currently work in Germany (which no one would rationally consider a socialist country).

People like AOC and Bernie Sanders can get away with branding themselves "socialists" and "revolutionaries" today only owing to how far to the right the center of political gravity has become on economic issues since the Reagan era. They are substantively just New Deal type economic reformers, NOT actual revolutionaries who aspire to abolish the profit system and replace production for exchange with production for use like I do. So let's just be clear that what characters like these are doing is called posturing. If they embraced real socialism, they'd be politically marginal (also like me) because the public writ large remains to be convinced of the merits thereof. These are all compromise candidates for me. Warren simply has the audacity to be intellectually honest.

Anyway, I find the progressives (Warren and Sanders) and Yang (who I regard as a kind of Democratic Party libertarian in the spirit of 2008 candidate Mike Gravel) to be easily the most human and least facile characters in this whole campaign. Everyone else is bought and paid for to one extent or another.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 10 September 2019

Around the Network

Biden is labeled a moderate. But his agenda is far more liberal than Hillary Clinton’s.

Biden is much more liberal than the haters give him credit for. And Warren or Sanders would have to govern much more moderately than their rhetoric would suggest given the reality of the Senate. The differences between those administrations would be minor... and any of them would be infinitely better than a certain orange-hued man.



 

 

 

 

 

Jaicee said:
Jumpin said:

Not a bad lineup to be honest. While Biden is a bit of a conservative/moderate, he is still a left leaning one.

Now, I don't mean to rant, but:

I get a little surprised when I see Andrew Yang criticized as being a right-winger. This is clearly not the case as he is pushing for the most massive boost to low-income/no-income earners of anyone in US history. He's one of my favourites, probably 4th or 5th... I'll say tied for 4th with Castro.

I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren's no-more-corporate-bullshit approach - breaking up big tech would be healthy for the Western economy, and if Warren brings in the US Wealth-Tax then I can see EU countries following very shortly after. The big issue with wealth taxation in the past is that it is done in some countries but not others, and wealthy people can simply move their assets or accounts. I think an agreement across developed nations for a 2% Wealth tax would work wonders for public funding.

Bernie Sanders is my #2 pick, his policy positions are almost as good as Elizabeth Warren. What puts him behind her, for me, is that he tends to be very vague in what he is talking about, he lacks the precision of Elizabeth Warren. He's no more a socialist than Ron Paul is a libertarian. Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, just like Elizabeth Warren, which is a capitalist (and Ron Paul is/was a neoliberal). Normally, this wouldn't bother me at all, but people in this forum have actually tried to argue that he is a "market socialist" and have linked the wikipedia article - three problems with calling Bernie Sanders a market socialist: 1. Bernie Sanders has never called himself a market socialist, he has called himself a democratic socialist; 2. The core mechanic of market socialism still abolishes the capitalist stock market, which Bernie Sanders doesn't advocate; 3. Bernie Sanders favours big FDR-style social democratic government programs, which Market Socialism is against.

My third favourite is probably Cory Booker, he put a lot of people off recently with his support of nuclear power; but he was describing Thorium reactor technology (though he didn't use the word Thorium). Fusion reactors are also a potential for the future. But he is the healthiest seeming of all of the candidates, and so I trust his healthcare stance - he advocates local level healthcare improvements (which seems to be something the US is anemic on); healthy food, encouragement for exercise, pedestrian activities, etc... Since people have worried that donors giving to progressives will change their stances, Booker has proven otherwise in how he has voted against the interests of pharmaceutical corporations while also receiving donations from them. I don't think anyone is going to be corrupted by corporate donations, the problem with corporate donations is that they tend to heavily favour pro-corporate politicians, and that is why they should be banned: but playing the game (as Booker has done) and taking their money to work against them is something I support a lot more than the "refusal on principle" approach of Warren and Sanders (which I think is plain foolish).

I'll end my rant here.

tsogud said:

What? How could you call him a social democrat and then say that one of the reasons he's not a market socialist is because he's never called himself a market socialist but a democratic socialist? If we're going by what he's called himself then he's a democratic socialist not a social democrat. If we're not going by what he's called himself then I guess some people could call him a market socialist because reasons just as you did when you stated he's a social democrat. I just find that very inconsistent on your part. Nevertheless, for me, I'll just go by what he self-identifies as, which is a democratic socialist.

