Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[Buffalo_Gal]

I don’t think the Democrats are concerned about the presidency; I’m pretty sure they have conceded it to Trump. What I do think they are concerned about is how the lack of enthusiasm translates to the down-ticket.

 

 They (Ds) have dreams of regaining the Senate and holding the House. That requires people to vote. If registered Democrats sit on their hands and stay home due to lack of (presidential) candidacy enthusiasm, neither of those are possible. Worse, they probably lose the House.

 

November should be interesting.

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I do, because as I’ve told you for almost a year now, they don’t have anyone who can beat Trump. You found that idea laughable. Now it’s not... 

 

Whose position is changing again?   

 

I tried to warn you what’s coming.

 

When did I say my position changed?

 

My position remains that Trump will lose. But that doesn't mean I'm not nervous about the election.

 

You're a Bills fan. Surely you can understand that recent successes and failures influence our feelings of confidence or lack of confidence. That doesn't mean those feelings are valid.

 

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Now turnout doesn’t matter. 
Polls don’t matter. 
 

So what are you basing your confidence in? What the media has told you? The same media that swore to you (lied to you) for the past three years that Trump and Russia colluded? The same media that lied to you over and over with “this time we got Trump” click bait? 
 

Look, I understand you are of a different political persuasion than Trump, that’s beside the point. You have every right to vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish — what confuses me is why you continue to put your faith in those who have proven themselves to be entirely dishonest on all things Trump/political? 

 

I think this is funny because aren't you the one who's said time and time again polls don't matter with regard to Trump.

 

Awfully convenient that you suddenly put so much credence in them.

 

Who the hell do you think I'm putting my faith in exactly?

 

You need to get a grip. My thoughts and feelings about Trump have remained the same--that he's a crooked, hypocritical megalomaniac who cares more about himself and his public image than anything or anyone else (among other things I don't feel like typing, but the guy's tried pretending he's of Swedish descent for God's sake when his family is ver much German... all for the sake of appearance)--well before he was elected President.

 

I had hopes he would change my opinion and he did...

 

He's worse than I thought he was.

 

That opinion has been shaped by me. Not the media.

 

You're going to have a lot of what you perceive as moments in the upcoming months, but November is what matters, not February.

[B-Man]

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, KayAdams said:

 

I have, actually, as I used to be a libertarian before I became a progressive! Private charity solutions, lowering the costs of goods and services via less government involvement, trickle down economics, etc..

 

But if I may so politely bounce the question back to you: why are social welfare programs and progressive domestic policies rising in popularity here? Why is a "socialist" like Bernie even as popular as he is, popular enough that he's on the verge of taking over one of the country's two main political parties? These are policy ideas that were once soundly rejected by Democrats in 1972 and have been rejected fairly consistently at the national executive level between 1980-2008. So why the noticeable change in national opinion? What has happened to our country?

 

 

What happened was that the Marxists of the late 60’s and early 70’s, Weather Underground types, stayed in academia as teachers.  They took over university systems which are now entrenched in post-modernist neo-Marxism; and the unions monopolized K-12.

 

They’ve been indoctrinating generations of kids, while at the same time soaking them in tens of thousands of dollars in debt to attend the indoctrination seminars, all the while casting the students as victims.

 

Combine that with the remarkable sense of entitlement that has come with being coddled by helicopter parents in the age of hedonism and instant gratification... and, boom, here we are.

 

Here’s the rub though:  I don’t care.

 

Taking from people who produce and plan in order to compensate other people for their bad decisions is unethical and immoral.

Edited February 11, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wacka]

On 2/9/2020 at 8:44 PM, KayAdams said:

 

We prefer to be called the "progressive base" or the "social democrat base." There's a difference. Please learn it. You'll have many months this year to do so.

The correct term is communist base.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

All your chart shows is that 80% of the country has been left behind. The bottom 80% of the country has seen income growth of approximately 1% per year or less over the last 50 years. That's pathetic. 

 

The rich have seen their tax bill reduced drastically over the past 50 years. Over that time, the gap between the right and the middle class has sky rocketed. The rich control almost all of the wealth in the US and the middle class has been struggling for 30 years. 

The Trump government is running a $1 trillion deficit and to reduce it they're going to gut social programs millions of Americans rely on. Trump's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves as the deficit has skyrocketed, and the rich have mostly got much richer due to the enormous rise in the stock market which has mostly gone up due to stock buy backs. Wages have only grown slightly and just over half of Americans own stocks, meaning that almost half the country hasn't benefited from the Trump economy. 

