What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScoobyDoo said:
Aaah, yes. Cause the middle never seems to have a problem with a Right Wing Fascist. No problem at all.

****ing double standard.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole. But you've been fed that stuff for 2 years and believe it. Just as a large portion on the fanatical right believed BHO was a Kenyan born card carrying Muslim. You see what you want to believe.

Middle America will decide 2020. The coasts are deep blue. The South is reliably red. What the middle swath decides will determine who wins.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

joecct said:
Hyperbole. But you've been fed that stuff for 2 years and believe it. Just as a large portion on the fanatical right believed BHO was a Kenyan born card carrying Muslim. You see what you want to believe.

Middle America will decide 2020. The coasts are deep blue. The South is reliably red. What the middle swath decides will determine who wins.
Click to expand...

Yes, and anyone in the middle who votes again for Donald J. Trump is a ****ing moron.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

What is "middle America" and why does it necessarily decide the election? If the Dems win Florida the election is essentially over. If Chump wins Pennsylvania again the Dems are similarly screwed.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

joecct said:
tD will win if what the middle percieves as a left wing loonie is nominated.

I think tailhugger Joe is 4 years too late.
Click to expand...
Depends what you consider a LWL. Bernie has done well in every head to head poll vs Trump, better than Hillary for that matter.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Rover said:
It could want to go far left to make up for Trump's far right turn or it might look to snap back to the saner Obama years.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to leave this here as Rover's ultimate legacy because for once he's not being snarky. This is what he believes. It is probably what some in the Dem leadership believe. It is certainly what many of the Dems' richest donors believe.

It is the error that the average between equal offsetting moves is the absolute center. That is wrong. The average between equal offsetting moves is the relative center with respect to where you start.

The economic policy of this country has been moving farther and farther to the right for decades until it sits so far right now it is an outlier among western democracies. If we propose a move of x steps back to the left while R proposes an even further move of x steps to the right, splitting the difference between them and remaining in place is not "centrist." Nor is a small move to the left after an enormous move to the right "leftist." Obama's well-intentioned albeit small move back towards the left, reduced by far right obstruction to an even more meager move, still gave us insanely rightwing policy. Bare sanity would require retaking ALL of the ground lost since Reagan. That would be centrist.

To date I have seen no 2020 Democratic presidential candidate propose a "leftist" economic policy. Not even Bernie. What they propose is damage control that still leaves us with rightwing policy that harms America. Bernie gets us maybe halfway back towards the center. Warren maybe a third. Biden barely budges us. None of them result in America having a leftist economic policy. I don't see anybody proposing to nationalize the fossil fuel industry or put a hard cap on wealth. That's leftism. When somebody does that you can talk about "lunacy" (where by lunacy you merely mean you don't believe in leftist policy).

Until then we are still just talking about putting out the fires the GOP started, not building anything new to make human lives better.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Kep, what you're proposing isn't leftism, its communism. That's fine, but call it for what it is. Your standard for what is considered moderate progressivism seems to be way left of where even the Dems are. That's not a winning strategy electorally unless you convince a lot of people in a relatively short amount of time (realistically we should know who the nominee is by this time next year).
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Kepler said:
To date I have seen no 2020 Democratic presidential candidate propose a "leftist" economic policy. Not even Bernie. What they propose is damage control that still leaves us with rightwing policy that harms America. Bernie gets us maybe halfway back towards the center. Warren maybe a third. Biden barely budges us. None of them result in America having a leftist economic policy.
Click to expand...
Why would you propose a leftist policy when you can make $700/hour consulting with corporations and insurance companies about how to get out of thorny bankruptcy problems while pretending to be a leftist? :confused:
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Kepler said:
I'm just going to leave this here as Rover's ultimate legacy because for once he's not being snarky. This is what he believes. It is probably what some in the Dem leadership believe. It is certainly what many of the Dems' richest donors believe.

It is the error that the average between equal offsetting moves is the absolute center. That is wrong. The average between equal offsetting moves is the relative center with respect to where you start.