How is Sanders more vague compared to Warren? I've followed both of them and have looked at both of their policy proposals and they both seem to have about the same amount of detail to me. Could you give me examples because I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that and would like to understand? Here's Sanders' issues page on his website and here's Warren's for quick reference.

I think Jumpin is referring to the different ways that Sanders and Warren tend to talk about the issues and their ideas. At this point, both Warren and Sanders have a wide range of fairly clear policy prescriptions that they're running on (although one of those candidates has led the way in that regard).

Also, let's just settle this matter: no one running for president (at least on a major party ticket anyway), and for that matter no one in the U.S. Congress either, is actually a socialist. There is no candidate running (again, on a major party ticket anyway) who believes that the means of production should be social property in any way, shape, or form. The closest we come to this is support for increased unionization and Elizabeth Warren's proposal for some degree of worker co-ownership of major businesses in the style of how things currently work in Germany (which no one would rationally consider a socialist country).

People like AOC and Bernie Sanders can get away with branding themselves "socialists" and "revolutionaries" today only owing to how far to the right the center of political gravity has become on economic issues since the Reagan era. They are substantively just New Deal type economic reformers, NOT actual revolutionaries who aspire to abolish the profit system and replace production for exchange with production for use like I do. So let's just be clear that what characters like these are doing is called posturing. If they embraced real socialism, they'd be politically marginal (also like me) because the public writ large remains to be convinced of the merits thereof. These are all compromise candidates for me. Warren simply has the audacity to be intellectually honest.

Anyway, I find the progressives (Warren and Sanders) and Yang (who I regard as a kind of Democratic Party libertarian in the spirit of 2008 candidate Mike Gravel) to be easily the most human and least facile characters in this whole campaign. Everyone else is bought and paid for to one extent or another.

Oh okay, if that's the case then yeah I'd agree with that. When Warren talks she's more detailed more often then Sanders, that's one of the few things I like about her over Sanders. I was under the impression Jumpin was talking about actual policies.

Yeah I agree with your subsequent paragraphs as well, the problem I had with Jumpin was that their first reason was inconsistent with what they had said earlier. Though if they do self-identify as democratic socialists I feel it's only fair to call them that, for me personally.



 

Jaicee said:
Jumpin said:

Not a bad lineup to be honest. While Biden is a bit of a conservative/moderate, he is still a left leaning one.

Now, I don't mean to rant, but:

I get a little surprised when I see Andrew Yang criticized as being a right-winger. This is clearly not the case as he is pushing for the most massive boost to low-income/no-income earners of anyone in US history. He's one of my favourites, probably 4th or 5th... I'll say tied for 4th with Castro.

I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren's no-more-corporate-bullshit approach - breaking up big tech would be healthy for the Western economy, and if Warren brings in the US Wealth-Tax then I can see EU countries following very shortly after. The big issue with wealth taxation in the past is that it is done in some countries but not others, and wealthy people can simply move their assets or accounts. I think an agreement across developed nations for a 2% Wealth tax would work wonders for public funding.

Bernie Sanders is my #2 pick, his policy positions are almost as good as Elizabeth Warren. What puts him behind her, for me, is that he tends to be very vague in what he is talking about, he lacks the precision of Elizabeth Warren. He's no more a socialist than Ron Paul is a libertarian. Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, just like Elizabeth Warren, which is a capitalist (and Ron Paul is/was a neoliberal). Normally, this wouldn't bother me at all, but people in this forum have actually tried to argue that he is a "market socialist" and have linked the wikipedia article - three problems with calling Bernie Sanders a market socialist: 1. Bernie Sanders has never called himself a market socialist, he has called himself a democratic socialist; 2. The core mechanic of market socialism still abolishes the capitalist stock market, which Bernie Sanders doesn't advocate; 3. Bernie Sanders favours big FDR-style social democratic government programs, which Market Socialism is against.