 

The current system doesn't work. If 55% of Americans want to go vote for politicians who will drastically raise the taxes on the rich, there's nothing the rich can do to stop it. There doesn't need to be any basis for that decision. Democracy should represent the will of the people. 

Gang rape is a democracy.

[njbuff]

55 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bloomberg mentioned all facts there, yet he would get blasted for it if he were on the right.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I think this is funny because aren't you the one who's said time and time again polls don't matter with regard to Trump.

 

Awfully convenient that you suddenly put so much credence in them.

 

For clarity: I still don’t. Polls are narrative shaping tools, not accurate prognosticators. 
 

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Who the hell do you think I'm putting my faith in exactly?

I don’t know, hence the question. Six months ago you were certain that not only Biden would win, but that Trump would lose to anyone who they put up against him.
 

I assume this confidence was borne from something beyond your personal take. The point though, is that wherever that confidence in Joe came from (and it was being injected into the bloodstream by the establishment press at that time), anyone who took two seconds to really look at Joe knew he had no chance. Including those media outlets. 
 

I just wonder when you start holding whatever sources you’re relying on for news/information accountable for always getting it wrong? 
 

(not a shot at you, it’s a shot at those sources)

 

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

That opinion has been shaped by me. Not the media.

I don’t doubt that at all.
 

That’s not the opinion I’m talking about. I’m talking specifically about the confidence in Joe. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Deranged Rhino

[Rob's House]

7 hours ago, KayAdams said:

 

Can someone help me out with Step 3 below?

 

Step 1: Join Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign listserv.

Step 2: Help Bernie get elected president in November.

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Mass oppression, extreme poverty, millions of corpses piled up.

 

The twentieth century was tumultuous indeed, but aren’t there a bunch of social democratic countries that made it into the twenty-first century while managing to avoid Step 4? Or have they?! My goodness…what have I gotten myself into?! I’m just a ditzy NFL “journalist” who joined the Bernie Sanders political movement in order to meet cute Bernie Bros. I didn’t realize I was enabling a covert left-wing despot all along… In any event, I do like everyone here because you’re Buffalo Bills fans, so I will put in a good word after our takeover to make sure you get some of the better gulag assignments.

 

Over and out,

 

-Comrade Kay

 

I do appreciate you putting in a good word for me. I'm really not cut out for gulag life.

 

To clarify (although I think I was pretty clear), I'm not suggesting Bernie Sanders could be the next Stalin even if he wanted to be.

 

I am suggesting that his views are a lot more extreme than most of his supporters think. His support of Communism goes back a long way. A few examples - he was a fan of Castro, honeymooned in the USSR, supported the Sandinistas, & spoke highly of Hugo Chavez. He's done nothing since to convince me he's softened his stance and is now just pursuing a stronger social safety net as opposed to a command economy.

 

My main concern, again, is not him ushering in the Soviet States of America, but the potential shift a Bernie Presidency could have on American politics going forward.

 

He's already had a significant effect regardless of the outcome. As I told my self-avowed Marxist friend, and devout Bernie Bro, as he was mourning the result of the 2016 primary, Bernie is to socialism what Goldwater was to conservatism. Goldwater lost the election, but in the process he mainstreamed the ideas that would eventually lead to Reagan. Bernie is doing that by taking the stigma out of socialism.

 

A large segment of the country has already gone pretty far down that path in a relatively short period of time (which you alluded to in your other post and I will attempt to address here). I have a number of theories as to why that is, but I'll just name a few.

 

Progressives have dominated both entertainment and news media, public school curriculum, and academia for years. The gradual push towards progressive policies is undeniable. The history of socialism is whitewashed or blacked out in the schools and even glorified in Hollywood with movies like Evita that glamorize socialists like the Perons who took Argentina from a thriving economy to a pit of stagnation.

 

Additionally, most of those advocating for socialism don't have a functional understanding of basic economics. Some do and understand that they're accepting a trade off between economic growth and equitable distribution, but they tend to be more moderate. The hard core Bernie Bros can't be burdened with such trivialities. The fact that economics has been removed from the curriculum and replaced with sociology hasn't helped.

 

Also, people tend to take what we have here for granted. They see only that which is imperfect while assuming everything good that we have just happened, thus making the perfect the enemy of the good. They speak of the tremendous wealth of the country without acknowledging how it came to be. 