The economic policy of this country has been moving farther and farther to the right for decades until it sits so far right now it is an outlier among western democracies. If we propose a move of x steps back to the left while R proposes an even further move of x steps to the right, splitting the difference between them and remaining in place is not "centrist." Nor is a small move to the left after an enormous move to the right "leftist." Obama's well-intentioned albeit small move back towards the left, reduced by far right obstruction to an even more meager move, still gave us insanely rightwing policy. Bare sanity would require retaking ALL of the ground lost since Reagan. That would be centrist.

To date I have seen no 2020 Democratic presidential candidate propose a "leftist" economic policy. Not even Bernie. What they propose is damage control that still leaves us with rightwing policy that harms America. Bernie gets us maybe halfway back towards the center. Warren maybe a third. Biden barely budges us. None of them result in America having a leftist economic policy. I don't see anybody proposing to nationalize the fossil fuel industry or put a hard cap on wealth. That's leftism. When somebody does that you can talk about "lunacy" (where by lunacy you merely mean you don't believe in leftist policy).

Until then we are still just talking about putting out the fires the GOP started, not building anything new to make human lives better.
Click to expand...

Awesome post. I agree 100%.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

trixR4kids said:
Due to how deeply unpopular Trump is you could maybe just eek out a narrow victory with "TRUMP BAD!" and nothing else (the Biden strategy). But given how close last election was and the fact that I want to win the long game (something the Republicans have undoubtedly done over the past 40 years and it's not even close) I'd like to see someone with more ambitious policy proposals to fix our unsustainable economy, healthcare system, and worsening climate. If you don't have any actual solutions for the latter, even if the D's win next election you're just gonna see a wave the other way in 4-8 years and it's unlikely that the Republicans are going to become less fascist in the future.
Click to expand...
I get that we need a strong swing back to the left. Kep touched on this point in a later post which I'll comment on in a sec.

What I'm suggesting is that we use 2020 just to get our foot in the door so to speak. Trying to swing everyone dead left will leave some behind (like what Bernie-Bros did to Hilary in 2016). That's why I think we go with the "safe" route next year. Don't swing for a home run when a single through the infield will suffice ;)

Kepler said:
I'm just going to leave this here as Rover's ultimate legacy because for once he's not being snarky. This is what he believes. It is probably what some in the Dem leadership believe. It is certainly what many of the Dems' richest donors believe.

It is the error that the average between equal offsetting moves is the absolute center. That is wrong. The average between equal offsetting moves is the relative center with respect to where you start.

The economic policy of this country has been moving farther and farther to the right for decades until it sits so far right now it is an outlier among western democracies. If we propose a move of x steps back to the left while R proposes an even further move of x steps to the right, splitting the difference between them and remaining in place is not "centrist." Nor is a small move to the left after an enormous move to the right "leftist." Obama's well-intentioned albeit small move back towards the left, reduced by far right obstruction to an even more meager move, still gave us insanely rightwing policy. Bare sanity would require retaking ALL of the ground lost since Reagan. That would be centrist.

To date I have seen no 2020 Democratic presidential candidate propose a "leftist" economic policy. Not even Bernie. What they propose is damage control that still leaves us with rightwing policy that harms America. Bernie gets us maybe halfway back towards the center. Warren maybe a third. Biden barely budges us. None of them result in America having a leftist economic policy. I don't see anybody proposing to nationalize the fossil fuel industry or put a hard cap on wealth. That's leftism. When somebody does that you can talk about "lunacy" (where by lunacy you merely mean you don't believe in leftist policy).

Until then we are still just talking about putting out the fires the GOP started, not building anything new to make human lives better.
Click to expand...

This is where the Left needs to take the long game. Like I mentioned above to Trix: The system is royally out of "common sense" alignment right now. There is no way this can all be corrected in just one or two election cycles. This is going to take a decade or more of gradual nudging and prodding to get people back to using their **** heads to think crap out. We also do need to shift to a perspective where people care about the greater good to a larger degree instead of their own, individual well being...

Yes, Biden is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. But under him, you can start to swing congress left. Slowly expose the R's for what they are. Turn more states purple. Then in 2028 and beyond is where you can bring in someone who is "Bernie or beyond"...

