2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

774 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So let's play this out. Do you really imagine that people are thinking along the lines of, "well, I'm struggling under loads of student debt, I just lost my job and have no health insurance, I'm worried about social security, and I know Bernie's been really hammering that he has a plan to deal with that, but dammit I'm so racist and homophobic and I hate immigrant children so much that I'll still vote for Trump even though he's going to screw me over in all of those areas?"

The danger is that the MSM will launch some unfounded smear against Sanders, similar to the Anti-Semitism smear against Jeremy Corbyn, and like said smear, it will stick. And so you'll get a whole whack of voters who will wind up thinking along the lines of "I know that a second Trump presidency will be worse for me than a Sanders presidency, but I can't vote for Sanders because (insert unfounded MSM smear here)".

That the MSM is going to launch a smear campaign against Sanders is a certainty. He is far more popular with people in the US than Corbyn ever was in Britain, and the attacks against Sanders just aren't sticking. Corbyn was also undermined by being unable to articulate a clear position on Brexit, which overwhelemed all the other issues in that campaign. There is no Brexit-like issue in the US that threatens to derail Sanders, and I really don't think that an anti-semitism charge is going to stick to a Jewish politician.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So let's play this out. Do you really imagine that people are thinking along the lines of, "well, I'm struggling under loads of student debt, I just lost my job and have no health insurance, I'm worried about social security, and I know Bernie's been really hammering that he has a plan to deal with that, but dammit I'm so racist and homophobic and I hate immigrant children so much that I'll still vote for Trump even though he's going to screw me over in all of those areas?"

The danger is that the MSM will launch some unfounded smear against Sanders, similar to the Anti-Semitism smear against Jeremy Corbyn, and like said smear, it will stick. And so you'll get a whole whack of voters who will wind up thinking along the lines of "I know that a second Trump presidency will be worse for me than a Sanders presidency, but I can't vote for Sanders because (insert unfounded MSM smear here)".

That the MSM is going to launch a smear campaign against Sanders is a certainty. He is far more popular with people in the US than Corbyn ever was in Britain, and the attacks against Sanders just aren't sticking. Corbyn was also undermined by being unable to articulate a clear position on Brexit, which overwhelemed all the other issues in that campaign. There is no Brexit-like issue in the US that threatens to derail Sanders, and I really don't think that an anti-semitism charge is going to stick to a Jewish politician.

Anti-Semitism might not be the charge. It could an economic or fiscal smear,  such as that a Sanders presidency would bankrupt the country, or would turn the country into an economic basket-case ect. Or that a Sanders presidency would lead to hordes of brown people taking all the jobs.

It doesn't have to be about him specifically.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I think there will be a health care smear and scare funded by medical doctors and the health insurance industry - ie. a turn to communism. I believe that this is why the Democratic establishment is so much against him.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Ari wrote:

I'll take a stab at a few things on this list:

Misfit wrote:
1. He can lie through his teeth on a daily basis and get away with it.

Welcome to modern politics. Remember Clinton's bogus claim to have landed under sniper fire?

My Response wrote:
Yes many politicians do indeed lie. I consider myself an honest person but I am guilty of twisting the truth from time to time to make myself look less bad when I feel the need. Likewise, there are many politicians who after a long career in politics are able to maintain a reputation of being an honest and upstanding person despite their political "lying".

Donald Trump has taken lying to an entirely new level. He is caught pathologically lying numerous times a day on an almost daily basis. There is no comparison. Trump is in a league of his own and his deceitful nature is what defines his character.

[=Misfit]2. He can make an embarrassing fool of himself on the international stage and maintain his popularity in the polls.

See my response to the first post. You think Trudeau is less of an embarassment? He's still our Prime Minister.

My Response wrote:
Yes, Justin Trudeau is definitely less of an embarrassment than Donald Trump is. There is no comparison actually. You are trying to compare a mosquito bite with a venomous snake bite. Both are bites but that is where the similarities end. This also does not negate the fact that Trudeau has done some pretty embarrassing and improper things but they are not worthy of comparison to Donald Trump in frequency and magnitude.

Misfit wrote:
3. He can ask on national television for the Russians to hack his opponent's computers and win an election.

The Russia-gate hoax is a bogus lie advanced by Democrats to deflect blame for their loss away from their poor performance and find scape goats. I'm presuming people in this thread support minority rights? Did you know that Native American activists in North Dakota and the Black Lives Matter movement has also been smeared as at least being aided by the Russians?

My Reaponse wrote:
But he did say it on national television and their systems were definitely hacked shortly afterwards. Maybe that is the price one pays for being so brassy on national television. You get implicated in the minds of the public for having instigated it. And he did directly benefit from it. Maybe some day we will really know. However, it definitely does make him blameworthy.

Misfit wrote:
4. He can survive a Mueller investigation without a drop in the polls.

I didn't follow the Mueller report too closely, and I can imagine many people didn't. Seemed more like a witch hunt, which I will detail below:

Misfit wrote:
5. He can be impeached and maintain his public support.

The Democrats impeachment strategy was botched from the get-go. Even after Trump won the election, rather than accepting the result, the Democratic strategy called for impeachment before he had a chance to act on the mandate that he was given. You don't have to be a fan of Trump to see that this was unfair to him. Furthermore, impeachment is not a legal process, but a political process. It's purely a numbers game that generally breaks down along partisan lines. The Democrats controlled the House, and the Republicans controlled the Senate. The fact that the Senate was going to let him off was entirely predictable even before the thing got started. There were left-wing voices who spoke against impeachment for precisely this reason, but they were ignored.