 

The reckless abandon paired with the lack of self awareness with which many of these people seek to "fundamentally transform" a system that has created unprecedented wealth and innovation should concern anyone who values the freedom and standard of living we enjoy.

 

Again, I'm not worried that Bernie could enact such sweeping changes on his own. But as I said before, incremental steps down the road to socialism can lead us unsuspectingly into a web we can't back out of.

 

The danger is that once you create social programs you create dependence on those programs and it becomes difficult if not impossible to undo them. Take Medicare for example. Certainly some people are better off for its existence, but the desirability of Medicare is not the point of this example. If Medicare never existed in its current form, many people who are now dependent on it would have other health care plans. Those plans do not currently exist because of the effect Medicare has on the market. But now that it's established you can't just pull the rug out from under those people because the alternatives that would otherwise exist are not available to them.

 

The point is not necessarily to say there should be no social programs, but simply that they should be well thought out and very cautiously undertaken, if at all.

 

Now, if we were just talking about Medicare for all, or student debt relief, I may oppose it, but I wouldn't be as concerned. But add to that government imposed price controls (i.e. doubling Fed min wage), abolishing private insurance outright, free college, expanding social security, de facto open borders, and the albatross that is the green new deal, and the picture gets really clear. And that's just what they're talking about right now. 

 

Where does it end? 

 

Do we really believe if they were able to enact everything I just listed that it would end their push for more government control? The key question that no one ever asks is when will it be enough? It seems the answer is never.

 

The reality is that there's no way to pay for even that. Raising the top marginal tax rate on the 1%, closing "loopholes," and trimming the defense budget isn't going to cut it. In fact, it won't even put a dent in it. Neither would the Warren wealth tax (which is unconstitutional anyway).

 

We're already running a nearly $1 trillion deficit with over 2/3 of the budget going to transfer payments. Taxes, like all things, are subject to the law of diminishing returns. You can't just double the tax rate and get double the revenue.

 

So what happens as we move further down the road to socialism? Is it hard to envision a scenario where the desired outcomes have not been achieved and those who see socialism and the power federal government as the mechanism for addressing economic inequality begin to nationalize industry? Because that's where you take the step from Swede to Soviet.

 

When the economy suffers a depression, can you envision a charismatic socialist leader scapegoating industry leaders, confiscating their businesses, and running them as government entities, thus making all people government workers?

 

When all people are government workers, and thus the government necessarily dictates your station in life, do the people have any bargaining power or choice?

 

If not, is there a meaningful distinction between that and slavery?

 

These are things to consider. I'm clearly not saying this is the inevitable outcome of a Bernie Sanders Presidency, but I am saying this is a realistic scenario should we continue down that path, and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because we assume others share our sensibilities.

 

Also, if you're looking for a man, I'd recommend checking out some MAGA bros if you're into the whole political thing. Unfortunately, I'm not available, but there are plenty of handsome young men with the confidence to forge their own way in the world that I'm sure you would find far more satisfying than a jaded Bernie bro. I can even return the favor and put in a good word for you.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

I was reading on another site that campaign finance laws are such that if mini-Mike suspends his campaign (assuming he can’t buy the nomination) he can “loan” his staff to the nominee.

 

Now, I am not certain how that is much different monetarily than his directly donating to the campaign (he has money to burn), but if he assembles a competent staff (word is he is paying better than anyone else) and has access to a lot of dirt and accurate polling ...

 

Anyhooo... anyone have any thoughts or ideas how that could play out?

Edited February 11, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[ComradeKayAdams]

9 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

This started as Bernie and Tulsi can beat Trump.  You'll need to back up some of your economic comments.  Unemployment has dropped almost continually since before Obama's 2nd term.  Same with the poverty rate.  Wages for most earners have grown during this same period.  Taxes for most are now less.  The USMCA deal was signed last month?  Hard to judge that yet.  The bottom 20% of Americans have achieved the least wage growth since WWII.  Nothing new there.  Most of them deserve their place IMO based on them making a  lifetime of decisions that keep them there or they're content to be there.  (disabled excluded).  I've hired and fired a bunch of them over the years. 

