American Politics

[Scooby Dudek]

Chris Matthews (MSNBC pundit) resigns, he had been having a bit of a Bernie meltdown but also allegations of sexual harassment have surfaced. 

 

 

 

[Scooby Dudek]

Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Beto O'Rourke all endorse Biden. 

Shocked I am.

 

[Red Phoenix]

14 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

It's nice that white men in their 70s are finally getting a crack at the top job.

 

It'll be nice if AOC runs in 4 years too. Not that a lot of her corrupt party and donors will be happy.

 

13 hours ago, SasaS said:

I think today is also a great day for Warren to quit, and then Bloomberg would be left with a tough choice of not actually running at all, after spending all that money, or helping Sanders win, after spending all that money.

 

I don't think Warren is going to quit, looks like she's staying until the end to try and split the progressive vote to keep Bernie out.

[Jose Jones]

26 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

It'll be nice if AOC runs in 4 years too. Not that a lot of her corrupt party and donors will be happy.

 

 

I don't think Warren is going to quit, looks like she's staying until the end to try and split the progressive vote to keep Bernie out.

Would Warren not prefer Bernie?

What’s the theory there?

[Scooby Dudek]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

Would Warren not prefer Bernie?

What’s the theory there?

In 2016 Sanders wanted Warren to run but she wouldn't go against Clinton. During the race Warren could have endorsed Sanders but chose Clinton instead, as it was better for her politically. 

 

From 3:12 to 7:00 is the theory, obviously bias from a left wing populist but the guy who comes in after 7 minutes is a right wing populist;

 

 

 

FYI, I am not labelling them, it is how they see themselves as left/right wing populists.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Populists-Guide-2020-Right-Rising/dp/1947492454

 

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

Would Warren not prefer Bernie?

What’s the theory there?

 

Capitalism?

 

They've been making Bernie out to be a borderline communist for a while now and Warren has openly said more than once I think that she's a capitalist. I can remember when her campaign being funded by small donors was a big thing for her too, that's also out of the window now : https://time.com/5792563/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-support/

[SasaS]

25 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

In 2016 Sanders wanted Warren to run but she wouldn't go against Clinton. During the race Warren could have endorsed Sanders but chose Clinton instead, as it was better for her politically. 

 

From 3:12 to 7:00 is the theory, obviously bias from a left wing populist but the guy who comes in after 7 minutes is a right wing populist;

 

 

 

FYI, I am not labelling them, it is how they see themselves as left/right wing populists.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Populists-Guide-2020-Right-Rising/dp/1947492454

 

 

 

 

So if everyone is against Bernie, again, could it not mean that Bernie is actually in a wrong party?

 

[Red Phoenix]

24 minutes ago, SasaS said:

So if everyone is against Bernie, again, could it not mean that Bernie is actually in a wrong party?

 

It's odd how being a "Democratic" socialist in the "Democratic" Party is wrong. Maybe it's the socialist bit and they should rename themselves the Democratic Capitalists to clear things up. That way people like Bernie will stop making such big mistakes in the future and a good amount of people on the left can just swerve the whole fucking mess from the outset.

 

Then we can get to the bit where the Republicans and Democrats work together to shut third parties out of debates during elections and see how that fits with the USA being such a beacon of democracy.

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

It's odd how being a "Democratic" socialist in the "Democratic" Party is wrong. Maybe it's the socialist bit and they should rename themselves the Democratic Capitalists to clear things up. That way people like Bernie will stop making such big mistakes in the future and a good amount of people on the left can just swerve the whole fucking mess from the outset.

 

Then we can get to the bit where the Republicans and Democrats work together to shut third parties out of debates during elections and see how that fits with the USA being such a beacon of democracy.

I know I said that before, but wouldn't it seem logical in that instance that Bernie and his supporters think about changing their name?

The man who was never a member of that party before deciding to run for its presidential nominee is constantly facing the push back from the party, on values or ideology that party never shared. From Biden to Klobuchar and now seemingly Warren, according to that show above. 

[Strontium]

41 minutes ago, SasaS said:

So if everyone is against Bernie, again, could it not mean that Bernie is actually in a wrong party?

 

That's a two party system for you, it forces people with substantial ideological differences into very broad churches.

[Scooby Dudek]

34 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I know I said that before, but wouldn't it seem logical in that instance that Bernie and his supporters think about changing their name?