Misfit wrote:
6. He can belligerently insult, bully, and demean women, Muslims, Hispanics, disabled people and, in fact all minorities and journalists and increase his popularity.

I really think that if Sanders is offering real solutions to the problems people face, that these insults will get real old real fast.

My Response wrote:
Really??? In what reality???

Misfit wrote:
7. He can pardon the most outlandish  criminals, give the most inappropriate people the Congressional medal of honour, and appoint an alleged rapist to the Supreme Court of the United States.

He had the numbers in the Senate to appoint whoever he wanted to the Supreme Court. As for the campaign to block that appointment? What was the point? Did they really think that a Republican-controlled Senate cared enough about women's rights to be swayed on anything?

My Response wrote:
So are you suggesting that women don't try to come forth with the truth? I personally believe the allegations that were aired against Brett Kavanaugh. The people have a right to know these events that allegedly happened. It speaks directly to Donald Trump's conduct and character to push ahead with this appointment when serious allegations were presented which made Kavanaugh an inappropriate choice for the position. We are talking about Donald Trump, his character and his power, and not about whether the appointment could have been stopped with a Republican controller Senate or not.

Misfit wrote:
8. He can appoint the most notoriously wrong people to key positions of power in order to undermine their intended roles. EPA and Education come to mind.

That's how government works. Appointments are often based on personal connections and favours rather than competence.

My Response wrote:
They are called patronage appointments. They are also very common everywhere. Doug Ford, for instance, is appointing his cronies to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and avoiding the normal vetting process to check for expertise and qualification for the job at hand. 
 

Donald Trumps appointments are different. These people are qualified. They are leaders in their respective fields and very qualified to undermine and gutt the departments of power and effectiveness because they interfere with  corporate interests.

Misfit wrote:
9. He can refuse to submit his taxes and maintain his presidency.

What does that have to do with anything? It is a requirement for all Presidents to submit their tax returns. He does not comply with rules and regulations. He acts like he is above the law. Coincidentally, sociopaths and narcissists tend to feel that rules and regulations do not apply to them that they are above the law. His refusal therefore is a symptom of a possible serious character defect.

Misfit wrote:
10. He can use his foundation money to help finance his election campaign and make it seem perfectly ok.

Remember the Clinton Foundation? 

My Response wrote:
That is akin to comparing a speeding ticket of driving 55 km/hr in a 50 km zone with a criminal charge of fraud and embezzlement. They are both crimes. Perhaps you see them both as being one and the same.

Misfit wrote:
11. He can make threats to his opponents like "lock her up",  make faces, and call his opponents bullying names like "crooked Hillary" to publicly mock them and gain in popularity.

There was widespread public perception that Hillary was in fact corrupt, so of course Trump is going to play to that. The "lock her up" thing was a response to the perception that if Clinton was not so powerfully connected that she would have been jailed over her e-mails. Of course, the Trumps and Clintons are good friends, so it was also naieve to assume that Trump would actually do anything to investigate or punish Clinton's crimes once he had the power to do so.
 

My Response wrote:
Actually, the chants are threats of violence. Pretty scary and inappropriate behaviour especially coming from the POTUS!!!

Misfit wrote:
12. He can say things like "if she weren't my daughter I would date her"  and other creepy things, and then give her a role in the White House despite her having no qualifications.

Definitely creepy.

Misfit wrote:
13. He can allegedly sexually harass and rape women with public indifference and no legal consequences for his alleged actions.

Ask Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones about a President maintaining or even increasing populariyt while under suspicion of sexual harassment. Also see what Juanita Broaddrick had to say about being raped by someone who would go on to become President.

My Response wrote:
No, actually, we are talking about Donald Trump, the current POTUS and his behaviour.

Misfit wrote:
24. He can display no identifiable expertise or aptitude for any role he performs as President of the United States.

Remember George W Bush? How about our own Prime Minister?

My Response wrote:
We are talking about Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders and strength in the campaign trail. Yes George W was pretty bad. I can list other politicians who are pretty bad, but we are talking about a political arguable imbecile who remains high in the polls despite his ineptitude for the job.
.

Misfit wrote:
25. He can respect and admire Vladimir Putin and  notorious ruthless dictators and pass it off to his electorate as being ok.

That's a charge that is also thrown at the left, that they are okay with dictators. Obama was also criticized for meeting with Fidel Castro, but that didn't seem to hurt his popularity. Should Obama not have met with Castro? Trump was also the first US President to directly meet with the North Korean leadership. Should nuclear powers not collaborate to find ways to peacefully co-exist with each other? Yes, there are many dictators and bad people in the world, but we have to find a way to move forward in a peaceful fashion. Also note that during the 2016 campaign, Clinton campaigned on the idea of a no-fly-zone in Sirya which experts believed would have meant war with Russia. Trump, on the other hand, was against that and he also roasted Jeb Bush for his brother's failure to keep the country safe on 9/11. Of course Trump went back on that, but when you look at the records of Trump and Clinton and their public statements, even with the crazy things Trump said, he was still the least violent and militaristic of the 2 candidates.

My Response wrote:
The left are not the President of the United States in charge of the largest military force in the world. The United States champions itself as the gold standard for democracy which is rubbish and then you have a president who worships dangerous dictators. It speaks to his character and personality and worship of power.

Misfit wrote:
26. He can take directives from Russian intelligence ahead of his own American intelligence and not be investigated for treason.

