US Politics: Manchin Shin Drinks the Blood and Cracks the Bone

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Would President Sanders actually achieve more than President Biden? 

That's the real question. Sanders arguably might have wanted an even more ambitious agenda (wasn't he one of the main authors of the BBB bill in its original form?). So would he have gotten anything from that dickhead from West Virginia? If so, how? So I don't think it would've made difference if we had President Sanders instead of President Biden. The precursor question was obviously, who had a better chance of winning the Presidency in 2020? The Democratic Party's answer to that question was Biden. Which I think was the right call. 

[Ormond]

 

43 minutes ago, IFR said:

Ideally, would any of you actually like a candidate like Sanders as president, or would you still prefer a Biden?

My preferences for a 2024 candidate depend upon whether Trump is the opponent again or not. I believe Trump is so dangerous that if he is the Republican nominee, I will base my candidate choice entirely on who I think can mostly likely defeat him. Whatever policy preferences I have, a Democratic candidate's positions on them would not be more important to me than defeating Trump. And I really don't think I will have an idea of whether a candidate more "like" Sanders or "like" Biden would be better for defeating Trump in 2024 until 2024 itself rolls around. 

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, Ormond said:

My preferences for a 2024 candidate depend upon whether Trump is the opponent again or not. I believe Trump is so dangerous that if he is the Republican nominee, I will base my candidate choice entirely on who I think can mostly likely defeat him. Whatever policy preferences I have, a Democratic candidate's positions on them would not be more important to me than defeating Trump. And I really don't think I will have an idea of whether a candidate more "like" Sanders or "like" Biden would be better for defeating Trump in 2024 until 2024 itself rolls around. 

Honest question - would Desantis or Hawley or Pompeo or Trump Jr. really be meaningfully different?  All of them have shown a clear willingness to embrace Trumpism at its worst. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, IFR said:

Wow, this thread moves incredibly fast.

So are we claiming that Democrats are playing game theory on each and go for mediocre candidates because they are believed to be the most electable?

I argued with my parents about this issue. They were fully on board with Biden. I thought both candidates would be lame duck presidents on the legislative front, but Sanders would make the most of his executive power in forwarding his progressive agenda, which would be temporary, sure, but would have a much more positive impact than whatever Biden achieved.

They of course didn't think Sanders had a chance to be elected, which may have been true. But I think this narrative that it's either the tyranny of Republicans or the stopgap nothing of Republican-lite neoliberals like Clinton and Biden is extremely damaging.

Ideally, would any of you actually like a candidate like Sanders as president, or would you still prefer a Biden?

Can we talk about limiting executive power while the possibility to do so exists?  Every time we push the envelope on Excecutive power the next guy makes it worse.

Trump demonstrated, quite eloquently, why Executive power desperately needs to be limited and not based on “custom”.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I was lead to believe Rittenhouse was an American Hero, who supports BLM and would've voted Obama, if he were a bit older. 

Again, the jury bought into his little, scared poor boy BS. In NY they changed the laws after that wanker shot those people on the subway in the 1980s. I'll leave out the joke about NY liking to see themselves as bein super progressives and being ahead of the time (compared to the more rural states). I'll shelf that joke for the moment, but I will come back to it, when Ty discovers that awesome new series, 21 Jump Street with Johnny Depp in a few years. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I was lead to believe Rittenhouse was an American Hero, who supports BLM and would've voted Obama, if he were a bit older. 

Again, the jury bought into his little, scared poor boy BS. In NY they changed the laws after that wanker shot those people on the subway in the 1980s. I'll leave out the joke about NY liking to see themselves as bein super progressives and being ahead of the time (compared to the more rural states). I'll shelf that joke for the moment, but I will come back to it, when Ty discovers that awesome new series, 21 Jump Street with Johnny Depp in a few years. 

Don’t we have a sperate Rittenhouse thread?

Yes we do:

 

[Week]

22 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

My preference for Sanders wasn’t based on a perception that he’d get more done than Biden. Rather, I was quite convinced that if he won, the party would spend as much time fighting him as it would trying to enact his agenda.

 

22 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That’s why I wanted Sanders in - because he wouldn’t mollycoddle fucking terrorists.

What would he have done differently and what do you base this assumption on? He would need the support of the party to effectively do anything to push back on GQP with teeth -- which you start by admitting he'd be hamstrung by the party.

This is only exacerbated in that he was not as strong a candidate as he could have been specifically because of his unwillingness to collaborate and align with anyone else in the party.