The man who was never a member of that party before deciding to run for its presidential nominee is constantly facing the push back from the party, on values or ideology that party never shared. From Biden to Klobuchar and now seemingly Warren, according to that show above. 

The people with the power at the top of the party do not wish to relinquish that power.    

I would argue it is more the establishment/corporate wing of the party that is against Sanders as opposed to the members of the party itself. 

The same establishment/corporate wing that seems to have no problem changing its election rules half way through the race for, and will be happy to throw their support behind Republican major and supporter Mike Bloomberg.

 

I get your point about him not being a member of the party, and it does seem strange too me but I do not know enough about the history of American politics to understand why this is acceptable. Whilst it is brought up as a stick to beat Sanders (not meaning you, but commentators/politicians on the democratic side) it is not seen as an issue for Bloomberg or Trump who was a Democrat for a long time. 

 

 

When you can register as independent, democrat or republican but depending on the primary/caucus anywhere between only one and all three of the groups can vote for the Democratic/Republican nominee it seems very fluid and confusing. 

I would be grateful is someone could explain the historical reasoning/logic of allowing Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates and vice versa.  

[Red Phoenix]

33 minutes ago, SasaS said:

The man who was never a member of that party before deciding to run for its presidential nominee is constantly facing the push back from the party, on values or ideology that party never shared. From Biden to Klobuchar and now seemingly Warren, according to that show above. 

 

The answer is to open up the election system so any parties are on an equal footing I think. Then people like Sanders could get something going and actually change how things work at the moment.

 

But we know what'll happen when he or anyone else seriously goes for it and has a following. They're "splitting the vote" and allowing the Republicans in. "A vote for Sanders/whoever is a vote for [Republican candidate]", and all of the related gaslighting that goes with that. I read enough of it last time around directed at the US Greens, it was completely toxic and relentless.

 

So there'd be uproar if he left the Dems and decided to make a new party or join another third party. He literally can't win in this argument. He's either inflitrating the Democrats or he's allowing Trump in by splitting the vote. The only solution in the eyes of some would be for him to not run at all for any party.

[SasaS]

7 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

The people with the power at the top of the party do not wish to relinquish that power.    

I would argue it is more the establishment/corporate wing of the party that is against Sanders as opposed to the members of the party itself. 

The same establishment/corporate wing that seems to have no problem changing its election rules half way through the race for, and will be happy to throw their support behind Republican major and supporter Mike Bloomberg.

 

I get your point about him not being a member of the party, and it does seem strange too me but I do not know enough about the history of American politics to understand why this is acceptable. Whilst it is brought up as a stick to beat Sanders (not meaning you, but commentators/politicians on the democratic side) it is not seen as an issue for Bloomberg or Trump who was a Democrat for a long time. 

 

 

When you can register as independent, democrat or republican but depending on the primary/caucus anyone between one and three of the groups can vote vote the Democratic/Republican leadership it seems very fluid and confusing. 

I would be grateful is someone could explain the historical reasoning/logic of allowing Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates and vice versa.  

I remember reading Warren saying Sanders had a big role in setting the new rules for the primaries, and he seems to be the only one insisting on a rules change, if you were referring to the majority or plurality versus the superdelegates issue, in the middle of the campaign, because it now suits him.

Bloomberg was a Republican, but he is not that ideologically different from the "corporate wing of the party", in that he is not trying to win on some distinctly socially conservative, completely right wing platform better suited for another political party.

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

The answer is to open up the election system so any parties are on an equal footing I think. Then people like Sanders could get something going and actually change how things work at the moment.

 

The election system is already open - the two party primaries are obviously not.

I can tell you from experience my vote for Perot (supporting the idea of a third party) did not cost Clinton the election.

But I would not have voted for Bush. So....

[Scooby Dudek]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

I remember reading Warren saying Sanders had a big role in setting the new rules for the primaries, and he seems to be the only one insisting on a rules change, if you were referring to the majority or plurality versus the superdelegates issue, in the middle of the campaign, because it now suits him.

I was referring to the Democratic party changing the rules of eligibility to get on a debate, which they changed so that Bloomberg could get on the debates, despite refusing to allow other candidates on and stating you can not change the rules halfway through the campaign.  

 

Warren stating about Sanders having a big role in setting rules is disingenuous at best. Sanders and his supporters wished to eliminate Superdelegates completely, and a committee (I believe it was called the Unity committee) was formed. As the DNC had the majority on this committee the compromise was Superdelegates would not vote in the first round but then would be free to do as they wished. Again Sanders wanted to eliminate them completely, so them having no say is consistent. 

