06hawkalum wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama was a progressive.

Eh, in a different era he could have run as a Republican. I guess by modern standards you could make the argument that he had progressive tendencies.

Affordable Care Act
Paris Agreement on Climate Change
Consumer protection agency
DACA
Giving partial ownership of GM to the workers, upending established bankruptcy law

Werthless wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama was a progressive.

Eh, in a different era he could have run as a Republican. I guess by modern standards you could make the argument that he had progressive tendencies.

Affordable Care Act
Paris Agreement on Climate Change
Consumer protection agency
DACA
Giving partial ownership of GM to the workers, upending established bankruptcy law

And in the context of this discussion, he was certainly presented as a progressive.

I go back and forth about nominating a progressive or Biden being the path to victory. If I had to bet my life on it today I'd say the latter.

I mean it doesn't matter who we nominate.. they're a socialist

slugsrbad wrote:I mean it doesn't matter who we nominate.. they're a socialist

People won't buy that about Biden

No one thought Marianne Williamson did well? She literally moved the needle from Who the F, the What the F.

She is my everything

Biden will negotiate a grand bargain that will cut social security. I'm not looking forward to that it's why I'm supporting the two I am in the primary.

06hawkalum wrote:

Gimpy wrote:Can’t wait to see Joe get the nom, knock off Trump, and get down to not changing anything fundamentally.

That's fine, as long as we don't end up with a Supreme Court with seven conservative justices. I was fairly comfortable with the status quo. I don't wish to live in interesting times. We've had enough of that these past three years.

Tens of millions of people aren't quite as comfortable.

pacino wrote:Tens of millions of people aren't quite as comfortable.

They're probably not getting significant changes no matter which Democrat wins, sadly. But Trump losing would be better for 99 percent of the planet.

Grotewold wrote:

pacino wrote:Tens of millions of people aren't quite as comfortable.

They're probably not getting significant changes no matter which Democrat wins, sadly. But Trump losing would be better for 99 percent of the planet.

Bingo.

Biden winning is infinitely better than Trump being reelected.

It's not just about voting, it's about mobilizing the people who are willing to knock on doors and do the grunt work it will take to win in the swing states. Biden isn't going to get those people--and besides, his political instincts are from an era when campaigns were centralized affairs run and staffed by professionals. That style of campaigning isn't nearly as effective in today's political environment.

The Obama comparison is interesting, because in many ways, he campaigned as a progressive, but governed like a moderate. Perhaps that was in part a concession to political reality. It's pretty hard to see stuff like a consumer protection agency as really all that progressive, given that the big banks and Wall Street were left intact, and zero people were even charged for crimes in the wake of the financial crisis.



There are two big establishment Democratic hopes out there, and in a weird way, they offset each other. The first is looking at how changing demographics should really be generating increasing Democratic majorities--Republicans have big problems with non-whites and people under 30. This of course is well known. But there's also this establishment Democratic belief that they can also peel away big money Wall Street/Tech money away from the Republicans. This is why Obama and others were loath to really make those people pay for the 2008 crisis.

It is the case that consultants get paid big bucks when campaigns raise big bucks, so they have a vested interest in keeping the Wall Street/Tech money flowing.

And let's be honest--for this Dem donor class, the Trump years have been fine. They've made tons of money, they've been deregulated. So, yeah, they're quite receptive to Biden's "I'm not going to change anything" message. But ultimately, it's a terrible message, a losing message. Biden's record is terrible--he's lost over and over again. (To use a baseball metaphor--he's one of those "toolsy" guys who can't play the game.) Trump's message was the opposite--he practically campaigned on the idea that "I might not make things any better, but at least it will be different".

The media have created a myth of Biden's electability, and I think that's what's feeding the polls right now--there's a big chunk of Democrats who really care about nothing other than figuring out which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump. There really isn't anything wrong with that position. But the media are, in my view, wrong about this. Because they are dumb. And really, at the elite level, they aren't much different than the Wall Street/Tech/Consultant types.

pacino wrote:She is my everything

A box of GOOP is being sent to you immediately. Expect a portal to open in or near your home for the products to convey. Please align your crystals to assure the portal forms where you want the merch.