 

Eta-- I say this as someone that does like Bernie and would have voted for him over Biden (though not Warren). I just don't agree with the wishcasting at the altar of Saint Bernard.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

At least we agree that the Democratic Party is actively hostile towards progressives.

And spare me the wishcasting canard - the lack of imagination among the party and its supporters beggars belief. I’m pretty sure Sanders wouldn’t be out there hoping for a strong Republican Party, or would have allowed Manchin and others to split the BIF and BBB because he bought into his hype about being such a great deal maker. That doesn’t mean it would have passed, but if it didn’t he would have made sure the blame lay solely where it belongs, with Manchin and the others. Progressives wouldn’t be considering defecting from the party.

But yes - providing real examples consistent with his past rhetoric and actions is “wishcasting”. No wonder Democrats are getting shellacked. 

Given the closeness, in 7 states, of the 2020 election do you really think Bernie would have beaten Trump?  I would have voted for him but he would have been much easier for the Republicans to caricature.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, 1066 Larry said:

If by "lucky" you mean people in Georgia turning out like mofos and doing everything possible to get Warnock and Ossoff into office and the rest of the country donating money, then yeah, guess that's lucky.  

It's both. People did work their ass off and were rewarded for it, but don't forget how tight those races were. If either failed who knows what could have been done.

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

And without setting ambitious goals, their voters wouldn't have shown up.

Would you not say there's a difference between setting ambitious goals and promising things that almost vertainly cannot happen?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

The only reason Sanders is easier to caricature is because moderate Democrats have been using red-baiting rhetoric against progressives for decades to blunt their political power, and for whatever reason never stopped doing it even as the party’s base moved leftward.

Maybe they should stop doing that, because they’ve made it such an effective tactic that Republicans have been able to characterize any government spending as socialist. Seems kind of self-defeating for the party that endorses public spending under a capitalist framework, no?

Maybe instead of redbaiting progressives, Democrats should have spent those decades educating voters about what is and is not socialism.

 Not to mention, I don’t believe in entrusting the people who created the problem, and who have allowed it to fester under their watch, with actually fixing the problem.

I agree that Sanders shouldn’t be “redbaited”.  That’s not my point.  My point is that his sincerely held positions make him easier to caricature.  Could you please provide specific examples of moderate Democrats “redbaiting” Sanders.

I don’t recall that.

[Week]

29 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And spare me the wishcasting canard - the lack of imagination among the party and its supporters beggars belief. I’m pretty sure Sanders wouldn’t be out there hoping for a strong Republican Party, or would have allowed Manchin and others to split the BIF and BBB because he bought into his hype about being such a great deal maker. That doesn’t mean it would have passed, but if it didn’t he would have made sure the blame lay solely where it belongs, with Manchin and the others. Progressives wouldn’t be considering defecting from the party.

But yes - providing real examples consistent with his past rhetoric and actions is “wishcasting”. No wonder Democrats are getting shellacked. 

Re' Bold - This is the current situation as I understand. Everyone is pissed at Manchin and has, rightfully, laid the blame at his feet.

Again though, Bernie does not and has not worked with others in the party well -- so I'm not seeing how we'd be in a noticeably better situation in that respect. Even you admit that nothing would probably pass.

Did you post other examples that you could link to? You keep mentioning 'redbaiting' which yes absolutely happens (I, too, fucking hate it) but it does not excuse or explain Bernie's inability to break through in two primary cycles. Not reaching out to Clyburn or Warren or others outside of his campaign limited his ceiling nationally. The broken record of "getting the youth out to vote" simply hasn't panned out.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

Did you post other examples that you could link to? You keep mentioning 'redbaiting' which yes absolutely happens (I, too, fucking hate it) but it does not excuse or explain Bernie's inability to break through in two primary cycles. Not reaching out to Clyburn or Warren or others outside of his campaign limited his ceiling nationally. The broken record of "getting the youth out to vote" simply hasn't panned out.

If a Democratic Presidential candidate wants to win South Carolina buddying up with James Clyburn is an excellent first step.

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree that Sanders shouldn’t be “redbaited”.  That’s not my point.  My point is that his sincerely held positions make him easier to caricature.  Could you please provide specific examples of moderate Democrats “redbaiting” Sanders.

I don’t recall that.

This primarily comes from 'Democrats' like Bloomberg and from the media -- there are other examples of the Dem eatablisent doing this too:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/bernie-sanders-james-carville-criticism/index.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8808709/Joe-Biden-calls-Bernie-Sanders-socialist-promising-voters-wont-swing-left.html

Just froma quick and dirty google.

