Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Trotsky]

Can one be a competent president while pushing neo liberal fuckery?

Hmm, you definitely don't know what "neoliberal" actually means. A neoliberal is more conservative than a traditional liberal. It is, in terms of American discourse, a liberal who has bought into conservative economic policies and preferences for privatization, free trade, deregulation, and austerity policies. As an international concept, neoliberalism represents those policies which are traditionally associated with conservatives in America.

Conservatives complaining about neoliberalism basically amounts to conservatives complaining about their own policies...which isn't all that surprising because conservatives (i) strongly tend to not actually know what their parties' economic policies actually are and what they entail, and (ii) tend to not care for said economic policies once they realize what they are.

 

[z_zen]

Two year out is where most of the press starts ramping up for these races. The field sounds like it could match the size of the GOP primary from 2016.

Democrats can easily win the next election, and swing all the redneck states. Reject illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

 

[AlexDB9]

Democrats can easily win the next election, and swing all the redneck states. Reject illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

My guess is this: immediately in 2019 the house will start up the impeachment shenanigans and keep digging that hole until 2020....by 2020 everything will be an evident nothing burger and no one will care. Then some guy like Biden or even Beto will be left out to get btfo by Trump....if they are crazy enough to run Hilary again....hold on to your butts...

 

[Anung Un Rama]

He's not, though. What he has said is completely reasonable.

Maybe you don't remember how this went down in '15-'16, but I do. This is the same type of rhetoric they laid down to marginalize Sanders as a candidate and disenfranchise Sander's supporters. And if you're really pro-Sanders then you should be echoing my sentiments in putting down this divisive rhetoric.

I'm as pro-Sanders and anti-Clintonite as they get, but with the state of the court system, it absolutely isn't worth it voting third party for the foreseeable future unless the Democrats go much, much further to the right.

That is a misguided opinion driven by the MSM narrative. We still got Trump without a third party candidate because the Democratic nom was so pathetically flawed and the MSM pushed it forward anyhow.

Trump winning in 2016 (which was not due at all to third parties) and Bush winning in 2000 (which was due to a third party) has incalculably hurt the country and world for the next several decades purely because of court appointments. Even setting aside the (really important) considerations of economy and resource distribution, if Gore had won in 2000, it's nearly impossible to say just how much better off the country would be in additional areas like First Amendment rights, unionizing rights, employee protections, and campaign finance.

1. Nader didn't give us Bush.
2. That is just propaganda that can, has, and will be used forever: "This is the most important election of our lifetime, we can't afford to blah blah blah blah".

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Says the guy actively de-humanizing him. You really don't think he'd like to have his wife and daughter back?

I'm more concerned about his creepy behaviour.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Poor Bernie.

 

[Trotsky]

Maybe you don't remember how this went down in '15-'16, but I do. This is the same type of rhetoric they laid down to marginalize Sanders as a candidate and disenfranchise Sander's supporters. And if you're really pro-Sanders then you should be echoing my sentiments in putting down this divisive rhetoric.

You're the divisive one here. Kpt specifically said he would gladly support Sanders if he won the nomination. The conversation is explicitly confined to the event that he doesn't win the nomination. You're saying that, if your first choice doesn't win, you're going to take your ball and go home, and, instead of taking modest steps forward (even if fewer than would be achieved if your guy had won), ensure that several backward steps are taken - perhaps to parlay toward more meaningful change in the future. Whether that is sound logic (it's debatable), it's pretty clear that you are, at least in the short-term, prioritizing your own political vanity over the present needs of the country and its most vulnerable people - many of whom will endure considerably greater suffering in the event of a right-wing alternative to center-left leadership/policies.

That is a misguided opinion driven by the MSM narrative. We still got Trump without a third party candidate because the Democratic nom was so pathetically flawed and the MSM pushed it forward anyhow.


1. Nader didn't give us Bush.
2. That is just propaganda that can, has, and will be used forever: "This is the most important election of our lifetime, we can't afford to blah blah blah blah".

You're welcome to have your opinion. I think it's privileged, selfish, and willfully ignorant to obvious realities of recent electoral outcomes, but it's your prerogative.

EDIT: Also, I don't know how you can say "Nader didn't give us Bush." The numbers are there. He very clearly did: even if didn't cause the outcome, he definitely altered it. Even if only 1/4 of Nader's voters went Gore, and the other 3/4 stayed home," Gore would have then won the election.

EDIT EDIT: Also also, and you can look up my post history if you'd like to check on this, I voted for Stein/Baraka.