And the left has been taking orders from the USSR or communist China or all other manner of foreign dictators for decades since the second world war.

My Response wrote:
But not as President of the United States undermining your own internal intelligence.

See where this kind of foreign scapecoating can go? I would think that the left of all people would know better than that. Please also see my point upthread about the Russiagate scapegoating.

Misfit wrote:
27. He can directly violate US conflict of interest laws involving his hotels.

Has anyone gone after him in a serious way on this?

Misfit wrote:
With Donald Trump there are no rules and boundaries. He acts like he is above the law and he gets away with it. This gives Donald Trump some very key  and definite strengths over Bernie Sanders or any Democrat for that matter who wins the Democratic ticket.

You mean Donald Trump, someone who had high disapproval ratings on the day he was elected, is really a snake oil salesmen who is part of the swamp he said he was going to drain? I think a candidate that people like and that people trust (let's pick a name at random, say Bernie Sanders) can easily flip that on Trump, and show him to be as much a part of the Establishment that he claims to despise.

 

josh

Donald Trump has taken lying to an entirely new level. He is caught pathologically lying numerous times a day on an almost daily basis. There is no comparison. Trump is in a league of his own and his deceitful nature is what defines his character.

Summed up very well.

Sean in Ottawa

unable to fix format will try again

ETA -- any time I try to quote this the type overlays on top and messes up the quotes. Trying to edit format after does not work either.

This is in response to the list in response to Misfit that is clearly designed to represent an answer to each point without actually being an adequate recognition of the point that was made. 

The false equivalencies are too numerous to catalog and far too shameless to think the writer does not see them. The comparisons are disproportionate. It is a denial of the scale and difference that Trump has brought. This is what happens when you exxaggerate on a continual basis -- eventually something will come up that is truly differen and you won't see the difference.

I cannot go point by point in quotes and won't take the time to try to do so since it is obvious this was intended not to be analysed with any sense of proportion anyway.

JKR

josh wrote:

Donald Trump has taken lying to an entirely new level. He is caught pathologically lying numerous times a day on an almost daily basis. There is no comparison. Trump is in a league of his own and his deceitful nature is what defines his character.

Summed up very well.

 

Trump is obviously in a league by himself. He a narcissistic psychopath. It's hard to believe that some think he is just another politician. 

NorthReport

Very well said

Sean in Ottawa

We know that it is very wrong for a person in power to be involved sexually, even in what otherwise seems consenual, with a person of less power. But in this very thread we have an equivalence of that with a man who physically overpowers a woman to force himself on her. In a monochromatic world these are both the same colour but we ought to be able to see the difference between these acts. The problem on this site is due to exaggeration, this place becomes monochromatic and people lose site of significant differences between degrees of wrongdoing.

I know the problem is that we want to rush to say how much we agree that the first thing is wrong (given that some think it is okay) but by bluring the difference between something wrong and a distant extreme we lose site of proportion. this is a constant debate here in all the political arguments. People here feel the need to say the Liberals and Conservatives are exactly the same in order to be assured that others know how much they hate the Liberals. They might even believe it, even if objectively it is false. 

Moving back to Trump: all these years of right wing Presidents, a unionized public service survived in the US. News is this week that Trump is taking away the bargaining rights of 750,000 workers -- civilians who work for the Department of defence. Many here may not know that. The reason is that it is not news even though it would have been a front page story in any previous Presidency. The grasps for power that Trump is taking almost daily go beyond ideology and beyond what anyone before has done. Don't bother telling me about the shit that has been done before. This stuff is still full of what is new and unheard of.

In rhetoric, Trump is openly laughing about being President for 26 more years. No he did not say 25. Why would he say 26? It is not a multiple of 4. But Trump will be 74 in June. 26 takes him to 100. The joke is something he has thought about. This is how this man thinks -- even in humour which is what this was.

Trumps's excesses are without precident. His lies of a scale and frequency that is unknown. Sure government has lied for big stakes before -- but Trump's lies are about absolutely everything -- worst of all, these are not even lies designed to decieve. These are lies designed to obliterate truth before your eyes: he does not care that you know he is lying becuase this is about power. Trump lies to remind you that with his power he can make your truth secondary to his lie. He wants to get caught: this is what owning the Libes means. It is about being naked in all the ways that previously used to be hidden. Trump lies for the sake of lying to prove that he has the power to do so. 

The US has an ignorant society and twisted political system. However, Trump is a new version of Pyschopath in charge who has coldly analysed that deception is no longer required and there are no boundaries. There is no longer any need to pretend to be a normal human being: he can shoot someone on 5th avenue. 

The US has had bad Presidents and has done some bad things but this is the point where pretence is no longer necessary before an adoring army of red hats who will openly muse about gunning down a Democrat if they happened to win despite the cheating Trump will no doubt attempt.

I have said before that the making of Trump was Al Gore. When Al Gore decided to protect the American fantasy of a democracy instead of standing up for a real democracy demanding that the ballots be counted in Florida, he told the American people that their democracy was worth less than stability. Trump was listening. The opportunity was there. Now will the Democrat push the issue if the election is close and Trump calls a few thousand ballots fake news and refuses to leave? We were not actually there before in the way we are now. It would nto be a joke to say that Trump might think of over-reacting to the cronavirus and canceling the election if he thought he could not cheat his way back the the White House. Trump does not ever seek to restrain his supporters who publicly scream that he cannot lose a democratic election and if he lost it would be a coup and they should take up arms to keep him in power. When  jokes come about staying in power, do you really doubt that he actually wants the ability to do so if at the end of his second term he does not want to go? We are less than a year away from his cult calling for the end of term limits. Many do not think he has the halth to keep going so they may not push the issue now -- but they will later if he makes it that far.