My third favourite is probably Cory Booker, he put a lot of people off recently with his support of nuclear power; but he was describing Thorium reactor technology (though he didn't use the word Thorium). Fusion reactors are also a potential for the future. But he is the healthiest seeming of all of the candidates, and so I trust his healthcare stance - he advocates local level healthcare improvements (which seems to be something the US is anemic on); healthy food, encouragement for exercise, pedestrian activities, etc... Since people have worried that donors giving to progressives will change their stances, Booker has proven otherwise in how he has voted against the interests of pharmaceutical corporations while also receiving donations from them. I don't think anyone is going to be corrupted by corporate donations, the problem with corporate donations is that they tend to heavily favour pro-corporate politicians, and that is why they should be banned: but playing the game (as Booker has done) and taking their money to work against them is something I support a lot more than the "refusal on principle" approach of Warren and Sanders (which I think is plain foolish).

I'll end my rant here.

tsogud said:

What? How could you call him a social democrat and then say that one of the reasons he's not a market socialist is because he's never called himself a market socialist but a democratic socialist? If we're going by what he's called himself then he's a democratic socialist not a social democrat. If we're not going by what he's called himself then I guess some people could call him a market socialist because reasons just as you did when you stated he's a social democrat. I just find that very inconsistent on your part. Nevertheless, for me, I'll just go by what he self-identifies as, which is a democratic socialist.

How is Sanders more vague compared to Warren? I've followed both of them and have looked at both of their policy proposals and they both seem to have about the same amount of detail to me. Could you give me examples because I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that and would like to understand? Here's Sanders' issues page on his website and here's Warren's for quick reference.

I think Jumpin is referring to the different ways that Sanders and Warren tend to talk about the issues and their ideas. At this point, both Warren and Sanders have a wide range of fairly clear policy prescriptions that they're running on (although one of those candidates has led the way in that regard).

Also, let's just settle this matter: no one running for president (at least on a major party ticket anyway), and for that matter no one in the U.S. Congress either, is actually a socialist. There is no candidate running (again, on a major party ticket anyway) who believes that the means of production should be social property in any way, shape, or form. The closest we come to this is support for increased unionization and Elizabeth Warren's proposal for some degree of worker co-ownership of major businesses in the style of how things currently work in Germany (which no one would rationally consider a socialist country).

People like AOC and Bernie Sanders can get away with branding themselves "socialists" and "revolutionaries" today only owing to how far to the right the center of political gravity has become on economic issues since the Reagan era. They are substantively just New Deal type economic reformers, NOT actual revolutionaries who aspire to abolish the profit system and replace production for exchange with production for use like I do. So let's just be clear that what characters like these are doing is called posturing. If they embraced real socialism, they'd be politically marginal (also like me) because the public writ large remains to be convinced of the merits thereof. These are all compromise candidates for me. Warren simply has the audacity to be intellectually honest.

Anyway, I find the progressives (Warren and Sanders) and Yang (who I regard as a kind of Democratic Party libertarian in the spirit of 2008 candidate Mike Gravel) to be easily the most human and least facile characters in this whole campaign. Everyone else is bought and paid for to one extent or another.

Bernie names Eugene Debs as a personal hero, calls for 100% public ownership of energy utilities, and also wants mandated co-ownership of corporations. He is a reformist socialist. Once he accomplishes what he's pushing for now, he'll push for more. Warren will push for reforms, and then declare her work finished, because she's a proud capitalist. Bernie will push for more and more, because he's a reformist socialist. He agrees with you that if he embraced an immediate, revolutionary abolishment of capitalism, he would be politically marginalized. That's why he campaigns the way he does, talks the way he does. Some socialists seem to be savvy enough to this that they support him, understanding that he means it when he says he's a democratic socialist even as he pushes for social democrat policies.

Once we're a social democracy, it'll be easier to campaign to transition further to true democratic socialism. You can't have democratic socialism unless you have the right culture for it, otherwise, being democratic, it could easily be reverted to capitalism again. Bernie is doing the hard work of shifting not just the political dialogue, but the cultural dialogue. Healthcare is beginning to be seen by Americans as a human right that the government must guarantee if it wants to claim to protect human rights. That was an extremely uncommon view in America before 2015. Bernie introduced that idea back into the American political discourse after a good generation or more of hibernation.

Really, almost every major issue in the current race has been defined by Sanders' 2016 run, including his 2020 run. Once he moved the discourse sharply to the left, he moved sharply to the left with it. Biden is the only major candidate left still running to the right of Hillary Clinton, but Bernie is bolder than ever before with his ideas. As for his rhetoric being a bit lacking on details, that's because he's trying to get the common folk to rally behind him, and losing them in details is not the way to do that. That's why Warren (on the whole, according to the data, I recognize there are exceptions like yourself) attracts a more wealthy and educated base than Sanders, because her procapitalist rhetoric doesn't scare away the wealthy, while by including the details in her rhetoric she may lose some less educated voters but an educated voter that doesn't have the time to parse through the candidates websites and only watches the debates and a rally speech or interview here and there is probably going to find those details appealing.