 

This discussion with lefties always ends up in the same place.  Tax and spend.  Pols of a certain ideology buying votes on the promise of other people's money.  It's an incredibly lazy and simplistic approach to solving "problems" 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be more than happy to do so this weekend and beyond, but honest question first: what will be the appetite for it here? Two main problems I foresee:

 

1. This forum comes across a bit like a monolithic right-wing echo-chamber with very ossified political beliefs. I don't mean to say this in an antagonistic way or with any genuine malice, but I don't want to waste hours of my free time trying to persuade people who can't possibly be persuaded. I waste enough current free time as it is on the hopeless pit of despair that has become the Buffalo Sabres. I'd much rather have fun with y'all here picking on the rest of the establishment Democrats while also keeping you informed of the Bernie side of things in the great Progressives vs. Centrists civil war brewing within the Dem Party. I have read everyone's responses and I understand your frustration with progressives. Y'all have worked very hard throughout your lives, have made smart and responsible choices, and don't want the government to wastefully extract your hard-earned resources only to enable a bunch of freeloaders. I don't know what more I can truly say on this other than to just try and meet more people outside your immediate social circles such as people from the working class or people under 40. Have open political conversations with them, listen to their concerns, share yours, and don't get too emotionally worked up over it all.

 

2. The wonky econ papers, data, and links I have come from Keynesian economics Ivy League professor types who - I can only assume - have voted all their lives for Democrats and various left-wingers. I have a hunch that this info will not be well-received here, regardless of the perceived quality of the content. Yes, I've been lurking in the global warming thread for a while...I see what people here think about the world of academia! And just to reiterate, the fundamental assertion of progressives is not that the overall economy since 1980 has not been improving at the macroeconomic scale; the assertion is that it has only ranged from stable to thriving for the professional, managerial, and millionaire/billionaire classes while leaving the working class much worse off (i.e. those without college degrees, those without any stake in the stock market, etc.). Moreover, the situation has now grown even worse since 2008 to include the Millenials and (soon to be) Generation Z of just about every socioeconomic class as they enter the workforce. That last sentence is super important, SO I HAVE DECIDED TO TYPE IN CAPS TO CAPTURE ATTENTION. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON FOR BERNIE'S RAPID RISE IN POPULARITY. IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF "SOCIALISM" AND WANT TO STOP IT, YOUR "TEAM" NEEDS TO ARTICULATE WAYS OF ALLEVIATING THE ECONOMIC CONSTERNATIONS OF MILLENIALS AND GENERATION Z. OTHERWISE, YOU COULD SOON LOSE YOUR POLITICAL POWER. PERHAPS THE VERY FIRST STEP TO STOPPING THIS MOVEMENT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM FOR THEM THAT HAS BEEN FESTERING SINCE 1980 BUT ESPECIALLY SINCE 2008. IGNORING THE REALITIES OF THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION BY LABELING THE UNDER-40 AND WORKING CLASS WORKFORCE AS LAZY, DUMB, AND ENTITLED IS NEITHER ECONOMICALLY ACCURATE NOR POLITICALLY SALABLE.

[4merper4mer]

17 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This is a very common mis-characterization of Bernie supporters.  They're not all kids.  A LOT of them are older people too. 

Throwback hippy commies.

[Doc Brown]

26 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

I would be more than happy to do so this weekend and beyond, but honest question first: what will be the appetite for it here? Two main problems I foresee:

 

1. This forum comes across a bit like a monolithic right-wing echo-chamber with very ossified political beliefs. I don't mean to say this in an antagonistic way or with any genuine malice, but I don't want to waste hours of my free time trying to persuade people who can't possibly be persuaded. I waste enough current free time as it is on the hopeless pit of despair that has become the Buffalo Sabres. I'd much rather have fun with y'all here picking on the rest of the establishment Democrats while also keeping you informed of the Bernie side of things in the great Progressives vs. Centrists civil war brewing within the Dem Party. I have read everyone's responses and I understand your frustration with progressives. Y'all have worked very hard throughout your lives, have made smart and responsible choices, and don't want the government to wastefully extract your hard-earned resources only to enable a bunch of freeloaders. I don't know what more I can truly say on this other than to just try and meet more people outside your immediate social circles such as people from the working class or people under 40. Have open political conversations with them, listen to their concerns, share yours, and don't get too emotionally worked up over it all.