BTW - I aided in her google stats by trying to figure out what she was about, and now I have digital regret.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not just about voting, it's about mobilizing the people who are willing to knock on doors and do the grunt work it will take to win in the swing states. Biden isn't going to get those people--and besides, his political instincts are from an era when campaigns were centralized affairs run and staffed by professionals. That style of campaigning isn't nearly as effective in today's political environment.

The Obama comparison is interesting, because in many ways, he campaigned as a progressive, but governed like a moderate. Perhaps that was in part a concession to political reality. It's pretty hard to see stuff like a consumer protection agency as really all that progressive, given that the big banks and Wall Street were left intact, and zero people were even charged for crimes in the wake of the financial crisis.



There are two big establishment Democratic hopes out there, and in a weird way, they offset each other. The first is looking at how changing demographics should really be generating increasing Democratic majorities--Republicans have big problems with non-whites and people under 30. This of course is well known. But there's also this establishment Democratic belief that they can also peel away big money Wall Street/Tech money away from the Republicans. This is why Obama and others were loath to really make those people pay for the 2008 crisis.

It is the case that consultants get paid big bucks when campaigns raise big bucks, so they have a vested interest in keeping the Wall Street/Tech money flowing.

And let's be honest--for this Dem donor class, the Trump years have been fine. They've made tons of money, they've been deregulated. So, yeah, they're quite receptive to Biden's "I'm not going to change anything" message. But ultimately, it's a terrible message, a losing message. Biden's record is terrible--he's lost over and over again. (To use a baseball metaphor--he's one of those "toolsy" guys who can't play the game.) Trump's message was the opposite--he practically campaigned on the idea that "I might not make things any better, but at least it will be different".

The media have created a myth of Biden's electability, and I think that's what's feeding the polls right now--there's a big chunk of Democrats who really care about nothing other than figuring out which Democrat is most likely to beat Trump. There really isn't anything wrong with that position. But the media are, in my view, wrong about this. Because they are dumb. And really, at the elite level, they aren't much different than the Wall Street/Tech/Consultant types.

Eh, I don't think "we're going to move this country from capitalism to socialism" is a winning message either. The average American is center-right.

What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

Why do we need to choose?

There is very little chance of the Senate flipping and that chance is nil unless the Dem nominee is elected POTUS. It's a package deal. If the hypothetical progressive candidate cannot draw enough voters to win the White House, he or she isn't going to bring out enough voters to help down ballot.

06hawkalum wrote:

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

Why do we need to choose?

There is very little chance of the Senate flipping and that chance is nil unless the Dem nominee is elected POTUS. It's a package deal. If the hypothetical progressive candidate cannot draw enough voters to win the White House, he or she isn't going to bring out enough voters to help down ballot.

I was just emphasizing the importance of winning the senate if possible.

But I also don’t agree with your statement that it’s a package deal or someone can only win senate seats if they win the presidency. There are lots of people who don’t just vote downballot and I’m also pretty positive that there would be a lot of people comfortable with coming out to vote Biden for the presidency and for republicans down the rest of the ballot.

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

This is an insane taek btw

06hawkalum wrote:Eh, I don't think "we're going to move this country from capitalism to socialism" is a winning message either. The average American is center-right.

Younger voters don't tend to understand that a message of "We're going to change all the rules" is not generally well-received by those who have been playing by a certain set of rules for decades -- and those are the people who actually make sure they vote even when their preferred candidate is not nominated.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

This is an insane taek btw

I was just asking if the senate could flip and pointing out that it’s as important as the presidency. Not saying that it’s one or the other.

Gimpy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:What does the senate map look like in 2020? If I could choose between replacing Trump with Biden or flipping the senate, I’m taking the senate 100 times out of 100.

This is an insane taek btw

I was just asking if the senate could flip and pointing out that it’s as important as the presidency. Not saying that it’s one or the other.

If Warren wins and we get to 50 in the Senate you will see massive change in this country