Election 2020

[DMT]

I guess my general point is that I defend Bernie and have begun to cheerlead for him to those who are wary of him, but I cannot go so far as to defend socialism as an ideology, especially to those from Latin America and Eastern Europe and that is problematic since it is a label he has embraced (I try to explain how his brand of socialism is different, but that word, that label, it is a barrier). I know he has rebranded as a democratic socialism, and shifted away from praising Venezuela and Cuba to countries like Norwway and Sweden, but that initial branding brings negative feelings I can't deny, especially to people I know who come from regimes that called themselves socialist.

I know Bernie is not a supporter of that kind of oppression. He does not want that, and does not want our country to be that. But I do worry the socialist label will be pushed hard in the general and hurt him. And I am curious if others here understand where that fear and anxiety of that term and ideology comes from. To dismiss it as misguided dismisses the anxieties of those that have heard that term and suffered under those who used it as the label for their oppressive ideology.

I hear what you're saying, but aren't the Democratic Socialists a viable party throughout much of Europe? I think he can push back with that label and contrast it to the oppressive socialist regimes.

[DMT]

Lazy isn't the word I would use. I would say she wasn't adequately prepped, which is a horrible mistake. I'm actually surprised how little coverage this has gotten in the MSM.

As for Pete's "gift of gab". His speech pattern is exactly like Obama's, but it lacks the substance with in the speech pattern. I hear a lot of words from Mayor Pete, but they all seem very, very hollow and shallow.

Agreed on both points.

[In the Corn]

I hear what you're saying, but aren't the Democratic Socialists a viable party throughout much of Europe? I think he can push back with that label and contrast it to the oppressive socialist regimes.

You made a point to call me a "patriot" about my comment about Trump and Bloomberg being the two major party candidates. Part of my point being that I hope that if those two are the candidates, people will start to see that our government has be usurped by the rich on both sides, and maybe we need to fracture those parties and really look at the minor parties, and see if we can build some coalitions instead of these two "hats" that no one really holds to every plank of their platform.

[DMT]

You made a point to call me a "patriot" about my comment about Trump and Bloomberg being the two major party candidates. Part of my point being that I hope that if those two are the candidates, people will start to see that our government has be usurped by the rich on both sides, and maybe we need to fracture those parties and really look at the minor parties, and see if we can build some coalitions instead of these two "hats" that no one really holds to every plank of their platform.

I actually misread and thought you had seen someone else post that on FB. I would love to see more parties become viable but it just isn't going to happen within our current system. The sad irony is that voting third parties only hurt the party one favors. And as awful as the Democratic elites are, they are still light years ahead of the Republicans in terms of representing my values (e.g., diversity/inclusion, protecting vulnerable populations, environmental protection).

[B-Fly]

I wasn't highlighting it as a reason to support Bloomberg. Merely as a strategy I want the field to adopt. B-Fly is the Bloomberg fan here. The more I look at him, the more I don't like.

ETA: But any ads he runs highlighting Trump potentially hurting SS is a good ad buy for all Dems.

I am still supporting Elizabeth Warren, at this point, actually. I still think she fights the right battles and sweats the right details. I am nervous about her ability to win, largely because I fear the explicit and implicit sexism of voters.

As for Bloomberg, I don't think I've ever remotely said he's my choice. I have pointed out that he is a legitimate candidate with legitimate, relevant government experience and some real strengths, in regards to effectiveness of management and execution. That said, I don't think anyone can win either the Democratic nomination or the General Election with merely tepid support from Black voters, and in listening to Black voices within my world over the past few weeks, I think Bloomberg has a real problem there.

At this point, I think Sanders has a much better chance at winning the Democratic nomination and potentially as good or better a chance of defeating Trump because he has a better shot at securing and maximizing non-white voter turnout, while also potentially wining rust belt swing voters who after four years of the supposedly spectacular Trump economy still feel like the economic system is rigged against them, still lack adequate affordable medical insurance, still can't afford to send their kids to college, etc.

[Sour Masher]

Sorty B-Fly, for suggesting Bloomberg was your guy. Warren, despite her flaws, is still my first chooce too, although Inshare the electabilty concerns, and agree Sanders has a better shot, because his base is so dedicated. It was just you have explained Bloomberg's appeal to me in the past in ways that helped me understand it and also made me think you liked him as a candidate. I did not mean to suggest he was your first choice, though. And despite his flaws, I believe his presidency would be much more in line with my ideals than the billionaire currently in office. It is just the race stuff that turns me off with him.

[Teenwolf]

Elizabeth Warren "fights the right battles"? Okay, so you think spending her time attacking Bernie for his online supporters is the right battle right now, making the same pathetic case as Bloomberg and mainstream media? You think Warren's selfie lines are the right battle? Was the attack that Bernie is a secret sexist the right battle?

I'm glad you won't have the option of voting for her, as she will drop out before NY. If I were meeting her in a selfie line, I'd bring a copy of Pow-Wow Chow for her to autograph. What a phony.

As far as electability, I think of the moment from a few months ago, with protestors heckling her, and her response, freezing completely, then waiting for Ayanna Pressly to rescue her... her plea to Pressly "what do we do?", heard on the mic, shows exactly the type of ineffectual speaker and leader she is.

I mostly agree with your take on the rest of the field. Sanders will clean up in the rust belt based on NAFTA and USMCA.