As for the GOP, Trump owns it. After he is gone this party may replace him in every sense of the word. The next will be like Trump in many ways except perhaps young enough to be able to claim the mantle of President for life and have that mean a generation. There is enough support in the US for this to be a possibility.

As for the US: I have traced this to a theory many of this are aware of. Marx did not believe that Communism could replace Capitalism before Capitalism had destroyed itself. I am not a Communist but I believe this. I believe that businesses are great at making money but must be restrained by active regulation by governments that enter into the economy and tkae ownership in the people's interest when this is needed. I believe that the well-being of people is found in tensions between business and government; individuals and groups. When you have one side unchecked that side will not just destroy the other but it will destroy itself. The US is presently in the "end times" of this. Capitalism in extremes educates people to do the bidding of others. No the US is not full of stupid people, but they are increasingly ignorant as the over specialization has led to even PhDs in their fields otherwise not well educated enough to think for themselves lacking in the needed critical skills. There is value in general education, critical thinking, and the lack of these in the US is proving that value. Canada is half a metre behind risking much of the same thing. The internet by itself and social media would not have been a bad thing in an educated population (general education) with critical thinking. It is devastating in a population of ignorants with money, social standing and good jobs. All this is relevant becuase Trump is a product of all this context.

Sorry for the length but many interconnected issues. Let me know what you think of some of these ideas please -- perhaps this is not the place to present this sort of longer analysis.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Liberal and Conservative parties are both Bay Street friendly and cater to the interests of the large corporations. In broad brushstrokes they share a similar agenda. But no, the Liberals are not as bad as the Conservatives are but both can be bad and both will slash away at our social programs.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sean, thank you for the most necessary and insightful analysis possible on this topic that anyone could offer.

In 2016, Trump said that if he lost the election that he would contest the results but if he won the election that it would be ok, I don't think that he was joking or trying to be funny. I think that he meant it and that it spoke directly to his distain for the rules of democracy. His love and admiration for ruthless dictators speaks to his thirst for power and to his potential unwillingness to comply with an electoral defeat.

I have never been more terrified about an upcoming election than I am right now.

I think that Ari was just trying to be facetious with his responses just for the sake of argument. It is obvious that we all detest the evil nature in Donald Trump and are aware of his diabolical potential. All kiddong aside, this discussion did draw out a very important analysis that got to the heart of what scares many of us about Donald Trump. You offered a fantastic and poignant analysis.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

Sean, thank you for the most necessary and insightful analysis possible on this topic that anyone could offer.

In 2016, Trump said that if he lost the election that he would contest the results but if he won the election that it would be ok, I don't think that he was joking or trying to be funny. I think that he meant it and that it spoke directly to his distain for the rules of democracy. His love and admiration for ruthless dictators speaks to his thirst for power and to his potential unwillingness to comply with an electoral defeat.

I have never been more terrified about an upcoming election than I am right now.

I think that Ari was just trying to be facetious with his responses just for the sake of argument. It is obvious that we all detest the evil nature in Donald Trump and are aware of his diabolical potential. All kiddong aside, this discussion did draw out a very important analysis that got to the heart of what scares many of us about Donald Trump. You offered a fantastic and poignant analysis.

Thank you for your kind words. 

I think many of us share the same fears.

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

Donald Trump has taken lying to an entirely new level. He is caught pathologically lying numerous times a day on an almost daily basis. There is no comparison. Trump is in a league of his own and his deceitful nature is what defines his character.

Summed up very well.

 

Trump is obviously in a league by himself. He a narcissistic psychopath. It's hard to believe that some think he is just another politician. 

He is just the final stage. The US Republican's have been batshit crazy and totally corrupt for a very long time.

Newt is a good example. His views were also reprehensible as were his ethics.

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed by Democrats against Gingrich during his term as Speaker. All were eventually dropped except for one: claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes.[95] On January 21, 1997, the House officially reprimanded Gingrich (in a vote of 395 in favor, 28 opposed) and "ordered [him] to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000".[96][97][98] It was the first time a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation.[98][99]

Additionally, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[100] The Ethics Committee's Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated and left that issue up to the IRS.[100] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[101]

Aristotleded24

Biden has just won South Carolina by a massive margin.

NDPP

The Russiagate - Racket Targets the Bernie Sanders Surge (and vid)

https://twitter.com/AliAbunimah/status/1233814332439482378

Watch: "Important discussion by Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal of how national security state will try to steal election from Bernie Sanders using fake Russiagate smears. And how some of Sanders surrogates are helping."

Misfit Misfit's picture

It was do or die for Biden with South Carolina. He went straight to South Carolina from New Hampshire and spent more time and money in this state than any other candidate. Therefore, it isn't about South Carolina which defines him but how he performs from this point on.

NDPP

Confirmed: Pete Buttigieg Will Deliver A VideoMessage to AIPAC 2020

https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1234243509030309889

"Pete for Apartheid 2020"

Cody87

Buttigieg doing his part to force a brokered convention to block Bernie

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

It seems that Buttigieg has just dropped out of the race.

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:
It seems that Buttigieg has just dropped out of the race.

How about some music for the occaision

NDPP

Class: The Little Word The Elite Want You To Forget   -   by Chris Hedges

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/class-the-little-word-the-elites-want-...

