US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round

[Freshwater Spartan]

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

You are aware that Sanders polls very well against Trump compared to the rest of the Democratic field? An example.

Other polls show slightly better numbers for Biden or Bloomberg, but Biden's support was proven to be soft, and Bloomberg's introduction to the national audience... did not go well.

like others have said I don't buy that yet. Sanders has largely been untested in in 2016 and 2020. Once the attacks begin those polls all change. In Michigan left wing folks just don't win statewide elections. It seems to me that Sanders campaign strategy is based on a magical belief that people have been waiting for socialist to run. In reality, folks perceived as left such as Virge Berniro and Geoffry Fieger get destroyed while right wing strong guys like Engler and Snyder win easily. 

Food for thought. Michigan does have a history of electing tough just left of center women though.

 

52 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's an article of faith that a left-wing candidate can't win in this country, even though it hasn't been tested for about 50 years and since then we've seen moderate Democrats botch election after election, including, most notably, 2016. 

I don't know if Bernie, or any other Democrat, will win, but I'm sure he can. 

Sure anything's possible, even an alien invasion. Doesn't mean it's probable. Do we have to run this experiment in the election where our whole democracy is at stake though? Never mind I know the answer.

[Gorn]

16 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Absolutely. But I'd rather hand them a gun of a candidate over a nuclear bomb of a candidate. Bernie's promoted socialism for how long now? Lots of tv, press and radio out there and add the Republican spin machine where they only need to plant a seed of doubt...

By how much I'm hearing about communism from the Trump set, I'm guessing that's where the main attacks will come from and they probably have more on Bernie than honeymooning in USSR Moscow and praising breadlines. The name of the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics so they can easily blur the line with socialists and communists with the uniformed. Bloomberg used communism at the debate last night. Bernie thought it was just a cheap shot. I suspect it's more than that. Bernie looked like he didn't have a clue. That's worrying. It also muddies the water over Trump's connections to Russia.

There's other pitfalls too and not just from Republicans though they'll use it. See the Mueller report.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/russia-trump-bernie-sanders-election-interference/606703/

 

Republican smear machine can turn any candidate into a "nuclear bomb". If they could bring down a bland vanilla candidate with impeccable record like John Kerry (remember flip-flops? almost forgot those), they can do it to anyone. Just imagine the bombardment, both with public Super PAC ads and with sneaky Facebook-shared lies, against Buttigieg (the first openly gay candidate) or Bloomberg (Jewish Wall Street billionaire who wants to ban guns, sodas and smoking). Even someone like Klobuchar would be presented as someone to the left of Lenin.

The most potent line of attack against Sanders (that he's a socialist) is blunted by the fact that he loudly and proudly says that himself at every public appearance. Pretty much every voting-age American already knows that he's a socialist.

The best way to defeat negative ads by the opposition is to have a strong base of support which will ignore them. After all, that's how Trump won in 2016.

[Lollygag]

12 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Republican smear machine can turn any candidate into a "nuclear bomb". If they could bring down a bland vanilla candidate with impeccable record like John Kerry (remember flip-flops? almost forgot those), they can do it to anyone. Just imagine the bombardment, both with public Super PAC ads and with sneaky Facebook-shared lies, against Buttigieg (the first openly gay candidate) or Bloomberg (Jewish Wall Street billionaire who wants to ban guns, sodas and smoking). Even someone like Klobuchar would be presented as someone to the left of Lenin.

The most potent line of attack against Sanders (that he's a socialist) is blunted by the fact that he loudly and proudly says that himself at every public appearance. Pretty much every voting-age American already knows that he's a socialist.

The best way to defeat negative ads by the opposition is to have a strong base of support which will ignore them. After all, that's how Trump won in 2016.

Bernie's in another category by himself. Don't make it easy. Are you an American in Sarajevo? If you're not American or haven't spent a significant amount of time here, especially in the rural areas, I have to call you out.

You can portray any of the others as leftists and they will. But the others haven't left loads of tv and audio about authoritarian socialists and communists. Most Americans don't have a good idea of what a socialist is and Bernie (stupidly) spent 5 years doing nothing to define himself so the Republicans will do it for him. Canadian socialist? European socialist? Cuban socialist? Venezuelan socialist? Bernie's interest in socialist authoritarians also won't play well once the Republicans get to that and it will also muddy the waters on Trump's thing for authoritarians. And like I said, the Republicans look poised to blur the line with socialists and communists and this will have the most impact with younger voters lacking the frame of reference for assessing false information on this subject and this is Bernie's base. For those who are older, I hear communism and the Cold War won't bring on the warm and fuzzies.

I'd prefer leaving Trump to struggle with things like Pocahontas, height jokes and the Biden crime syndicate .

[DMC]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I don't know if Bernie, or any other Democrat, will win, but I'm sure he can. 