I don't get why so many socialists balk over Sanders for not being socialist enough. They complain that they're politically marginalized and can't get any traction, then blame right wing propagandists for that lack of traction, rather than trying to be pragmatic and recognize where the American people are now and try to engage with them there. Instead they'd rather all be cynical and either stay out of the political process altogether, leaving the levers of power even less contested with the far right, or they do vote but not with any socialist strategy because they're convinced they've already lost. Then they complain when candidates disappoint them. It's just self-fulfilling prophecy at its worst.

The best choice, really the only choice, for class-conscious individuals that want to see an end to the profit motive dominating all of our society, and the normalizing of socialist ideas, is Bernie Sanders. He has a strategy to move the United States towards democratic socialism, Warren doesn't. Both he and Warren will probably accomplish about the same amount of stuff with their administrations, but Sander's strategy will move things further, and set up the American left going forward. I see a lot of plans with Warren, but not one to engage the American people to support her agenda on a consistent basis after she's elected. She'll probably be remembered as the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt, except female and much better informed and aligned with female issues and non-white issues. And that's great, he's my favorite president, and were she to become president, she'd probably be my new favorite president. But with Bernie, I see an opportunity to find out what would have happened if Occupy Wall Street hadn't been protesting against the president and his policies, but with him. If the Women March wasn't protesting against the president, but with him. If the March for Science wasn't protesting against...well you get it. The protest would be in his support, possibly even led or encouraged by him, to force congress to act. I see his not getting along with the establishment to be a plus, not a minus.

If you want the private sector out of prisons, health insurance, electricity production, charter schools, and whatever else he believes he can garner the support for, support Sanders, if you're satisfied with just getting rid of private prisons and health insurance, Warren is fine, as that's where she'll stop. If you want a Meidner-esque plan to gradually transfer ownership of all large corporations to workers, vote for Bernie, the democratic socialist, if you're fine with workers just being able to elect a few board members to the corporate board, Warren the social democrat is fine. If you want a society where civil life is more than just voting once every 4 years if you feel like it, where instead there are always opportunities to participate to advocate for your rights, all led by the guy in charge so that together we can force Washington to work, vote Bernie, because his slogan is "Not Me, Us". If you'd rather stay home and trust Washington to work with her, maybe make a few online comments on an internet forum if you're feeling fiesty, just sit back and let Warren do all the work, that'll probably be fine, if she really thinks she can do it without our help. I don't think she can though, and I don't think she's going to change her strategy. Maybe if she has Bernie as VP that'll be enough.

Here are a few sources for my claims:

Regarding Bernie wanting 100% public ownership of power:

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22025/bernie-sanders-calls-to-seize-the-means-of-electricity-production-climate

Regarding the plan to transfer ownership of corporations to their workers (admittedly Sander's plan isn't explicit in this, but there are signs it's what he's leaning towards, and at the very least will likely result in some ownership of companies, if not full control):

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18643032/bernie-sanders-communist-manifesto-employee-ownership-jobs

And all that stuff I was saying about protests and civic participation in support of Bernie being encouraged by Bernie, that is discussed in this article:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/bernie-sanders-labor-protest-2020-1455151



HylianSwordsman said:
Jaicee said:

I think Jumpin is referring to the different ways that Sanders and Warren tend to talk about the issues and their ideas. At this point, both Warren and Sanders have a wide range of fairly clear policy prescriptions that they're running on (although one of those candidates has led the way in that regard).

Also, let's just settle this matter: no one running for president (at least on a major party ticket anyway), and for that matter no one in the U.S. Congress either, is actually a socialist. There is no candidate running (again, on a major party ticket anyway) who believes that the means of production should be social property in any way, shape, or form. The closest we come to this is support for increased unionization and Elizabeth Warren's proposal for some degree of worker co-ownership of major businesses in the style of how things currently work in Germany (which no one would rationally consider a socialist country).