"...The Democratic Party elites will use any mechanism, no matter how nefarious and undemocratic, to prevent Sanders from obtaining the nomination. If Sanders fails to obtain 1,991 delegates before the convention, which appears likely, it seems nearly certain he will be blocked by the party from becoming the Democratic candidate. The damage done to the Democratic Party, if this happens, will be catastrophic. It will all but ensure that Trump wins a second term..."

NDPP

"The most powerful AQ enclave in the world today is in Idlib, Syria. Yet Pompeo and corporate media call these terrorists 'rebels' and want to protect them. Question to Trump and all Dem candidates. Do you want to protect AQ or defeat them? Voters have a right to know."

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1234461956251226112

(Or perhaps nominate them for a Nobel Prize and bring them to Canada?)

NDPP

Bill Browder Points Finger at Bernie Sanders on Magnitsky Act Vote, But the Real Story is His Own Corruption

https://on.rt.com/ac0x

"UK investor Bill Browder has jumped aboard the anti-Bernie Sanders train, smearing the 2020 front-runner as a Russian pawn for a 2012 vote on the Magnitsky Act, which he championed. To understand the motives behind Browder's finger-pointing at Sanders, one needs to do a little reading into Browder' own background - beyond the glowing praise that can be found in Western media..."

The closer Bernie gets to the brass ring the more of this there'll be.

voice of the damned

If Sanders fails to obtain 1,991 delegates before the convention, which appears likely, it seems nearly certain he will be blocked by the party from becoming the Democratic candidate. The damage done to the Democratic Party, if this happens, will be catastrophic. It will all but ensure that Trump wins a second term..."

This assumes that there are all these voters who want Sanders-style policies, but, in the absence of that, are voting for Trump, presumbaly as the next best thing. But I'm not convinced of that. Apart from some of the Obama-voters in the rust-belt who switched over in 2016, I don't see  lot of desire for anything resembling socialism from the people wearing MAGA hats. If anything, the stay-at-homes among them might actually be convinced to show up, if they can be scaremongered by the spectre of a Castro-loving commie as POTUS.

Granted, due to the electoral college, the rust-belt switchers could theoretically make a difference. But I wonder how many of them really want the whole progressive package, and how many just went for Trump because he promised to keep their particular factory open?

Cody87

voice of the damned wrote:

If Sanders fails to obtain 1,991 delegates before the convention, which appears likely, it seems nearly certain he will be blocked by the party from becoming the Democratic candidate. The damage done to the Democratic Party, if this happens, will be catastrophic. It will all but ensure that Trump wins a second term..."

This assumes that there are all these voters who want Sanders-style policies, but, in the absence of that, are voting for Trump, presumbaly as the next best thing. But I'm not convinced of that. Apart from some of the Obama-voters in the rust-belt who switched over in 2016, I don't see  lot of desire for anything resembling socialism from the people wearing MAGA hats. If anything, the stay-at-homes among them might actually be convinced to show up, if they can be scaremongered by the spectre of a Castro-loving commie as POTUS.

Granted, due to the electoral college, the rust-belt switchers could theoretically make a difference. But I wonder how many of them really want the whole progressive package, and how many just went for Trump because he promised to keep their particular factory open?

I don't think the claim is that some Sanders supporters will vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee or Trump voters will vote for Sanders if Sanders is the nominee. I think the claim is that if Sanders goes into the convention with a plurality of delegates, short of a majority of delegates, and is again cheated by the DNC, this time in a brokered nomination after the first ballot, that this will disenfranchise a significant percentage of Sanders supporters (say 10%) who will see Biden or Bloomberg as "the establishment" and no better than Trump, or at least not enough better to warrant rewarding the DNC's bad behaviour. The 2016 convention was already kind of a disaster, and 2020 will be significantly worse in the worst case (but likely) scenario where Sanders is leading but doesn't have a majority.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

If Sanders fails to obtain 1,991 delegates before the convention, which appears likely, it seems nearly certain he will be blocked by the party from becoming the Democratic candidate. The damage done to the Democratic Party, if this happens, will be catastrophic. It will all but ensure that Trump wins a second term..."

This assumes that there are all these voters who want Sanders-style policies, but, in the absence of that, are voting for Trump, presumbaly as the next best thing. But I'm not convinced of that. Apart from some of the Obama-voters in the rust-belt who switched over in 2016, I don't see  lot of desire for anything resembling socialism from the people wearing MAGA hats. If anything, the stay-at-homes among them might actually be convinced to show up, if they can be scaremongered by the spectre of a Castro-loving commie as POTUS.

Granted, due to the electoral college, the rust-belt switchers could theoretically make a difference. But I wonder how many of them really want the whole progressive package, and how many just went for Trump because he promised to keep their particular factory open?

I don't think the claim is that some Sanders supporters will vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee or Trump voters will vote for Sanders if Sanders is the nominee. I think the claim is that if Sanders goes into the convention with a plurality of delegates, short of a majority of delegates, and is again cheated by the DNC, this time in a brokered nomination after the first ballot, that this will disenfranchise a significant percentage of Sanders supporters (say 10%) who will see Biden or Bloomberg as "the establishment" and no better than Trump, or at least not enough better to warrant rewarding the DNC's bad behaviour. The 2016 convention was already kind of a disaster, and 2020 will be significantly worse in the worst case (but likely) scenario where Sanders is leading but doesn't have a majority.

To complete this -- ...and not turn up to vote in November. Sanders supporters may not vote for Trump but they may not vote for an establishment candidate either

contrarianna

Zombified Democracy.