Agreed, Bernie's "leftist" stance is rather orthogonal to his electoral prospects - other than self-identifying as a socialist (a candidate could have basically the same policy agenda and not have that scarlet letter on them, e.g. Warren).  That is an identifiable vulnerability.  But, I think the interesting thing is this attitude by "mainstream" outlets actually helps him.  Sanders is the very clear frontrunner, yet he's not facing the scrutiny most frontrunners generally would from the media.  Instead they want to talk about the Bloomberg novelty, or how there might be a "brokered convention," or other fantasies that might as well be "well, what if Tyrion says Bran should be the Democratic nominee because he knows the most history?"

[Gorn]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Are you an American in Sarajevo? If you're not American or haven't spent a significant amount of time here, especially in the rural areas, I have to call you out.

I've lived for a year in the US, travel to it several times a year, and I'm currently in the process of moving there, so yeah, I'm qualified to participate in this discussion.

[Lollygag]

Just now, Gorn said:

I've lived for a year in the US, travel to it several times a year, and I'm currently in the process of moving there, so yeah, I'm qualified to participate in this discussion. 

Welcome then and congrats! (I think?) But to equate Bernie's real baggage with the other candidates' baggage (Pocahontas, whatnot) doesn't work. Support Bernie if you want but don't do so blind to all that.

[Gorn]

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Welcome then and congrats! (I think?) But to equate Bernie's real baggage with the other candidates' baggage (Pocahontas, whatnot) doesn't work. Support Bernie if you want but don't do so blind to all that.

Thanks 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the harmfulness of the "socialist" label. Everyone already knows that Sanders is a socialist. The word "socialist" is already present in pretty much every news article about him, and it's the first association most people have when his name is mentioned.

Consequently, it's already built into people's perceptions of him, his current approval rate among general population, and his polling numbers against Trump. Any damage it could have done has been done by now.

[Gorn]

8 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

They called Obama a socialist when he nationalized fucking Mitt Romney's healthcare bill. It is a word that has no meaning in our politics anymore.

Ironically, Republicans themselves have been most responsible for the word losing its sting. If Obama was a socialist, and Obama's presidency wasn't that bad, then socialism can't be that bad either.

[Lollygag]

Just now, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

They called Obama a socialist when he nationalized fucking Mitt Romney's healthcare bill. It is a word that has no meaning in our politics anymore.

There's a difference between getting name-called a socialist and actually being a self-proclaimed one. Everyone, even Republicans, know the difference. Obama is a capitalist. Warren is very vocal about being a capitalist and loudly reiterated it again in the debate. Sanders is not a capitalist. There's a reason why people are *freaked* over Sanders but only grumble about Warren.

But you're right about socialist having no real meaning. The Republicans are going to clear that up for us.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Just a day or so ago I said that Trump is appointing the ambassador to Germany, supreme Trump loyalist, insulter of Europeans, contact man for white nationalists, Rick Grenfell, as interim Director of National Intelligence. Not a boo out of you.

Oh, wait, Maguire, the current director, is being kicked out because last week the House Intelligence committee was briefed by the intelligence community that they have confirmed that the Russians once again are actively working to get Trump elected.

Trump is apparently absolutely enraged that anyone would suggest he is not going to be elected solely by his own efforts.

Too much information, right? It just keeps coming and coming.

It’s low key amazing this story isn’t getting more burn. The president is actively aiding another Russian interference in our elections to help him.

Also, Nunes is a snake. After Trump and McConnell, he should be target #3.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's an article of faith that a left-wing candidate can't win in this country, even though it hasn't been tested for about 50 years and since then we've seen moderate Democrats botch election after election, including, most notably, 2016. 

I don't know if Bernie, or any other Democrat, will win, but I'm sure he can. 

The overlaps between 2020 and 1972 are actually rather glaring. I studied the latter as part of my undergrad honors thesis, and it’s still shocking to me how popular McGovern’s positions were and yet he got his head caved in. Even more shocking is how they made him out to be a weak hippie despite being a legit war hero while Nixon was a coward who only went on one mission that was totally safe near the end of the war.

That just speaks to the hill liberals have to climb up in America.

[James Arryn]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The overlaps between 2020 and 1972 are actually rather glaring. I studied the latter as part of my undergrad honors thesis, and it’s still shocking to me how popular McGovern’s positions were and yet he got his head caved in. Even more shocking is how they made him out to be a weak hippie despite being a legit war hero while Nixon was a coward who only went on one mission that was totally safe near the end of the war.

That just speaks to the hill liberals have to climb up in America.

AWOL drunk >>>>>>>> swift boat decorated hero because reasons.