[B-Fly]

Sorty B-Fly, for suggesting Bloomberg was your guy. Warren, despite her flaws, is still my first chooce too, although Inshare the electabilty concerns, and agree Sanders has a better shot, because his base is so dedicated. It was just you have explained Bloomberg's appeal to me in the past in ways that helped me understand it and also made me think you liked him as a candidate. I did not mean to suggest he was your first choice, though. And despite his flaws, I believe his presidency would be much more in line with my ideals than the billionaire currently in office. It is just the race stuff that turns me off with him.

Wholly agreed. And while I believe Blacks and Latinos and women would fare far better under a Bloomberg presidency than under a Trump presidency, I can't quarrel with anyone who refuses to trust or forgive him based on past sins.

[Sour Masher]

Elizabeth Warren "fights the right battles"? Okay, so you think spending her time attacking Bernie for his online supporters is the right battle right now, making the same pathetic case as Bloomberg and mainstream media? You think Warren's selfie lines are the right battle? Was the attack that Bernie is a secret sexist the right battle?

I'm glad you won't have the option of voting for her, as she will drop out before NY. If I were meeting her in a selfie line, I'd bring a copy of Pow-Wow Chow for her to autograph. What a phony.

As far as electability, I think of the moment from a few months ago, with protestors heckling her, and her response, freezing completely, then waiting for Ayanna Pressly to rescue her... her plea to Pressly "what do we do?", heard on the mic, shows exactly the type of ineffectual speaker and leader she is.

I mostly agree with your take on the rest of the field. Sanders will clean up in the rust belt based on NAFTA and USMCA.

Speaking for myself, I am specifically talking about her differing ideological approach, of pushing for regulated, compassionate solutions without abandoning capitalism, as i think Bernie would be cool with. I just think that is the better approach. In terms of her tactics, her ability to respond to attacks, the play she made against Bernie. I can't argue against any of that. her likability went down with me for all that, and I really don't think she can beat Trump as this point, so that is a non-starter for me. But I keep coming back to her worldview, her approach and the strategies and solutions she has. Those align with me better than any other candidate. I just think regulated and restrained capitalism with government safety nets to ensure our society has a heart and supports those who are being left behind is better than a dismissal of the real advantages capitalism and free markets have for a society. It may be flawed, but the advantages are clear for a society as a whole.

[Teenwolf]

Wholly agreed. And while I believe Blacks and Latinos and women would fare far better under a Bloomberg presidency than under a Trump presidency, I can't quarrel with anyone who refuses to trust or forgive him based on past sins.

Why would blacks, Latinos, or women fare better under Bloomberg than Trump? The letter next to his name? He has settled 40 sexual harassment claims from 64 women! He promotes drug policy that is aggressively anti-black. He has made horrifying statements against immigrants, women, POC, the working class, you name it. How is he one iota better than Trump?

"Its a fucking baby. All you need is some black, who doesn't even have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building."

His entire persona and record are 100% toxic to Democrats as a brand proposition, I would hope. I didn't think it was possible for Dems to promote someone as scummy as Trump, but they proved me wrong. Nice to see all the folks who whined that Bernie isn't a Democrat welcoming Bloomberg with open wallets, whoops, I mean arms...

[Sour Masher]

I should have added his issues with woman when i mentioned race as a turn off for Bloomberg. I won't go so far as to say he would not be one iota better than trump, though. But yeah, the stuff I am learning about Bloomberg and race and gender--hard to get past all of that.

[Teenwolf]

I should have added his issues with woman when i mentioned race as a turn off for Bloomberg. I won't go so far as to say he would not be one iota better than trump, though. But yeah, the stuff I am learning about Bloomberg and race and gender--hard to get past all of that.

He would be worse than Trump because he holds the same values and goals, but would be much more active in exerting the power of the office.

[B-Fly]

Why would blacks, Latinos, or women fare better under Bloomberg than Trump? The letter next to his name?

The platforms/policies he's promoting and/or endorsing. Just as Trump has assuaged many conservatives who worried he might be a secret liberal by largely delivering or at least attempting to deliver on his campaign promises/platforms, I think Bloomberg would likely do the same. He's running on a Democratic platform and, if elected on that platform, would recognize the expectation/need to deliver on his promises/commitments. The policies that he would pursue as a Democratic President and the judges/justices he would appoint would undoubtedly be better for Blacks, Latinos and women than what Trump has done.

Again, I'm not promoting Bloomberg for the nomination, but I don't buy the scare tactics that would suggest he'd be no better than Trump. He, like everyone pursuing the Democratic nomination, would be much, much better than Trump. Because, policies.

[Teenwolf]

The platforms/policies he's promoting and/or endorsing. Just as Trump has assuaged many conservatives who worried he might be a secret liberal by largely delivering or at least attempting to deliver on his campaign promises/platforms, I think Bloomberg would likely do the same. He's running on a Democratic platform and, if elected on that platform, would recognize the expectation/need to deliver on his promises/commitments. The policies that he would pursue as a Democratic President and the judges/justices he would appoint would undoubtedly be better for Blacks, Latinos and women than what Trump has done.

Again, I'm not promoting Bloomberg for the nomination, but I don't buy the scare tactics that would suggest he'd be no better than Trump. He, like everyone pursuing the Democratic nomination, would be much, much better than Trump. Because, policies.

So... the letter beside the name. Got it.

Which policies are you talking about? I haven't heard anything other than common sense gun reform, and that's the platform for every Democratic candidate.

[TS Garp]

I think this opinion piece from today's New York Times is a pretty good summation of where we are:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/opinion/democratic-primary.html