Presidential race again for the second-worst choice for the empire's figurehead:  Trump vs Biden, a narcissistic sociopath vs a dementia victim.

I'd vote for dementia, it hardly made any difference in Reagan's last term and Biden's handlers might be marginally better at their job than Trumps.

Dems Converge Around Dementia-Addled Warmonger Ahead Of Super Tuesday

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/03/03/dems-converge-around-dementia-ad...

NDPP

Super Tuesday: Democrat Establishment Unites Against Bernie Sanders as 14 US States Hold Primaries

https://on.rt.com/ac3j

"The biggest single day of primaries among the Democrats may still not decide their 2020 presidential nominee as the party is throwing its weight behind Joe Biden against the democratic socialist insurgency of Bernie Sanders..."

NorthReport

Quite the rebound for Biden tonite

NDPP

Democraticide

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/03/democraticide/

"If the combine of reactionary  nonentities who bombed, with Mike Millions, and vindictive team mole Warren, deny Bernie his majority, then the party will nominate its flaccid, fatuous Nowhere Man who will be joyfully flogged by Trump, beaten like the vacuous drum he is. In that event, the Party dies of permanent 1% donor withdrawal and mass youth abandonment.

Contrary to popular belief, parties do die. The Federalists did. The Whigs did. And the Democrats have every confidence they can do it too. And they should. A more sleazy, cynical betrayal of a mass voting body has perhaps not been seen since the Reichstag Fire..."

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

My feelings about super tuesday's results were best expressed by P. Z. Myers:

P. Z. Myers wrote:
Oh, man, what a nightmare. I dreamt that it was November, and I had just unenthusiastically voted in the presidential election. Joe Biden had swept all the primaries, had picked some unmemorable, faceless white man as his VP, and bumbled his way through a few ugly debates. The Democratic party had successfully doused the flickering flames of progressive activism in this country, inserting their establishment apparatchik into the running for the highest office, and he was prepared to appoint a phalanx of bankers and insurance executives into his cabinet. On election day I voted for that stooge, dreading the next four years of either his toothy smug grin or a repeat of the orange fascist, and, while I was unhappy with either choice, my decision was forced. And now I was just waiting for the election results. I felt exactly as I did on election day in 2016, grim and doomed.

Mobo2000

It is a massive bummer that Biden may well win now.    I suppose it's a small consolation that it could be worse, PZ could be chosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

It is a massive bummer that Biden may well win now.    I suppose it's a small consolation that it could be worse, PZ could be chosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   

Bloomberg out and Warren still in. Sanders lost states he won in 2016. It is over.

As far as defeating Trump -- the big story will be the VP nominee and if that can make a difference.

Next story will be how the economy does and if that makes a difference.

Can Biden beat Trump? Who knows.

I am not sure if Sanders could have beaten Trump either -- somehow I think he is just a little too progressive to win where he needed to.

I think that it now may be a question of trying to survive 4 more nightmarish years with Trump.

You can be sure that millions have been spent on studying how to steal this election -- even more than previous years.

Not a fan of Biden but I do think the world would be better with him than Trump as President. Yes Biden will have foreign adventures and he will screw over any progressive options. However, he woul slow down enough of the destruction of the environment and he may step back from a full scale crisis such that we can survive 4 years and hope for soemthing in 2024. 

I think that there is a path to something better in 2024. By that time a generational change will be in place -- people in their 80s are not going to be running. A new generation of people thinking more like OAC will be there. They may have a demographic advatnage -- Texas could be Democrat by then as the Republicans age.

The question is what will get us through the next 4 years with less damage. Nothing progressive will happen now. But a slowing of the damage could leave us enough of a world to fight for in 2024.

contrarianna

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As far as defeating Trump -- the big story will be the VP nominee and if that can make a difference....

The question is what will get us through the next 4 years with less damage. Nothing progressive will happen now. But a slowing of the damage could leave us enough of a world to fight for in 2024.

I mostly agree.

Michelle Obama has said she would not consider being VP but would probably be Biden's most effective counter-Trump asset, given the reality of name recognition, celebrity politics. Perhaps the "existential threat" of another 4 years of Trump could be used as a rationale for backtracking on her position.

Poll: California Voters Would Like To See Michelle Obama On Democratic Ticket
March 3, 2020

....The poll took an interesting turn when those same voters were asked who the Vice Presidential nominee should be on the Democratic ticket. An overwhelming number of the voters wanted a woman to be named to the position.

Michelle Obama was the choice of 31 percent of those asked. California Senator and Bay Area native Kamala Harris was second at 19 percent, Klobuchar third at 18 percent, Stacy Abrams fourth at 13 percent and Steyer rounded out the top five with 10 percent support....

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/03/03/poll-california-voters-woul...

Various opinions:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/3/inside-the-beltway-among...

https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/biden-says-he-will-ask-michelle-obam...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/michelle-obama-president-2020-democ...

 

kropotkin1951

I like Bernie both as a US politician and a human. I think that the farther the nomination gets from his grasp the longer his lifespan gets so maybe its a good thing for him personally. It has always been about who will be the Democratic VP candidate. I think that Biden is never going to beat Trump. Unlike Hillary he doesn't even have gender going for him when he tries to appeal to people who like to think of themselves as progressives.

The Democratic primaries show once again that a broad spectrum of the voters who align with the Democratic side of the duopoly are status quo to the core. American exceptionalism is the ruling ethos of a country deluded by the greatest propaganda machine ever seen.