 

[Lvnvmma]

Dems shouldn't push for Biden. There's so much creepy material out there of Joe Biden.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Hmm, you definitely don't know what "neoliberal" actually means. A neoliberal is more conservative than a traditional liberal. It is, in terms of American discourse, a liberal who has bought into conservative economic policies and preferences for privatization, free trade, deregulation, and austerity policies. As an international concept, neoliberalism represents those policies which are traditionally associated with conservatives in America.

Conservatives complaining about neoliberalism basically amounts to conservatives complaining about their own policies...which isn't all that surprising because conservatives (i) strongly tend to not actually know what their parties' economic policies actually are and what they entail, and (ii) tend to not care for said economic policies once they realize what they are.

Yes, neo libs and neo cons are essentially the same thing. At some point you should grow out of the liberal vs conservative/Republican vs Democrat paradigm. It would help you see things clearer.

 

[Trotsky]

Yes, neo libs and neo cons are essentially the same thing. At some point you should grow out of the liberal vs conservative/Republican vs Democrat paradigm. It would help you see things clearer.

Uhh....what?

Neoconservatives are just conservatives who are somehow even more fond of intervention and more opposed to communism than traditional conservatives. As far as economic and social policy go, they're the same as any conservative. Maybe slightly more hostile to protectionism. Neoliberals are just liberals with more conservative economic policy.

So, since you are maintaining that you meant it the way you said it, you prefer to left-wing/mid-century liberal economics and oppose the economic platforms of Trump, Romney, Bush, and Reagan and would prefer pushing left past Clinton, past Obama, and back toward FDR?

Are you now my comrade?

 

[TheComebackKid]

Uhh....what?

Neoconservatives are just conservatives who are somehow even more fond of intervention and more opposed to communism than traditional conservatives. As far as economic and social policy go, they're the same as any conservative. Maybe slightly more hostile to protectionism. Neoliberals are just liberals with more conservative economic policy.

So, since you are maintaining that you meant it the way you said it, you prefer to left-wing/mid-century liberal economics and oppose the economic platforms of Trump, Romney, Bush, and Reagan and would prefer pushing left past Clinton, past Obama, and back toward FDR?

Are you now my comrade?

I'm referring to foreign policy my friend. And on that front Bushes, Clintons, Obama, Romney, McCain...all the same. Trump is different tho. Trump is actually trying to end some of these wars and ironically enough "liberals" are giving him hell for it.

Also again... You lose me when you start going on about conservative vs liberal or left vs right as all those terms are arbitrary, relative, and onstantly changing. One persons liberal is another persons conservative. So I don't know what you mean by pushing left or pushing right.

 

[jeffk]

Bloomberg is probably their only chance

I would say Bloomberg would beat Trump, but he won't be able to win the primary. He would be hurt by his stance on soda but that would get old quickly.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm referring to foreign policy my friend. And on that front Bushes, Clintons, Obama, Romney, McCain...all the same. Trump is different tho. Trump is actually trying to end some of these wars and ironically enough "liberals" are giving him hell for it.

Wait, now we're talking about foreign policy? Where in the hell did that come from? So... by "neo liberal fuckery" you meant....continuing the legacy of interventionism that was dominant during the Republican administrations of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush? To my ears it sounds like you should just admit you used the term without knowing what it meant.

Also again... You lose me when you start going on about conservative vs liberal or left vs right as all those terms are arbitrary, relative, and onstantly changing. One persons liberal is another persons conservative. So I don't know what you mean by pushing left or pushing right.

In terms of established economic policies in American history, there is a pretty clear spectrum. I don't know that there is a great graphic, but since we're talking about presidents, and stipulating some broad agreement about their economic policies, where would you like to be on this spectrum?
(left) FDR--Truman--Johnson--Obama---Carter--JFK--Eisenhower--Clinton--Nixon---GHWB--Ford--GWB--Reagan--Trump (right)

Granted, the middle (from Obama to Nixon) is a bit complicated and very debatable, but I think the poles are pretty definitive.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Wait, now we're talking about foreign policy? Where in the hell did that come from? So... by "neo liberal fuckery" you meant....continuing the legacy of interventionism that was dominant during the Republican administrations of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush? To my ears it sounds like you should just admit you used the term without knowing what it meant.

And Kennedy(a lil bit), and LBJ, and Clinton, and Obama...

By "neo-liberal fuckery" I mean the standard foreign policy of the United States for the past 60yrs. And yes, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are one and the same at least in regards to foreign policy. So instead of seeing "neo-liberal fuckery" and immediately thinking that I'm defending neo-cons and republicans maybe you should step outside of the lib vs con/rep vs dem/left vs right paradigm you seem stuck in.