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

Bloomberg was a Republican, but he is not that ideologically different from the "corporate wing of the party", in that he is not trying to win on some distinctly socially conservative, completely right wing platform better suited for another political party.

 

 

I would agree he is not that ideologically different from the "corporate wing of the party" but that is not a good thing, however I get that is not the point you are making.

 

He has a history of supporting and defending extremely racist polices, opposed to a minimum wage and was in favour of cutting Medicaid, but has conveniently had a complete change of heart in relation to all these and many other issues. 

He is now in favour of a minimum wage, just like Sanders, increasing Medicaid,just like Sanders, increased tax on the very rich, just like Sanders. The difference being, IMO, he will not try to carry out any of these policies if elected and the DNC know and are happy with this.

 

 

 

 

[sir roger]

It's the same with most parties in most countries in that power = money and most politicians will not want to relinquish that for wishy washy things such as principles. As an example,  the Clinton's are estimated to have a fortune of $ 218 million so unlikely to play fair with the likes of Sanders. SaSaS , would you consider the Clinton's or Sanders nearer to base Democratic values at this point in time ?

[Scooby Dudek]

As @sir roger asks, I believe Sanders platform is suited to the Democratic party, it is the Establishment of that party that are out of step with its voters/supporters/members.

 

To go back to 1944 and Franklin D. Roosevelt;

 

https://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm

 

The Economic Bill of Rights

 

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

 

 

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, sir roger said:

It's the same with most parties in most countries in that power = money and most politicians will not want to relinquish that for wishy washy things such as principles. As an example,  the Clinton's are estimated to have a fortune of $ 218 million so unlikely to play fair with the likes of Sanders. SaSaS , would you consider the Clinton's or Sanders nearer to base Democratic values ?

Clintons, since Democratic Party has, during my lifetime, always been the party of the centre right, or centre left in American context.  Sanders spent that time as an independent, describing himself as a Socialist.

 

I sort of get it that he wants to take over the centrist institutions rather than build his own party, but when you then encounter a pushback from the party you are trying to take over, my reaction would be, well, yeah, what did you expect? They don't want you, because you are not one of them. Win the majority or quit crying that a centrist party is fighting back against being taken over by the socialists. And it keeps coming back to this.  

[TheHowieLama]

I am pretty sure the Republican party were not too keen on the idea of Trump as their candidate.

[TheHowieLama]

11 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

 

 

To go back to 1944

It was a very good year...

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I am pretty sure the Republican party were not too keen on the idea of Trump as their candidate.

Trump was a right wing populist and the Party didn't wont him but I would say ideological difference wasn't that great, plus wasn't Ted Cruz as his closest rival preferred by the leadership more to the right on many issues?

[TheHowieLama]

It was a clusterfuck for them -- at the end Cruz and Rubio - before that Lindsey Graham had his hat out.

 

Looking back nearly every candidate that dropped out backed Cruz until they were forced to change.

Graham was most vocal anti-Trump.

[Scooby Dudek]

11 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Trump was a right wing populist and the Party didn't wont him but I would say ideological difference wasn't that great, plus wasn't Ted Cruz as his closest rival preferred by the leadership more to the right on many issues?

My memory could be wrong but I thought Cruz was a Teabagger (insert joke) and as you say to the right on a lot of issues, whilst popular among certain sections of the party membership, not popular with the party establishment who just like the status quo.

 

As Cruz was also pretty much disliked by the Republican leadership it was a major reason they could not do what the Democratic party are doing now and unite behind a anti Trump candidate.

[TheHowieLama]

At the time (as now) there were/are few in the party leadership bigger than Graham.

He ran for the office, then endorsed Jeb, then Cruz. They were doing whatever they could to avoid Trump.

[SasaS]

But Trump was not taking Republicans somewhere where they have not been before, other than the anti-immigration platform, I don't remember any actual distinctive issues, I mostly remember his promises that he was going to do things much better and populist attacks on liberal elites running the media. Elements of nativist platform, hinting at isolationism, economic nationalism.

Plus they couldn't unite against him because he was getting close to 50% of popular vote, as far as I recall. If Sanders can get there or thereabouts today, than you can say this is what the people want, it's now a completely different party. So far, he has had about 30% support and a lot of it seems to come from the people who joined the process with him.