(Full disclosure: I've never really followed politics in depth until this recent cycle. But the current state of things has me in a not great life position. I'm not the only one like this who is becoming more politically aware/active. This is what the D's need to utilize. We can and will have a bigger voice than the 4th/5th generation rednecks from the South.)
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

RaceBoarder said:
I get that we need a strong swing back to the left. Kep touched on this point in a later post which I'll comment on in a sec.

What I'm suggesting is that we use 2020 just to get our foot in the door so to speak. Trying to swing everyone dead left will leave some behind (like what Bernie-Bros did to Hilary in 2016). That's why I think we go with the "safe" route next year. Don't swing for a home run when a single through the infield will suffice ;)
Click to expand...
We've tried this since like... the 60's? It's resulted in all the current problems we face gradually getting worse to the point where people have welcomed fascism with open arms. Given how unpopular Trump is (38% approval? I suppose it's possible the polls are underestimating his support) it's possible that the people who went Obama -> Trump are gonna go back but they could just as easily go 3rd party or leave it blank this time around as well if we have someone like Biden as the D nominee.

But as I've said in previous posts including the Henry Giroux quote, if we don't propose real solutions to these ever worsening problems there's no reason to think that history won't repeat it

Trying to swing everyone dead left will leave some behind (like what Bernie-Bros did to Hilary in 2016).
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea what this means. The economic/trade policies of the Obamas and Clintons of the world has left large swaths of the population behind economically and inequality/poverty has just grown significantly worse during that time, our climate is even more ****ed, less people have access to healthcare than before, medical bankruptcies are up, and the unsustainable "status quo" isn't working anymore. I'd fear that far more people are gonna get left behind trying to "get our foot in the door" with someone like Biden who has all but said he plans to do nothing about any of this stuff. His climate adviser got $1 million from the fossil fuel industry. He has a Blackwater lobbyist as another adviser. He's already on record saying that Republicans are his friends and that Trump is the only problem with the other side. There's no reason to think him winning is going to result in anything different than what we saw post Clinton and post Obama (and this pheonomena isn't exclusive to this country either as we've seen with the international wave of right wing populism).
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Guys, you're all missing something vital. In the rush to get to socialism or enshrine Obama-ism, none of this will occur without one thing which is the first priority. More so than throwing Chump in jail, or raising taxes to 200% on upper earners, or replacing Columbus Day with Lenin Day.

This country, and in the process the Democrats, need to pass robust voting rights legislation for the 21st century. None of the Dems currently running, nor any of the Dems currently serving in the House or Senate, will vote against expanded voter rights. Outlaw all of the shenanigans with polling places, voter ID's, disenfranchisement, voter roll purges, etc and watch the GOP lose one of their main tools for holding onto power. When you realize that this is issue 1 and 1A, a Biden or Booker or Joe freakin' Manchin Presidency becomes a lot more welcome, because the fate of any great social legislation in the future depends on it. Keep your eyes on the prize, people.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Couldn't that just get struck down by the SC? (assuming it even passes)

That's the other thing, we need someone who will actually fight to pack the Supreme Court and let's just say some candidates are more likely to do that than others.
 
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

trixR4kids said:
Couldn't that just get struck down by the SC? (assuming it even passes)

That's the other thing, we need someone who will actually fight to pack the Supreme Court and let's just say some candidates are more likely to do that than others.
Click to expand...

Not if Roberts sticks to his past rulings. I'll defer to the legal experts, but IMHO Roberts didn't overturn the VRA. What he ruled was that the map from the 1960's that determined what states or areas needed pre-clearance from the justice department was invalid because several of those places were majority non-white at this point. He also said that Congress was free to write a new map, although assuredly he realized that would not happen with a GOP Congress in charge.

Congress can and already has set standards for voter registration (the Motor Voter Law) as well as anti-discrimination (the VRA, where the part about how you can't pack minorities into a single district to create more white districts is still the law). It can update as needed, although it should leave alone anything citizens united related until the court makeup changes. I'd also do gerrymandering separately as its unclear as to what direction the SCOTUS is going on that.

EDIT: Some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One

Yeah... I don't see any reason to have faith in the SC not striking down a voting rights law, especially under an even more ridiculous makeup than what it was in 2013. They basically just ignored the 15th amendment with that ruling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top