People like AOC and Bernie Sanders can get away with branding themselves "socialists" and "revolutionaries" today only owing to how far to the right the center of political gravity has become on economic issues since the Reagan era. They are substantively just New Deal type economic reformers, NOT actual revolutionaries who aspire to abolish the profit system and replace production for exchange with production for use like I do. So let's just be clear that what characters like these are doing is called posturing. If they embraced real socialism, they'd be politically marginal (also like me) because the public writ large remains to be convinced of the merits thereof. These are all compromise candidates for me. Warren simply has the audacity to be intellectually honest.

Anyway, I find the progressives (Warren and Sanders) and Yang (who I regard as a kind of Democratic Party libertarian in the spirit of 2008 candidate Mike Gravel) to be easily the most human and least facile characters in this whole campaign. Everyone else is bought and paid for to one extent or another.

Bernie names Eugene Debs as a personal hero, calls for 100% public ownership of energy utilities, and also wants mandated co-ownership of corporations. He is a reformist socialist. Once he accomplishes what he's pushing for now, he'll push for more. Warren will push for reforms, and then declare her work finished, because she's a proud capitalist. Bernie will push for more and more, because he's a reformist socialist. He agrees with you that if he embraced an immediate, revolutionary abolishment of capitalism, he would be politically marginalized. That's why he campaigns the way he does, talks the way he does. Some socialists seem to be savvy enough to this that they support him, understanding that he means it when he says he's a democratic socialist even as he pushes for social democrat policies.

Once we're a social democracy, it'll be easier to campaign to transition further to true democratic socialism. You can't have democratic socialism unless you have the right culture for it, otherwise, being democratic, it could easily be reverted to capitalism again. Bernie is doing the hard work of shifting not just the political dialogue, but the cultural dialogue. Healthcare is beginning to be seen by Americans as a human right that the government must guarantee if it wants to claim to protect human rights. That was an extremely uncommon view in America before 2015. Bernie introduced that idea back into the American political discourse after a good generation or more of hibernation.

Really, almost every major issue in the current race has been defined by Sanders' 2016 run, including his 2020 run. Once he moved the discourse sharply to the left, he moved sharply to the left with it. Biden is the only major candidate left still running to the right of Hillary Clinton, but Bernie is bolder than ever before with his ideas. As for his rhetoric being a bit lacking on details, that's because he's trying to get the common folk to rally behind him, and losing them in details is not the way to do that. That's why Warren (on the whole, according to the data, I recognize there are exceptions like yourself) attracts a more wealthy and educated base than Sanders, because her procapitalist rhetoric doesn't scare away the wealthy, while by including the details in her rhetoric she may lose some less educated voters but an educated voter that doesn't have the time to parse through the candidates websites and only watches the debates and a rally speech or interview here and there is probably going to find those details appealing.

I don't get why so many socialists balk over Sanders for not being socialist enough. They complain that they're politically marginalized and can't get any traction, then blame right wing propagandists for that lack of traction, rather than trying to be pragmatic and recognize where the American people are now and try to engage with them there. Instead they'd rather all be cynical and either stay out of the political process altogether, leaving the levers of power even less contested with the far right, or they do vote but not with any socialist strategy because they're convinced they've already lost. Then they complain when candidates disappoint them. It's just self-fulfilling prophecy at its worst.

The best choice, really the only choice, for class-conscious individuals that want to see an end to the profit motive dominating all of our society, and the normalizing of socialist ideas, is Bernie Sanders. He has a strategy to move the United States towards democratic socialism, Warren doesn't. Both he and Warren will probably accomplish about the same amount of stuff with their administrations, but Sander's strategy will move things further, and set up the American left going forward. I see a lot of plans with Warren, but not one to engage the American people to support her agenda on a consistent basis after she's elected. She'll probably be remembered as the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt, except female and much better informed and aligned with female issues and non-white issues. And that's great, he's my favorite president, and were she to become president, she'd probably be my new favorite president. But with Bernie, I see an opportunity to find out what would have happened if Occupy Wall Street hadn't been protesting against the president and his policies, but with him. If the Women March wasn't protesting against the president, but with him. If the March for Science wasn't protesting against...well you get it. The protest would be in his support, possibly even led or encouraged by him, to force congress to act. I see his not getting along with the establishment to be a plus, not a minus.