 

2. The wonky econ papers, data, and links I have come from Keynesian economics Ivy League professor types who - I can only assume - have voted all their lives for Democrats and various left-wingers. I have a hunch that this info will not be well-received here, regardless of the perceived quality of the content. Yes, I've been lurking in the global warming thread for a while...I see what people here think about the world of academia! And just to reiterate, the fundamental assertion of progressives is not that the overall economy since 1980 has not been improving at the macroeconomic scale; the assertion is that it has only ranged from stable to thriving for the professional, managerial, and millionaire/billionaire classes while leaving the working class much worse off (i.e. those without college degrees, those without any stake in the stock market, etc.). Moreover, the situation has now grown even worse since 2008 to include the Millenials and (soon to be) Generation Z of just about every socioeconomic class as they enter the workforce. That last sentence is super important, SO I HAVE DECIDED TO TYPE IN CAPS TO CAPTURE ATTENTION. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON FOR BERNIE'S RAPID RISE IN POPULARITY. IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF "SOCIALISM" AND WANT TO STOP IT, YOUR "TEAM" NEEDS TO ARTICULATE WAYS OF ALLEVIATING THE ECONOMIC CONSTERNATIONS OF MILLENIALS AND GENERATION Z. OTHERWISE, YOU COULD SOON LOSE YOUR POLITICAL POWER. PERHAPS THE VERY FIRST STEP TO STOPPING THIS MOVEMENT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM FOR THEM THAT HAS BEEN FESTERING SINCE 1980 BUT ESPECIALLY SINCE 2008. IGNORING THE REALITIES OF THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION BY LABELING THE UNDER-40 AND WORKING CLASS WORKFORCE AS LAZY, DUMB, AND ENTITLED IS NEITHER ECONOMICALLY ACCURATE NOR POLITICALLY SALABLE.

LOL.  I appreciate your candor.  The baby boomers millenial fight is always funny to me because we're the one's that raised them.  The 2008 crash, the diluted value of a four year degree, and the rise of home costs are some of the reasons millenials gravitate towards Bernie.  Basically, economic insecurity.  Also, young people in general are naturally more idealistic.  Calling for a revolution instead of gradual change is an easier sell.

[ComradeKayAdams]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I was reading on another site that campaign finance laws are such that if mini-Mike suspends his campaign (assuming he can’t buy the nomination) he can “loan” his staff to the nominee.

 

Now, I am not certain how that is much different monetarily than his directly donating to the campaign (he has money to burn), but if he assembles a competent staff (word is he is paying better than anyone else) and has access to a lot of dirt and accurate polling ...

 

Anyhooo... anyone have any thoughts or ideas how that could play out?

 

Very good question. I don't know the right answer to it, but I can try asking around. I am involved at the very bottom rungs of Bernie's national campaign, but I do know higher-ups who probaby know the answer. Everyone here has already assumed that the DNC and the establishment Dems will do everything they can to bend the rules and rig the system in their favor, so I assume that someone somewhere here has already researched your question.

 

Public policy disagreements aside, I find Bloomberg's campaign strategy entirely nonsensical. When you whip up a political machine at the last second, your ground game and grassroots infrastructure is going to have a lot of holes. Bloomberg can spam the Super Tuesday states with lame advertisments all he wants, but human connections built up over time matter. He also has no apparent answer for the other centrist establishment candidates running interference in the race, such as Pete the Cheat and Sloppy Joe (and also Amy K....we're keeping a cautious eye on her). Furthermore, I don't know exactly how he will be able to pivot from longtime Republican to suddenly staunch Democrat. There is a lot of dirt on him....it will be quite the magical transformation if he is able to pull it off. Somene like Trump could maybe do it, but Bloomberg has only a small fraction of the natural charisma that Trump has.

 

His most ridiculous ploy is skipping the first four states of the primary season like they somehow don't matter. Bold strategy, Cotton! Um…let's see if it pays off?? Meanwhile, over here in Bernie Land, we've been carefully laying the foundation of a highly organized political campaign for AN ENTIRE YEAR. We are now a female majority movement. We own the Millenials and Generation Z. We dominate the working class. We've been slowly taking over the Latino vote too, thanks in large part to national strategists like Chuck Rocha (still waiting on Nevada polling, but we're cautiously optimistic). Independents voting in the primaries? We're leading in the polls for this group as well. There's some polling evidence that Sanders is winning back some of the white working class "Deplorables" of the Midwest that Hillary pushed away in 2016. White college-educated liberals? We've been picking some of them off from Warren's carcass since mid-January. I implore anyone to go check out Bernie's polling numbers in California! Now go check out Bloomberg's too! And most importantly: while Joe Biden has been busy creeping up on little girls from behind and challenging voters to pushups, us Sandernistas have been quietly chipping away at his alleged Southern Democrat "firewall," making inroads with the older African-American base thanks to people like Nina Turner and influential activists like Killer Mike. Biden's firewall should start collapsing any minute now. It could happen tomorrow, next week, or maybe as late as the day of South Carolina's primary. But there is some optimism here that it's on the verge of happening.