[Week]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If a Democratic Presidential candidate wants to win South Carolina buddying up with James Clyburn is an excellent first step.

Making an attempt could have made a difference. The lack of trying did seem to steel folks against Bernie (or more firmly wed to Biden). Maybe that's just spin /shrug

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/486000-clyburn-says-sanders-never-asked-for-his-endorsement

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

This primarily comes from 'Democrats' like Bloomberg and from the media -- there are other examples of the Dem eatablisent doing this too:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/bernie-sanders-james-carville-criticism/index.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8808709/Joe-Biden-calls-Bernie-Sanders-socialist-promising-voters-wont-swing-left.html

Just froma quick and dirty google.

So, not from Democrats in Congress or high office?  Painting all moderate Democrats with the actions of a few seems like overreach, to me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Week said:

The general feeling of the thread IIRC was pro-Warren followed by Sanders (mostly Simon, Great Unwashed, Larry) and some Klobuchar or Buttigieg interest. Biden was pretty universally a last choice among actual Democrats (excluding Bloomberg and Gabbard).

That is to say, for me, my choice is neither. I'd prefer someone more on the Left that is under 50 (Warren was my pick - though she's older than I'd prefer too).

You left out Harris, who prior to dropping out was probably the popular pick if you weren't for Sanders or Warren.

1 hour ago, Week said:

Eta-- I say this as someone that does like Bernie and would have voted for him over Biden (though not Warren). I just don't agree with the wishcasting at the altar of Saint Bernard.

I think it needs to be reemphasized that a lot of people here who weren't for Bernie still liked him. My personal fear was just that he'd be a weak candidate and that if he did win he wouldn't be able to deliver on much of anything outside of signing EOs, and I don't think that would have led to long term policy outcomes that progressives want. 

[IFR]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree that Sanders shouldn’t be “redbaited”.  That’s not my point.  My point is that his sincerely held positions make him easier to caricature.  Could you please provide specific examples of moderate Democrats “redbaiting” Sanders.

I don’t recall that.

This is where I'm lost. Sander'a sincerely held positions are to buffer the middle class, take an active approach to combating climate change, and fight for egalitarian principles. Neoliberals don't seem to have any ideology except corporate cronyism and some vapid message of returning to the "norm", as if the norm itself wasn't incredibly damaging.

I just don't see how a defeatist approach to things is a particularly good path when we are now facing an actual existential crisis.

I agree with those who say that Sanders would have been no more effective at passing legislation through congress than Biden. But he would have stood by his ideals and made the most of his executive action.

You objected to expanded executive power, but I personally view congress as effectively broken, and would much prefer some positive action through executive means than holding course and allowing our current policies to complete its destructive path on which it is bound.

[Week]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You left out Harris, who prior to dropping out was probably the popular pick if you weren't for Sanders or Warren.

I was trying to remember -- I think the excitement pretty much dissipated after votes started to be cast. Of course, she was smeared as a 'cop' which seems similarly reductive and inaccurate (in terms of the implication as redbaiting.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it needs to be reemphasized that a lot of people here who weren't for Bernie still liked him. My personal fear was just that he'd be a weak candidate and that if he did win he wouldn't be able to deliver on much of anything outside of signing EOs, and I don't think that would have led to long term policy outcomes that progressives want. 

Yup, though anything less than a full-throated endorsement was an attack. Again, /shrug

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, IFR said:

This is where I'm lost. Sander'a sincerely held positions are to buffer the middle class, take an active approach to combating climate change, and fight for egalitarian principles. Neoliberals don't seem to have any ideology except corporate cronyism and some vapid message of returning to the "norm", as if the norm itself wasn't incredibly damaging.

I just don't see how a defeatist approach to things is a particularly good path when we are now facing an actual existential crisis.

I agree with those who say that Sanders would have been no more effective at passing legislation through congress than Biden. But he would have stood by his ideals and made the most of his executive action.

You objected to expanded executive power, but I personally view congress as effectively broken, and would much prefer some positive action through executive means than holding course and allowing our current policies to complete its destructive path on which it is bound.

When another Republican holds the White House do you or don’t you want them to have expanded Executive authority?

if the answer is you don’t want them to have that power the time to limit it is now.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Btw. is it ok to ask Santa to deliver a fatal heart attack to Clarence Thomas and the insight the retirement is a good idea to Breyer? FFS Stephen you are 83, time to enjoy retirement. Don't be a Ruth, go on your own terms.