If you want the private sector out of prisons, health insurance, electricity production, charter schools, and whatever else he believes he can garner the support for, support Sanders, if you're satisfied with just getting rid of private prisons and health insurance, Warren is fine, as that's where she'll stop. If you want a Meidner-esque plan to gradually transfer ownership of all large corporations to workers, vote for Bernie, the democratic socialist, if you're fine with workers just being able to elect a few board members to the corporate board, Warren the social democrat is fine. If you want a society where civil life is more than just voting once every 4 years if you feel like it, where instead there are always opportunities to participate to advocate for your rights, all led by the guy in charge so that together we can force Washington to work, vote Bernie, because his slogan is "Not Me, Us". If you'd rather stay home and trust Washington to work with her, maybe make a few online comments on an internet forum if you're feeling fiesty, just sit back and let Warren do all the work, that'll probably be fine, if she really thinks she can do it without our help. I don't think she can though, and I don't think she's going to change her strategy. Maybe if she has Bernie as VP that'll be enough.

Here are a few sources for my claims:

Regarding Bernie wanting 100% public ownership of power:

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22025/bernie-sanders-calls-to-seize-the-means-of-electricity-production-climate

Regarding the plan to transfer ownership of corporations to their workers (admittedly Sander's plan isn't explicit in this, but there are signs it's what he's leaning towards, and at the very least will likely result in some ownership of companies, if not full control):

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18643032/bernie-sanders-communist-manifesto-employee-ownership-jobs

And all that stuff I was saying about protests and civic participation in support of Bernie being encouraged by Bernie, that is discussed in this article:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/bernie-sanders-labor-protest-2020-1455151

Yeah I think both of y'all are right. Bernie has time after time identified himself as a democratic socialist and when referred to as a socialist by people he's never corrected them. With his history I think it's fair to take his word that he's a democratic socialist. But Jaicee is right in that really his platform is for a social democracy as you've stated as well and that's where a lot of people will point to as a reason to call him a social democrat.

Bernie definitely has a strategy going on here and it's working. In this super capitalistic country we have a socialist that's a strong viable candidate for president and not just a fringe player in the game.



 

Around the Network

https://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/univision-news-poll-democrats-surge-in-texas-no-longer-a-safe-state-for-trump-in-2020

Absolutely incredible poll out of Texas from Univision. First bit of good news, the poll found not one, not two, not three, but SIX candidates that beat Trump in Texas, two of which are by solid margins, and Beto wasn't even one of the polled candidates! In fact, every candidate they polled beat Trump by at least a point, meaning that Texas is a battleground state no matter who we nominate! Second, the poll does a lot to undermine Biden's "I'm the only electable one" narrative. Sanders actually wins by a stronger margin than Biden!

And in more ways than one. First, Biden drives more people to be certain to vote for Trump than does Sanders. That is, Biden is the more polarizing candidate, who makes voters considering Trump most likely to feel certain in that choice, while Sanders has more people in the "leaning Trump" column and fewer in the "will vote for Trump" column. Second, Sanders drives out the Democratic base more, with more people in the "will vote for Sanders" column than Biden has in his "will vote for Biden" column, though both have the same amount of leaners. Third, Sanders does way better with Hispanics. Not only is Sanders the most favorable candidate in the field among Texas Hispanics (Biden 2nd, Castro 3rd, Warren 4th), he also gets way better results with Texas Hispanics in the general, getting a whopping 8% more of the Texas Hispanic vote than Biden does!

They polled a bunch of other interesting stuff too. One notable thing I saw included that the Senate is also competitive, with John Cornyn only pulling ahead of a generic Democrat by a mere 1%! Meaning that if Beto or Castro dropped out and ran for Senate, they'd probably do better than the generic Democrat benchmark and actually stand a chance of winning! Cornyn is relatively unknown, especially among the state's Hispanics, so it would be really easy for a well organized campaign with a well known figure running it to work to define Texas' understanding of Cornyn, pulling it to be significantly more negative. A full 38% of the state hasn't formed an opinion so it wouldn't be hard to make them hate him. Another interesting bit in the poll was all the questions about gun control and other issues. Texas, believe it or not, is about as supportive of the more popular gun control measures (universal background checks 86%, red flag laws 81%, ban assault weapons 68%) as most national polls I've seen on the matter, and place a significant amount of blame for mass shootings on the availability of guns, white supremacists, and Trump's rhetoric (majorities place "a good amount" or more blame on these things).