[Lollygag]

21 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I mean he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but even in that sense he's not all that radical. Andrew Yang was pretty popular, and he had a lot of policies you could call socialist. I think there's been a hunger in both parties for something new for a long time, and automation is only going to keep eating up jobs. I really think the socialist label will help him more than it will hurt him. Anyone who'd write him off for being a socialist would probably already do so just for being a Demmocrat. But we'll see.

Having some socialistic policies isn't the issue. We already have some of those and they're popular, but not being a capitalist as the Dem nominee and then the president is quite radical. I agree on these problems and that they need addressed, but I'd rather not wildly experiment and leave it to blind faith when the alternative is Trump.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

They called Obama a socialist when he nationalized fucking Mitt Romney's healthcare bill. It is a word that has no meaning in our politics anymore.

Ikr. Damn those socialist Republicans who say they’ll protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I mean it’s even in the name of the latter!!1!!1!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Ironically, Republicans themselves have been most responsible for the word losing its sting. If Obama was a socialist, and Obama's presidency wasn't that bad, then socialism can't be that bad either.

No no no you sucker. Obama’s economy = bad. Trump’s = amazballs. Doesn’t matter that most economic indicators were better over Obama’s last three years than Trump’s first three years other than the stock market.

Estúpido!!!

[Fez]

I was wrong about Trump being the weakest 2016 GOP candidate (presumably, although since the others didn't get a chance to run against Clinton we don't know for sure; but I did think Clinton would beat him rather easily), so I'll definitely concede that I could be wrong about Sanders as well. However, we have a large body of evidence showing more moderate candidates doing better in swing senate, house, and governor races than more liberal candidates. Which is why I've been extremely leery of Sanders, Warren, and anyone else this primary season who started pushing too far to the left.

There's a world of difference between Republicans attacking a Democrat and the Democrat ignoring it or fighting back, versus the Democrat saying "Yeah, I want to do that; but here's why its a good thing..." People won't hear the explanation, only the acceptance of the charge. People are dumb and have short attention spans.

On top of that, I think the left is in deep denial about the state of the party right now. The economically liberal (or at least didn't care), socially conservative voters are mostly Republican now, and there's a lot more economically conservative, socially liberal Democratic voters than there used to be. Realignment is a real thing; and, much as it annoys people, if he could've won a primary, Andrew Cuomo would've probably been the single strongest general election candidate that Democrats could've run.

[Lollygag]

6 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

He functionally is a capitalist though. The majority of the changes he's suggesting are just implementing things that have been successfully done all over the world in capitalist countries for years. I also think Americans feel a lot less brand loyalty towards Capitalism than they might have fifty years or so ago.

Is he?

If he would just come out and clear that all up it would save us all a lot of drama. All of the other candidates don't need to declare they're capitalists. Warren is very clear that she's capitalist because she's aware that there might be a misunderstanding. Bernie: [crickets]. Bloomberg accused him of trying to throw out our whole system and if he objected to that characterization, I missed it. If there's essentially not much difference between Warren and Sanders, again, why the freak out over Sanders but not Warren?

Identifying a form of capitalism that needs an adjustment because it's become unbalanced is very different from overthrowing the system.

[Ormond]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

To the bolded, because they stupidly think a woman can't get elected.  The second choice question doesn't matter anymore.  It's first choice question time.  As for Sanders mirroring Trump rhetorically, uh, no.  Obviously he's not going to bend on messaging his policy agenda, but his symbolic messaging will unquestionably more conciliatory - and markedly more bipartisan than his primary stump speeches - than Trump's tack.

I guess I don't have the trust in Sanders here that you do. I worry that he just doesn't have the personality to be more "conciliatory" on his "symbolic messaging" during the general election campaign than he is now. Do you have evidence for him making such a shift in the past somewhere?

[Kalbear]

A theory that is reasonable is that trump is another signal that polarizing candidates are what is needed to win, and that any effort to go middle of the road will never be as effective as one that activates because we are in such a hyper polarized, the other side is evil state. 

[Lollygag]

Just now, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I really don't think it's such a big deal for most people. I think he's courting a far left demographic who actively opposes capitalism (hence why he doesn't come out and call himself a capitalist), but he's also aware of the reality that America is a capitalist country and will likely remain so for the rest of his life. I don't think anyone who doesn't already oppose him just for being a Democrat is really scared by the shadow of Stalin.

Bold: It hasn't come up much yet and that's my point. But it will and it's a problem.

So what is he then? Still functionally a capitalist? Which way will he swing if he gets into office? You keep ignoring that there's a lot of anxiety over Sanders that doesn't exist over Warren and the others and if there's some misunderstanding, Bernie's not correcting it.

Bernie's not a Democrat at all. Wanting to stay capitalist albeit a healthier version of it =/= "scared by the shadow of Stalin". I'm more scared of disastrous fuck ups than anything else.