You seem to agree with me that "neo-liberal fuckery" is bad...yet you still try to turn it into something partisan. 'But..but....neo-libs are really just conservatives!! So...I win" lol. It's just retarded. I too see neo-libs and neo-cons as the same thing.

In terms of established economic policies in American history, there is a pretty clear spectrum. I don't know that there is a great graphic, but since we're talking about presidents, and stipulating some broad agreement about their economic policies, where would you like to be on this spectrum?
(left) FDR--Truman--Johnson--Obama---Carter--JFK--Eisenhower--Clinton--Nixon---GHWB--Ford--GWB--Reagan--Trump (right)

Granted, the middle (from Obama to Nixon) is a bit complicated and very debatable, but I think the poles are pretty definitive.

I don't think any of them had a fully sound economic policy. But then again I'm not talking about economics.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're the divisive one here. Kpt specifically said he would gladly support Sanders if he won the nomination. The conversation is explicitly confined to the event that he doesn't win the nomination.

No, I'm really not. I'm shining a light on the propaganda. The oh, I support Bernie passive aggressive act is the same as '15-'16.
There are already about a dozen posts in the last 24 hours from "progressives" who claim to support Sanders, but put more emphasis on how he can't win, can't get nonwhite support, is a weaker version of Beto, his supporters are crazy, and how he better not run third party. Its still 2018...

You're saying that,

no I'm not. I'm saying whats best for the country isn't blind partisanship and that the past is the best indicator of the future. There are more people in this country who are not independents than registered Democrats or Republicans. To suggest, and more importantly be suggestive, that people not vote third party to ensure that their party gets the nom is the actual political vanity.

You're welcome to have your opinion. I think it's privileged, selfish, and willfully ignorant to obvious realities of recent electoral outcomes, but it's your prerogative.

And your welcome to eat a dick. Your willfully ignorant and a phony whose opinion I don't give a shit about.

EDIT: Also, I don't know how you can say "Nader didn't give us Bush." The numbers are there. He very clearly did: even if didn't cause the outcome, he definitely altered it. Even if only 1/4 of Nader's voters went Gore, and the other 3/4 stayed home," Gore would have then won the election.

No, the numbers aren't there. How many would be Bush voters supported Nader? And how many Democrats voted for Bush?

EDIT EDIT: Also also, and you can look up my post history if you'd like to check on this, I voted for Stein/Baraka.

Oh, wow. You can look up my post history, too; I'm the Sausage King of Chicago...

 

[MicroBrew]

Is he going to run as a Democrat ? Hope not, or if he does I hope the Dem base shut him down real fast. He is no Dem, just an opportunist using the party.

 

[MicroBrew]

Bloomberg is probably their only chance

Bloomberg would never get the Dem base behind him, he is a Corporatist elitist shill , who has changed parties when he felt it in his interest to do so.

For conservative moderates: Bloomberg's anti gun stance and big government paternal attitudes would be a big turn off.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Mike Bloomberg should maybe think about spending more time at home. Maybe he can prevent his other daughter from getting knocked up by a Latin gigolo like Georgina did.

 

[MicroBrew]

Hmm, you definitely don't know what "neoliberal" actually means. A neoliberal is more conservative than a traditional liberal. It is, in terms of American discourse, a liberal who has bought into conservative economic policies and preferences for privatization, free trade, deregulation, and austerity policies. As an international concept, neoliberalism represents those policies which are traditionally associated with conservatives in America.

Conservatives complaining about neoliberalism basically amounts to conservatives complaining about their own policies...which isn't all that surprising because conservatives (i) strongly tend to not actually know what their parties' economic policies actually are and what they entail, and (ii) tend to not care for said economic policies once they realize what they are.

Neoliberals also tend to be hawkish / pro interventionists , much like Neoconservatives ; if you look at the Clintons and Blairs as quintessential Neoliberals.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Harder. "Liberal" outlets like CNN and NYT might tepidly support Bernie if he somehow gets the nomination, but that's about it. WSJ sure as shit won't.

That's because the "MSM" is NOT FUCKING LEFT-LEANING, despite all the reactionary histrionics right wingers bleet on about. They are allied with capital, and when push comes to shove, they will ALWAYS break right when faced with a genuine left alternative.

WSJ is/was pro trump, discreetly. Excluding them the others are liberal capitalists, like Hillary, Merkel, @Jack V Savage and the like. OK.
They will obviously support that kind of candidate during the primaries. But given that one of the more left wing democrats win there is no way they will support TRUMP against them and they can't simply ignore it. Except if @Trotsky somehow wins the nomination with @Rational Poster as vice.

If I was American I think I'd vote for that Sherrod Brown guy.