 

In conclusion: Bloomberg and the DNC establishment can play around with the rules all they want, but they may be too late in coordinating a counter attack on the progressives. We have the high ground on 'em! Bernie's campaign has moved WAY beyond the sloppy 2016 days and is now WAY more diverse than the pejorative Bernie Bro stereotype of the angry, misogynistic white male trolling in mommy's basement in-between Antifa meetup sessions. Can't wait to clean house at the July convention! Sayonara, neoliberal scum!

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 hours ago, KayAdams said:

 

Very good question. I don't know the right answer to it, but I can try asking around. I am involved at the very bottom rungs of Bernie's national campaign, but I do know higher-ups who probaby know the answer. Everyone here has already assumed that the DNC and the establishment Dems will do everything they can to bend the rules and rig the system in their favor, so I assume that someone somewhere here has already researched your question.

 

Public policy disagreements aside, I find Bloomberg's campaign strategy entirely nonsensical. When you whip up a political machine at the last second, your ground game and grassroots infrastructure is going to have a lot of holes. Bloomberg can spam the Super Tuesday states with lame advertisments all he wants, but human connections built up over time matter. He also has no apparent answer for the other centrist establishment candidates running interference in the race, such as Pete the Cheat and Sloppy Joe (and also Amy K....we're keeping a cautious eye on her). Furthermore, I don't know exactly how he will be able to pivot from longtime Republican to suddenly staunch Democrat. There is a lot of dirt on him....it will be quite the magical transformation if he is able to pull it off. Somene like Trump could maybe do it, but Bloomberg has only a small fraction of the natural charisma that Trump has.

 

His most ridiculous ploy is skipping the first four states of the primary season like they somehow don't matter. Bold strategy, Cotton! Um…let's see if it pays off?? Meanwhile, over here in Bernie Land, we've been carefully laying the foundation of a highly organized political campaign for AN ENTIRE YEAR. We are now a female majority movement. We own the Millenials and Generation Z. We dominate the working class. We've been slowly taking over the Latino vote too, thanks in large part to national strategists like Chuck Rocha (still waiting on Nevada polling, but we're cautiously optimistic). Independents voting in the primaries? We're leading in the polls for this group as well. There's some polling evidence that Sanders is winning back some of the white working class "Deplorables" of the Midwest that Hillary pushed away in 2016. White college-educated liberals? We've been picking some of them off from Warren's carcass since mid-January. I implore anyone to go check out Bernie's polling numbers in California! Now go check out Bloomberg's too! And most importantly: while Joe Biden has been busy creeping up on little girls from behind and challenging voters to pushups, us Sandernistas have been quietly chipping away at his alleged Southern Democrat "firewall," making inroads with the older African-American base thanks to people like Nina Turner and influential activists like Killer Mike. Biden's firewall should start collapsing any minute now. It could happen tomorrow, next week, or maybe as late as the day of South Carolina's primary. But there is some optimism here that it's on the verge of happening.

 

In conclusion: Bloomberg and the DNC establishment can play around with the rules all they want, but they may be too late in coordinating a counter attack on the progressives. We have the high ground on 'em! Bernie's campaign has moved WAY beyond the sloppy 2016 days and is now WAY more diverse than the pejorative Bernie Bro stereotype of the angry, misogynistic white male trolling in mommy's basement in-between Antifa meetup sessions. Can't wait to clean house at the July convention! Sayonara, neoliberal scum!

A lot packed in there...

 

If you feel like asking, I would love to know the campaign’s thoughts.
 

My personal belief is the DNC does not allow Bernie the nomination. They ***** him and paid him off before, and this time, since the DNC is broke and none of the “real” candidates have Hillary-money... the payoff has to come from mini-Mike, or Tom-the-Dud... or possibly Yang since he thinks paying people off is a great idea!

 

I hope Bernie holds out for more than another house though. He’s really earned a good paycheck from the headaches he’s given the DNC. I just hope he does not have another heart attack before he cashes in.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal
None

[GG]

9 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What happened was that the Marxists of the late 60’s and early 70’s, Weather Underground types, stayed in academia as teachers.  They took over university systems which are now entrenched in post-modernist neo-Marxism; and the unions monopolized K-12.