NDPP

"Who is an enemy of democracy? That would be Thomas L Friedman of the NY Times. This is truly disgusting..."

https://twitter.com/TimothyS/status/1235254560115089415

Oligarchy Uber Alles.

NDPP

Democratic Party Leaders Engineer Biden Victory in Most Super Tuesday States

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/04/dems-m04.html

"...The outcome was a rebuff to Sanders' claim that this campaign can transform the Democratic Party into an instrument for 'political revolution' or significant social reform. Instead the results demonstrate the opposite: the Democratic Party is a right-wing political formation, one of the twin parties of the American capitalist class, unbreakably tied to Wall Street and American imperialism.

Rather than bow to Sanders' apparent momentum after caucuses in Iowa and Nevada and the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic Party leadership intervened massively to bolster the faltering campaign of the most right-wing contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But within the framework of the Democratic Party, the opposition to Trump is being diverted in a right-wing, pro-imperialist direction. The Democratic leadership wants to run the 2020 campaign as an extension of the Mueller investigation and the impeachment drive, portraying Trump as a Russian stooge and appealing for the support of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus for Trump's removal..."

 

Tulsi Gabbard: Presidential Candidates Must Also Condemn Election Interference by US Intelligence Agencies

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/485051-tulsi-gabbard-pr...

"Reckless claims by anonymous intelligence officials that Russia is 'helping' Sen Bernie Sanders are deeply irresponsible...Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by out-of-control intelligence agencies..."

Seems to me they're more accurately described as  'in-control' intelligence agencies.

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:
My feelings about super tuesday's results were best expressed by P. Z. Myers:

P. Z. Myers wrote:
Oh, man, what a nightmare. I dreamt that it was November, and I had just unenthusiastically voted in the presidential election. Joe Biden had swept all the primaries, had picked some unmemorable, faceless white man as his VP, and bumbled his way through a few ugly debates. The Democratic party had successfully doused the flickering flames of progressive activism in this country, inserting their establishment apparatchik into the running for the highest office, and he was prepared to appoint a phalanx of bankers and insurance executives into his cabinet. On election day I voted for that stooge, dreading the next four years of either his toothy smug grin or a repeat of the orange fascist, and, while I was unhappy with either choice, my decision was forced. And now I was just waiting for the election results. I felt exactly as I did on election day in 2016, grim and doomed.

That's absolute bullshit. Meyers had the option to vote for Jill Stein. If more people had done that, that would have sent a clear message to the Democratic Establishment that this will not be tolerated.

Aristotleded24

I don't think people understand what is at stakes if Sanders is not the nominee. This isn't going to give some opening for a left-wing resurgence in 2024 (sorry Tulsi). Think about what Sander's appeal is. His supporters believe he is their voice to speak against the Establishment. If Sanders fails a second time, do you think these people will stay with the Democratic Party? No they will not. The best case scenario is that some of these younger voters will go into third party politics. The rest will just give up. "Oh, climate change, economy, wealth inequality, health care." No. Things look pretty stark, so despair will set in. Any activisim around these issues will not happen through Presidential poiltics or the Democratic Party. What we're seeing with the Democrats is not new. They are adept at allowing enough lefties through so that the left will try harder to take over the party, while still maintaining control. Sometimes lefties get through by accident (think AOC) but for the most part, the Democrats know how to play the game. Speaking of AOC, should Sanders not be the nominee, the AOC wing of the party will be marginalized. They may win a few symbolic things, but will have no sway over any meaningful aspect of party decision making. And also don't forget, if Biden is the nominee, and when Trump defeats him, he will take the House with him. Considering how hollowed out the Democratic Party will have been by then, the Republicans will be in good shape for 2024. The alternative scenario is that the Democrats will have moved so far to the right in this new envrionment that it will truly not matter whether or not a Republican or a Democrat is in office.

I think the immediate priority is to push as hard as possible for a Sanders nomination and then a Sanders Presidency. Immediately after, there needs to be a serious push to build a viable third party in US politics. First Iowa, and now we are hearing stories about voting problems in Texas? Something is wrong with how the Democrats operate. The left needs to immediately ditch the Democrats, and to make sure that under no circumstances will they support any candidate at any level with an R or a D by their name (yes, this includes AOC). By running for the Democrats, lefties continue to give the party credibility as a viable vehicle for left wing politics. It is not. The other aspect is that if the left builds up networks outside the Democratic Party, that creates a viable support base from which candidates can run for public office and win outside the system. People like AOC argue that they have to run as Democrats because that is the only way they can be elected. Wouldn't it be nice if they had the chance to run for office and openly critique the Democrat as well as Republican establishments? That's one of Bernie's weak spots from 2016 and this campaign, is that he is much easier on criticizing the Democratic Establishment. Jill Stein had no problems going after both parties.

NDPP

Krystal Ball: Bernie Can Still Win, Here's How

http://youtu.be/WAwcUZMuHMM

"Krystal Ball shares what she thinks the Sanders campaign can do to come back..."

JKR

NDPP wrote:

A more sleazy, cynical betrayal of a mass voting body has perhaps not been seen since the Reichstag Fire..."

Voting for Biden might not be the most sensible move made by voters but I think it's a far cry from burning down the Reichstag? How can voting be equated with burning down the Reichstag?!?!? Should Biden be disqualified because he doesn't represent a certain "mass voting body?" It seems to me that if Bernie wants to win the nomination he will simply have to win more votes than Biden. Sounds pretty democratic to me. If Biden wins more votes than Sanders, who should be the nominee?