The moral of all this? Texas. Is. Already. Fucking. Purple. Not magenta, not fuchsia, not any sort of red-purple. Just straight up purple. That's not a "maybe sometime decades from now as the next generation comes of voting age" thing. It's a now thing. Texas is purple guys. It's totally winnable, in fact it might not even be the hardest state to win within the realm of possibility, Georgia's probably harder. Not that it would matter, because Texas has more electoral votes than Michigan and Pennsylvania combined, and if we win Texas, we wouldn't need Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, or North Carolina. Trump could win every state he won last time except for Texas, but just by losing Texas he'd lose the presidency. Texas is just that big of a fucking deal. And it's FUCKING PURPLE.

And before someone says this is just one poll, it's just the latest of several to say that Sanders and Biden could win Texas from Trump, so no, it's not just one poll.



haxxiy said:

Biden is labeled a moderate. But his agenda is far more liberal than Hillary Clinton’s.

Biden is much more liberal than the haters give him credit for. And Warren or Sanders would have to govern much more moderately than their rhetoric would suggest given the reality of the Senate. The differences between those administrations would be minor... and any of them would be infinitely better than a certain orange-hued man.

2019 democratic party is more liberal than the 2015 one. He moderate in this cycle compared to everyone else.



HylianSwordsman said:

https://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/univision-news-poll-democrats-surge-in-texas-no-longer-a-safe-state-for-trump-in-2020

Absolutely incredible poll out of Texas from Univision. First bit of good news, the poll found not one, not two, not three, but SIX candidates that beat Trump in Texas, two of which are by solid margins, and Beto wasn't even one of the polled candidates! In fact, every candidate they polled beat Trump by at least a point, meaning that Texas is a battleground state no matter who we nominate! Second, the poll does a lot to undermine Biden's "I'm the only electable one" narrative. Sanders actually wins by a stronger margin than Biden!

And in more ways than one. First, Biden drives more people to be certain to vote for Trump than does Sanders. That is, Biden is the more polarizing candidate, who makes voters considering Trump most likely to feel certain in that choice, while Sanders has more people in the "leaning Trump" column and fewer in the "will vote for Trump" column. Second, Sanders drives out the Democratic base more, with more people in the "will vote for Sanders" column than Biden has in his "will vote for Biden" column, though both have the same amount of leaners. Third, Sanders does way better with Hispanics. Not only is Sanders the most favorable candidate in the field among Texas Hispanics (Biden 2nd, Castro 3rd, Warren 4th), he also gets way better results with Texas Hispanics in the general, getting a whopping 8% more of the Texas Hispanic vote than Biden does!

They polled a bunch of other interesting stuff too. One notable thing I saw included that the Senate is also competitive, with John Cornyn only pulling ahead of a generic Democrat by a mere 1%! Meaning that if Beto or Castro dropped out and ran for Senate, they'd probably do better than the generic Democrat benchmark and actually stand a chance of winning! Cornyn is relatively unknown, especially among the state's Hispanics, so it would be really easy for a well organized campaign with a well known figure running it to work to define Texas' understanding of Cornyn, pulling it to be significantly more negative. A full 38% of the state hasn't formed an opinion so it wouldn't be hard to make them hate him. Another interesting bit in the poll was all the questions about gun control and other issues. Texas, believe it or not, is about as supportive of the more popular gun control measures (universal background checks 86%, red flag laws 81%, ban assault weapons 68%) as most national polls I've seen on the matter, and place a significant amount of blame for mass shootings on the availability of guns, white supremacists, and Trump's rhetoric (majorities place "a good amount" or more blame on these things).

The moral of all this? Texas. Is. Already. Fucking. Purple. Not magenta, not fuchsia, not any sort of red-purple. Just straight up purple. That's not a "maybe sometime decades from now as the next generation comes of voting age" thing. It's a now thing. Texas is purple guys. It's totally winnable, in fact it might not even be the hardest state to win within the realm of possibility, Georgia's probably harder. Not that it would matter, because Texas has more electoral votes than Michigan and Pennsylvania combined, and if we win Texas, we wouldn't need Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, or North Carolina. Trump could win every state he won last time except for Texas, but just by losing Texas he'd lose the presidency. Texas is just that big of a fucking deal. And it's FUCKING PURPLE.