 

They’ve been indoctrinating generations of kids, while at the same time soaking them in tens of thousands of dollars in debt to attend the indoctrination seminars, all the while casting the students as victims.

 

Combine that with the remarkable sense of entitlement that has come with being coddled by helicopter parents in the age of hedonism and instant gratification... and, boom, here we are.

 

Here’s the rub though:  I don’t care.

 

Taking from people who produce and plan in order to compensate other people for their bad decisions is unethical and immoral.

 

I'd add that we reached the only downside of capitalism in advanced societies, which breeds contempt and envy.  In a land of availability and opulence, many people stopped measuring their progress from where they came from, and now rue the place where they didn't end up.   That's why income inequality pops up into the discussion so much. 

 

It doesn't matter that the US poor have so many more options than they ever did, apparently the only thing that matters is that they don't have Jeff Bezos's checkbook.  And the only solution is apparently to empty Bezos's checkbook and redistribute his cash.

 

The biggest problem that socialists have is not understanding the true incentives to invest and innovate.  Bernie & his acolytes think that the economy will chug along just as well under a heavily taxed and regulated environment, and workers will be as productive.

[KRC]

1 hour ago, KayAdams said:

 

I would be more than happy to do so this weekend and beyond, but honest question first: what will be the appetite for it here? Two main problems I foresee:

 

1. This forum comes across a bit like a monolithic right-wing echo-chamber with very ossified political beliefs. I don't mean to say this in an antagonistic way or with any genuine malice, but I don't want to waste hours of my free time trying to persuade people who can't possibly be persuaded. I waste enough current free time as it is on the hopeless pit of despair that has become the Buffalo Sabres. I'd much rather have fun with y'all here picking on the rest of the establishment Democrats while also keeping you informed of the Bernie side of things in the great Progressives vs. Centrists civil war brewing within the Dem Party. I have read everyone's responses and I understand your frustration with progressives. Y'all have worked very hard throughout your lives, have made smart and responsible choices, and don't want the government to wastefully extract your hard-earned resources only to enable a bunch of freeloaders. I don't know what more I can truly say on this other than to just try and meet more people outside your immediate social circles such as people from the working class or people under 40. Have open political conversations with them, listen to their concerns, share yours, and don't get too emotionally worked up over it all.

 

2. The wonky econ papers, data, and links I have come from Keynesian economics Ivy League professor types who - I can only assume - have voted all their lives for Democrats and various left-wingers. I have a hunch that this info will not be well-received here, regardless of the perceived quality of the content. Yes, I've been lurking in the global warming thread for a while...I see what people here think about the world of academia! And just to reiterate, the fundamental assertion of progressives is not that the overall economy since 1980 has not been improving at the macroeconomic scale; the assertion is that it has only ranged from stable to thriving for the professional, managerial, and millionaire/billionaire classes while leaving the working class much worse off (i.e. those without college degrees, those without any stake in the stock market, etc.). Moreover, the situation has now grown even worse since 2008 to include the Millenials and (soon to be) Generation Z of just about every socioeconomic class as they enter the workforce. That last sentence is super important, SO I HAVE DECIDED TO TYPE IN CAPS TO CAPTURE ATTENTION. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON FOR BERNIE'S RAPID RISE IN POPULARITY. IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF "SOCIALISM" AND WANT TO STOP IT, YOUR "TEAM" NEEDS TO ARTICULATE WAYS OF ALLEVIATING THE ECONOMIC CONSTERNATIONS OF MILLENIALS AND GENERATION Z. OTHERWISE, YOU COULD SOON LOSE YOUR POLITICAL POWER. PERHAPS THE VERY FIRST STEP TO STOPPING THIS MOVEMENT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM FOR THEM THAT HAS BEEN FESTERING SINCE 1980 BUT ESPECIALLY SINCE 2008. IGNORING THE REALITIES OF THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION BY LABELING THE UNDER-40 AND WORKING CLASS WORKFORCE AS LAZY, DUMB, AND ENTITLED IS NEITHER ECONOMICALLY ACCURATE NOR POLITICALLY SALABLE.

 

I have no trouble with opposing viewpoints if it is backed up with sound logic and not just feelz. For example, how is Bernie going to pay for all of the free stuff he is promising? If you tax the top 1% at a 100% tax rate, you still do not pay for student loan forgiveness. That means you need to tax more people just to pay for that one program. Then you have the College for All program, New Green Deal, Medicare for All, Economic Bill of Rights, Housing for All, Eliminating Medical Debt, Expanding Social Security, as well as everything else he is promising. He wants to double union membership his first term. That is more out of people's pockets in union dues. I would also like to he how he gets around the court rulings that you cannot mandate that people join a union. Economically, I do not see it without massive wealth redistribution. He hints at it by attacking billionaires, but even with that, there is not enough to pay for everything.

