Jump to content

Kalbear

Members
  • Content count

    50,242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kalbear

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://addictedtoquack.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The worst BwB meetup area EVER

Recent Profile Visitors

20,249 profile views
  1. Kalbear

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    Gonna make a prediction you can call me on later - South Carolina is going to go hard for Biden and fuck up all the narratives.
  2. Kalbear

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    Seems appropriate
  3. Kalbear

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    I'm not voting for sanders unless he pledges to have Selina Meyer as his running mate. She's young, popular and has a strong following.
  4. The last three eps should satisfy, then.
  5. It is a lot less shocking when you remember how many latino voters are catholic.
  6. Because those progressives won in districts Clinton won. Read what I wrote.
  7. Why is this so funny? There are a whole lot of black voters who are not remotely about things like m4a, or socialism, or hell, a Jewish president. Or, really, who do not trust Sanders one bit and will simply choose not to vote if it's Sanders. I know of a lot of these voters, including a friend of mine. It's really not hard to find, honestly. An issue is that as bad as Trump has been overall, most AA voters have a deep distrust of the government making things better for them in any realistic way, so for them Trump and Sanders isn't that big a deal. Will Trump be racist and promote shitty policies? Yep! Is that the status quo for, like, the last 50 years? Also yep!
  8. That's probably the right thing to do in an incumbency election, yes. Especially one with a solid economy. There are a lot of natural negatives against you in an incumbency, and it's very risky to be the person proposing massive change when things are largely going well for most people. There's very little alternative at this point. That isn't really the issue. It isn't about pointing out that someone better should have come along, because I agree - there's really no one better this time. Biden sucks, Buttigieg is gay, Warren is a woman, Harris was also a woman, Klobuchar is a woman, Bloomberg is a whole pile of suck. Sanders can both simultaneously be the best possible candidate (though I think Warren would have been better overall) AND be a net liability. This isn't a zero-sum game. My suspicion is that if Warren had stuck to her strong anti-corruption game, rallied against plutocrats and oligarchs and all of that, ran on her record of that, she'd have the best chance to defeat a historically corrupt POTUS. But she didn't because she was also running against Sanders and Biden, and she's out of luck. A Clinton loss was indicative that the US is not ready for women to win,. especially when paired with the misogynistic asshole that was Trump. More than anything else, 2016 was a clear indication that the US is simply not ready for that. Clinton wasn't running on better healthcare nearly as much as she was running to be the first woman POTUS. And that was soundly rejected. Sanders is running heavily on M4A. Really, he's running on doing a lot of socialist practices, and that's likely going to set all of those back. Depends heavily on who you ask and how. Among who? Black voters? Suburban white women? Men without a college degree? Again, generically popular does not mean shit if you're not taking into account who is voting and where. It does not do anyone any good if he wins California 80% to 20% but loses Michigan.
  9. That all can be true, and yet it remains incredibly fucking stupid for a US politician in the 60s and 70s and 80s to support the Soviet Union in any single way. This is much like a US politician advocating support of the Nazis in the 30s and 40s. It would be absurdly self-defeating.
  10. Both things are wrong here. One is that it did not emphatically help women in the 2020 election - women getting elected in legislatures isn't a problem, it's executives that are an issue - and the other is that progressives fared worse across the board in general. Who ended up winning were largely moderate democrats running on healthcare rights, gun laws and anti-corruption. Every single progressive candidate running in a district that Trump won which was backed by Sanders' group lost. Every single one. I'm far less concerned about what intelligent people are thinking and more concerned about what the general electorate thinks. Maybe. In my case, what I'm concerned about with Sanders has nothing to do with his policy goals (which I'm largely in alignment with) and more to do with Sanders personally. Because so much of this movement is not based on ideals but is based on Sanders, a lot of it is tied intrinsically to him - and he, the candidate, has a lot of flaws. But as I've said several times before, the real problem is that I remained entirely pessimistic about anyone's chances to beat Trump this cycle. And of the ones who could lose, Sanders losing is the one that will likely cause the most down-ballot damage and the one who will set a lot of policy goals I have back.
  11. I didnt say the party disappeared. And that is an especially odd argument given Sanders isn't a democrat. What I said is that it will be taken as a sign that progressives cannot win. That m4a cannot win. You can say it is ridiculous, but this is exactly what has happened every time either party has tried something new and failed. The party then overreacts and goes the other way. So, yes, if Sanders loses it will be used against all progressives in the future as evidence they cannot win, and centrists will be given more ammo. And when Clinton lost to trump women running for the potus was given a major blow.
  12. First, Al Gore wasnt the first of his kind running for anything. Second, it did actually mean running on climate change as an issue was dealt a blow.
  13. Theres a lot of data out there indicating that depending on what you think the election will be like. If you think itll be like 2018, for instance, where suburban women are key, then buttigieg and biden are far better. But the question isn't asking why vote for Sanders. It is asking what happens when he loses. A core understanding from 2016 was that women cant win, and that has affected candidates this time. If the understanding after Sanders loses is that progressives cant win , what does that mean for the future?
  14. Yeah, this whataboutism and outrage is some serious bullshit.
  15. He got 40%. Let's not make it seem like some crazy big win. But yes, in general he will get more support from everyone simply because he is the front runner.
×