And before someone says this is just one poll, it's just the latest of several to say that Sanders and Biden could win Texas from Trump, so no, it's not just one poll.

Interesting poll but tbh I don't see Texas becoming a tossup in 2020. Maybe 2024 or 2028.



jason1637 said:

Interesting poll but tbh I don't see Texas becoming a tossup in 2020. Maybe 2024 or 2028.

And why is that? Just a gut feeling that Texas is going to be R+5? Or do you have any data to back your view up? Because I've got several polls on my side.



jason1637 said:
HylianSwordsman said:

https://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/univision-news-poll-democrats-surge-in-texas-no-longer-a-safe-state-for-trump-in-2020

Absolutely incredible poll out of Texas from Univision. First bit of good news, the poll found not one, not two, not three, but SIX candidates that beat Trump in Texas, two of which are by solid margins, and Beto wasn't even one of the polled candidates! In fact, every candidate they polled beat Trump by at least a point, meaning that Texas is a battleground state no matter who we nominate! Second, the poll does a lot to undermine Biden's "I'm the only electable one" narrative. Sanders actually wins by a stronger margin than Biden!

And in more ways than one. First, Biden drives more people to be certain to vote for Trump than does Sanders. That is, Biden is the more polarizing candidate, who makes voters considering Trump most likely to feel certain in that choice, while Sanders has more people in the "leaning Trump" column and fewer in the "will vote for Trump" column. Second, Sanders drives out the Democratic base more, with more people in the "will vote for Sanders" column than Biden has in his "will vote for Biden" column, though both have the same amount of leaners. Third, Sanders does way better with Hispanics. Not only is Sanders the most favorable candidate in the field among Texas Hispanics (Biden 2nd, Castro 3rd, Warren 4th), he also gets way better results with Texas Hispanics in the general, getting a whopping 8% more of the Texas Hispanic vote than Biden does!

They polled a bunch of other interesting stuff too. One notable thing I saw included that the Senate is also competitive, with John Cornyn only pulling ahead of a generic Democrat by a mere 1%! Meaning that if Beto or Castro dropped out and ran for Senate, they'd probably do better than the generic Democrat benchmark and actually stand a chance of winning! Cornyn is relatively unknown, especially among the state's Hispanics, so it would be really easy for a well organized campaign with a well known figure running it to work to define Texas' understanding of Cornyn, pulling it to be significantly more negative. A full 38% of the state hasn't formed an opinion so it wouldn't be hard to make them hate him. Another interesting bit in the poll was all the questions about gun control and other issues. Texas, believe it or not, is about as supportive of the more popular gun control measures (universal background checks 86%, red flag laws 81%, ban assault weapons 68%) as most national polls I've seen on the matter, and place a significant amount of blame for mass shootings on the availability of guns, white supremacists, and Trump's rhetoric (majorities place "a good amount" or more blame on these things).

The moral of all this? Texas. Is. Already. Fucking. Purple. Not magenta, not fuchsia, not any sort of red-purple. Just straight up purple. That's not a "maybe sometime decades from now as the next generation comes of voting age" thing. It's a now thing. Texas is purple guys. It's totally winnable, in fact it might not even be the hardest state to win within the realm of possibility, Georgia's probably harder. Not that it would matter, because Texas has more electoral votes than Michigan and Pennsylvania combined, and if we win Texas, we wouldn't need Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, or North Carolina. Trump could win every state he won last time except for Texas, but just by losing Texas he'd lose the presidency. Texas is just that big of a fucking deal. And it's FUCKING PURPLE.

And before someone says this is just one poll, it's just the latest of several to say that Sanders and Biden could win Texas from Trump, so no, it's not just one poll.

Interesting poll but tbh I don't see Texas becoming a tossup in 2020. Maybe 2024 or 2028.

Pretty much what I was thinking, too. Texas has been moving more and more in direction of the democrats, helped by the facts that it has a sizable latino population and that it has fast-growing cities which both tend to heavily vote for democrats. But unless the distrust into Trump becomes too great, I don't see them flipping Texas in 2020 yet.

In any case, the republicans losing Texas as a safe bet would be a disaster for them. Texas has so many votes on the electoral college that losing that state basically means for them that they lost the election, period, as they would need to flip far too many blue states to make up for that loss.