Aristotleded24

For a different take on things:

Biden Actually Had A Bad Night-Kim Iversen

Misfit Misfit's picture

People tried to protest the Democratic establishment in 2000. They voted for Ralph Nader and gave the Republicans the election. I think that people in the United States are wary of third party candidates like Stein for that very reason. It isn't because they object to the message per se, but it is like here in Canada, people ditch the NDP and vote Liberal out of fear of the other party.

There are too many powerful stakeholders such as the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street, military suppliers, oil companies, etc. who have a vested interest in keeping people like Sanders out. These powerful interest groups like both political parties just like in Canada they are friendly with both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

It is because of this fear that many people vote for the establishment candidate. Ralph Nader is still too fresh in many peoples minds. Many people want Trump gone and they are going with who they think has the best chance of removing him from office.

Joe Biden will appoint a proper replacement for Ruth Ginsberg when she retires. He will hopefully release the children to their parents at the Mexican borders and restore human rights. He will restore diplomatic relations with foreign nations, he will respect the media. He will conduct his duties with civility and tact. Yes, he is backed by the establishment but he still would be a massive improvement over what they have now.

Aristotleded24

Misfit wrote:
Joe Biden will appoint a proper replacement for Ruth Ginsberg when she retires. He will hopefully release the children to their parents at the Mexican borders and restore human rights. He will restore diplomatic relations with foreign nations, he will respect the media. He will conduct his duties with civility and tact. Yes, he is backed by the establishment but he still would be a massive improvement over what they have now.

Hope and Change like Obama? Why do you think the US is still involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? For all the credit Obama got for moves he made in Iraq early in his term, he was merely following through with the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush II had set up.

Letting immigrant children out of cages? I think that is serious wishful thinking. When has Biden ever spoken to that?

And Biden being elected? He is clearly in early stage dementia. You think he can hold his own in a debate against Trump?

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

It is a massive bummer that Biden may well win now.    I suppose it's a small consolation that it could be worse, PZ could be chosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   

Bloomberg out and Warren still in. Sanders lost states he won in 2016. It is over.

Is it really? Let's look at the 2 delegate rich states from Super Tuesday, Texas and California. Clinton blew out Sanders in both states last time. This time, Sanders and Biden split Texas and Sanders took California. That more than makes up for the delegates Sanders lost from last time in the other states. As of right now, he is less than 100 points behind Biden in delegates. That gap can shrink even more as votes in California continue to be counted. The Sanders campaign has already sent signals that it is reworking its approach and preparing to go after Biden's weaknesses, particularly on trade and social security. Sure it's an uphill climb, but it's doable.

kropotkin1951

Joe Biden is an out and out imperialist who will be bad for the planet and most of its inhabitants. Who the fuck cares whether he is marginally better than the current POTUS. No POTUS has actually been in control of the US in generations. 

Sanders was never going to be allowed to dismantle the system that has served the billionaire class so well, while Biden won't try and Trump is gaming it. A positive outcome from an American election is the height of delusion. The evil empire will not be voted out of office.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

It is a massive bummer that Biden may well win now.    I suppose it's a small consolation that it could be worse, PZ could be chosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   

Bloomberg out and Warren still in. Sanders lost states he won in 2016. It is over.

Is it really? Let's look at the 2 delegate rich states from Super Tuesday, Texas and California. Clinton blew out Sanders in both states last time. This time, Sanders and Biden split Texas and Sanders took California. That more than makes up for the delegates Sanders lost from last time in the other states. As of right now, he is less than 100 points behind Biden in delegates. That gap can shrink even more as votes in California continue to be counted. The Sanders campaign has already sent signals that it is reworking its approach and preparing to go after Biden's weaknesses, particularly on trade and social security. Sure it's an uphill climb, but it's doable.

Doable for the nomination maybe. But a slug fest to the end will benefit Trump. With Sanders behind now I do not think he can win. I don't think Biden can either.

Aristotleded24

Misfit wrote:
People tried to protest the Democratic establishment in 2000. They voted for Ralph Nader and gave the Republicans the election.

That is a lie that the Democratic Establishment keeps telling to excuse itself from its poor performance in that campaign. All Gore had to was win his home state of Tennessee, which would have won him the election. Furtheromre, more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than all of Nader's voters, and there is no guarantee that Nader's people would have broken for Gore had Nader not run.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

It is a massive bummer that Biden may well win now.    I suppose it's a small consolation that it could be worse, PZ could be chosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   

Bloomberg out and Warren still in. Sanders lost states he won in 2016. It is over.

Is it really? Let's look at the 2 delegate rich states from Super Tuesday, Texas and California. Clinton blew out Sanders in both states last time. This time, Sanders and Biden split Texas and Sanders took California. That more than makes up for the delegates Sanders lost from last time in the other states. As of right now, he is less than 100 points behind Biden in delegates. That gap can shrink even more as votes in California continue to be counted. The Sanders campaign has already sent signals that it is reworking its approach and preparing to go after Biden's weaknesses, particularly on trade and social security. Sure it's an uphill climb, but it's doable.

Doable for the nomination maybe. But a slug fest to the end will benefit Trump. With Sanders behind now I do not think he can win. I don't think Biden can either.

Just like the slugfest on the Democratic side helped the Republicans in 2008 and the slugfest on the Republican side helped Clinton in 2016.

NDPP

"You've got to hand it to them, the Democratic Party have accomplished the impossible: They've found a candidate who is worse than Hillary Clinton and will lose to Trump by an even larger margin...(and vid)

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1235353612789985280

Pages

Topic locked