Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

Make sure you have the record player on at night, kids.

jason1637 said:

Warren and Sanders share more in common than Warren and Clinton. I don't like why it took her so long to make an endorsement and when she did she endorsed Clinton.

Looking back now that Trump is president yeah he is bad but during the election I liked his messaging of changing America by draining the swamp and ending endless wars. He hasnt done none of that now but at the time you couldnt really know unless he had power if that makes sense.

I understand that, and that's an inherent problem with candidates that have no prior political record.
Though for me there were some early warning signs that he wouldn't keep some of his key promises.
One thing I like about Sanders is that he has never accepted a corporate check, so the problem of not being able to trust politicians voting on issues concerning their corporate donors is not an issue with him at least. And I hope that becomes standard for everyone one day.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:

It's actually a point that hurts Sanders now these days and that many hate him for: Clinton would have won the election if Sanders (unwillingly, I must add) wouldn't have moved so many voters to rather not vote or to even vote for Trump in protest for what the DNC did to him. There are quite a few who won't forgive him for ruining an election that was promised to the democrats.

[citation needed]

No really, that is something I see not even a hint for. I see it only ever used as a strategy to smear Sanders. Because, maybe there were a few Bernie or Bust people, but would they have voted for Clinton in the first place? I think it is the other way around: that Sanders fought hard in the primary activated many voters that would have been passive otherwise because they had long given up on voting, as they felt neither party would do anything for them. Sanders could actually bring them back in the political process. That some of these people were in the end disappointed that Clinton was the nominee and didn't show up on election day is meaningless, as they would have been absent if Sanders wouldn't have been in the primary in the first place. But many of the people he activated in the end voted for Clinton.

In the end Clinton got 65 million votes, just about the same as Obama did. To be precise, Obama got 65,915,795 votes 2012, while Clinton got 65,853,514. So she lost about 62K voters, pretty much nothing compared to one of the most beloved presidents. Trump on the other hand got 62,984,828 votes, about 2 million more than Romneys 60,933,504. So in the end Clinton did not lose because she lost voters, Trump won because he convinced voters. In which way he did that is a miracle to me, but he did.

So, people want to tell me, that Clinton - a candidate with certainly a lot of problems and baggage - would have magically gotten more votes than Obama, if not the mean kid Sanders threw a wrench in it? Yeah no, I don't buy that. It is obviously bull to damage Sanders, and it disheartens me that so many people believe that bull.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

jason1637 said:
Jumpin said:

The relevant date is not the ceremony; it's the day she won, June 7th. I don't know if it is some weird (and I hate to use this term) fake-news misinformation, or a bad faith acting, but the circumstances under which Warren endorsed Clinton were effectively identical to Bernie endorsing Clinton. To say one is positive and justified while the other is negative and heinous is blatant hypocrisy on the part of that segment of Bernie supporters.

DC had its primary on June 14th (a few days after the Warren endorsement) and the Sanders campaign continued to invest time at this race even though his chances were slim so no its not the same as Bernie endorsing Clinton after the primary.

The chances were none, Clinton had won a majority and the popular vote prior to June 7th. So yes, it IS the same.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
tsogud said:

Warren isn't a hypocrite, although there are legitimate criticisms of her as there are for every candidate that's not one of them. Bernie endorsed Clinton as well. It is mind boggling though that she didn't endorse Bernie early on but it is what it is.

If she makes it to the general and takes corporate/big donors money like she said she was open to doing then I think you could call her a hypocrite.

On the contrary, I am in the camp that both her and Bernie are kind of dumb for NOT accepting large donations since it hamstrings them in the Democratic campaign against the Republicans. The really nasty corporations are going to be heavily funding the Trump campaign, but not all big donor entities have decision-makers who are completely psychopathic in nature.

I have heard that people think that receiving a donation from some big corporation to an election campaign is the same as that corporation buying the candidate; this is false, there is absolutely no law or rule suggesting candidates must work for those who donate to their campaigns... it sounds like something that is highly illegal. Even Trump isn't going to change his views, those who donate to campaigns know what they are getting for their money, they're not donating to sway them. But I am also in favour of the abolition of corporate donations, and limits placed on donations in general: plus high public rebates on donations so that even a poor person can afford to donate a decent amount.

Those donations mean political ads, banners, and signs - you don't want to sacrifice that.

On the other point, I don't think there's any controversy behind waiting until knowing who's going to win before putting forward an endorsement, even among friends. It's common practice, even Obama and Biden waited until Clinton was clearly going to win before they endorsed her. Obama hasn't endorsed anyone in the current run, despite Biden's bootlicking.