[ComradeKayAdams]

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

A lot packed in there...

 

If you feel like asking, I would love to know the campaign’s thoughts.
 

My personal belief is the DNC does not allow Bernie the nomination. They ***** him and paid him off before, and this time, since the DNC is broke and non of the “real” candidates have Hillary-money... the payoff has to come from mini-Mike, or Tom-the-Dud... or possibly Yang since he thinks paying people off is a great idea!

 

I hope Bernie holds out for more than another house though. He’s really earned a good paycheck from the headaches he’s given the DNC. I just hope he does not have another heart attack before he cashes in.

 

 

 

Ok, yes I will be happy to get any inside info I can and share it with everyone here. Just realize that I am merely a local volunteer with no actual power or access to campaign bigwigs. Any insight or opinions I share are either my own or secondhand scuttlebutt. Speaking of BUTT....no one in the Bernie campaign seems to have any fear of Pete BUTTigieg. But I guess that's not really earth-shattering insight, since anyone with a brain realizes that you can't win the Democratic nomination if you are polling 0.00% with African-Americans and any person of color really. The one I'm hearing who is most concerning is Amy K, so tonight is very important for her. If she finishes in a strong NH third, she could be a viable centrist for the party to rally around. Otherwise, her campaign will be running on financial fumes and will probably collapse before Super Tuesday. Warren is also still in play. She could still rebound, but she needs to do it tonight. Bernie's campaign strategy has been to stay away from slinging too much mud at the girls because of the PC woke culture within the Dem Party. Let them all murder each other, then show up later to pick up the scraps. It's the Katniss Everdeen strategy in the first Hunger Games movie, really, but again...this is more in the domain of common sense than amazing Deep Throat insight, so full apologies...

 

While I type with bravado and bluster for fun, I am also very much aware that Bernie's chances are still kind of low simply because there are so many variables at play during the primary season and because he is so very much despised among many within the Democrat Party, the mainstream media, and beyond. I mean...just read the responses in this thread to get a sense of what Bernie is facing between now and November! But I get the sense that everyone involved in the campaign knows this. Chris Matthews types aren't abstract holograms; they show up all the time during campaign activities. The playbook against Bernie is fully anticipated: he's too old, he doesn't get along with people, he has low opinions of women, and he's a socialist. These same 4 concerns will be repeated ad nauseam. The election season will be a long referendum on socialism. If Bernie can convince Americans of the need for a reasonable social safety net, then he wins. If not? Then we're headed to the dustbin of history alongside George McGovern.

 

I will say this, though, since I don't know how many Millenials y'all run into in your day-to-day life: people don't have the same aversion to the word "socialism" as the older crowd does. There is a VERY stark contrast between the Boomers and the Millenials on the campaign trial, with Gen X'ers somewhere in between. Many of us don't even have a single memory of a world in which the specter of the Soviet Union hung over the country. The "socialism" scare tactics are clearly not resonating with the Millenials; conversely, the more  accurate "social democracy" message is only getting minimal traction with Boomers. This election is really more about rallying your troops on election day than it is with public policy persuasion. I will say this with great conviction: the Bernie Bros and Bernie Hos are EXTREMELY motivated to get out and vote. Voter apathy is historically a trend for younger people, but this is a new era of political populism and all bets are off.

[snafu]

8 hours ago, njbuff said:

Bloomberg mentioned all facts there, yet he would get blasted for it if he were on the right.

 

If he said it while Mayor, then he was technically a Republican. 

He’s switched back and forth. He seems to use party labels as a path of least resistance to what position he’s running for. This isn’t a bad idea until he realizes that neither party particularly likes him for doing that — and he isn’t popular enough with voters to overcome it. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Rob's House said:

To clarify (although I think I was pretty clear), I'm not suggesting Bernie Sanders could be the next Stalin even if he wanted to be.

 

Whoever succeeds him would be more likely to be the next Stalin type. 

Bernie’s just there to plant the flag. He’s the true believer. There’s going to be one or two nutbags that completely bastardize what he stands for. 

 

Edit: I see you said this in the remainder of your post.  Sorry, I stopped reading a bit too early. 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by snafu