I don't like big money in politics period but I expect establishment Dems to take big money so I guess I can't begrudge them for that because I knew it from the beginning. But when you're running a campaign against wealthy big donors and then turn around and take their money in the general that's hypocritical and I'm sure most people will have a problem with it if that becomes the reality.



 

Bofferbrauer2 said:

It's actually a point that hurts Sanders now these days and that many hate him for: Clinton would have won the election if Sanders (unwillingly, I must add) wouldn't have moved so many voters to rather not vote or to even vote for Trump in protest for what the DNC did to him. There are quite a few who won't forgive him for ruining an election that was promised to the democrats.

Alternative interpretation: It's a point that hurts Clinton that many hate her for: Clinton would have won the election if she hadn't (willfully, I must add) screwed over Bernie by working with Debbie Wasserman Shultz to rig the primary, and then refused to disavow any of it, instead HIRING DWS to run her fucking campaign, thus alienating everyone from the other side. If anything, since she cheated at the primary, she should have resigned and withdrawn from the race. There are quite a few who will never forgive her for losing an election that should have been the easiest to win in generations. Bernie would have won.



Around the Network

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-o-rourke-ar-robert-francis-tweet-death-threat-fbi-140045177.html

Well that escalated quickly. Honestly, this just makes me like Beto more. He's not even close to my favorite candidate for president, but I love the courage of his statement. And I love that it scares the piss out of the GOP so much that they're literally losing their sanity and making death threats. Exposes them as the nuts they are.



tsogud said:
Jumpin said:

On the contrary, I am in the camp that both her and Bernie are kind of dumb for NOT accepting large donations since it hamstrings them in the Democratic campaign against the Republicans. The really nasty corporations are going to be heavily funding the Trump campaign, but not all big donor entities have decision-makers who are completely psychopathic in nature.

I have heard that people think that receiving a donation from some big corporation to an election campaign is the same as that corporation buying the candidate; this is false, there is absolutely no law or rule suggesting candidates must work for those who donate to their campaigns... it sounds like something that is highly illegal. Even Trump isn't going to change his views, those who donate to campaigns know what they are getting for their money, they're not donating to sway them. But I am also in favour of the abolition of corporate donations, and limits placed on donations in general: plus high public rebates on donations so that even a poor person can afford to donate a decent amount.

Those donations mean political ads, banners, and signs - you don't want to sacrifice that.

On the other point, I don't think there's any controversy behind waiting until knowing who's going to win before putting forward an endorsement, even among friends. It's common practice, even Obama and Biden waited until Clinton was clearly going to win before they endorsed her. Obama hasn't endorsed anyone in the current run, despite Biden's bootlicking.

I don't like big money in politics period but I expect establishment Dems to take big money so I guess I can't begrudge them for that because I knew it from the beginning. But when you're running a campaign against wealthy big donors and then turn around and take their money in the general that's hypocritical and I'm sure most people will have a problem with it if that becomes the reality.

It's not hypocritical to play by the rules while campaigning to change the rules.

If I'm in a kickboxing match, and I am campaigning for rounds to be 3 minutes instead of 5 minutes, it doesn't mean I am going to stop fighting after 3 minutes every single round. Or if I want a ban to knees, it doesn't mean I am never going to throw a knee when those are rules - I would be at a disadvantage.

Bernie Sanders backs the abolition of the electoral college, do you think he should instead NOT base his campaign strategy around winning within the electoral college system?

Last edited by Jumpin - on 13 September 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

HylianSwordsman said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-o-rourke-ar-robert-francis-tweet-death-threat-fbi-140045177.html

Well that escalated quickly. Honestly, this just makes me like Beto more. He's not even close to my favorite candidate for president, but I love the courage of his statement. And I love that it scares the piss out of the GOP so much that they're literally losing their sanity and making death threats. Exposes them as the nuts they are.

I used to think Beto and Buttigieg were a couple of wieners, but the reality is that it's just Buttigieg.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

HylianSwordsman said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-o-rourke-ar-robert-francis-tweet-death-threat-fbi-140045177.html

Well that escalated quickly. Honestly, this just makes me like Beto more. He's not even close to my favorite candidate for president, but I love the courage of his statement. And I love that it scares the piss out of the GOP so much that they're literally losing their sanity and making death threats. Exposes them as the nuts they are.

Beto had a solid performance last night but he went down on my list of liked candidates since he wants to take away people's automatics and supports reparations.