2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

774 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Obama is apparently pulling strings behind the scenes to help Biden. Can Bernie flip this on its head?

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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.

Yeah, I forgot that the 2016 Republican was running against an incumbant Democrat in 2016 who had no competition and the Republican in 2008 had a similar advantage. Makes your comparison totally valid to the Democrats fighting it out now when the Republican already has the nomination. Thanks for reminding me.

Misfit Misfit's picture

A slug fest keeps the Democrats in the media and controlling the message. Trump had to compete for media attention because of Super Tuesday. I say keep it up.

It was mentioned in Aristotle's video that the swing states are important. How strong is Bernie in the swing states vs Biden. This needs to be factored in to determine who is best suited for defeating Trump.

if Bernie can flip the rust belt he can win the election.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

A slug fest keeps the Democrats in the media and controlling the message. Trump had to compete for media attention because of Super Tuesday. I say keep it up.

It was mentioned in Aristotle's video that the swing states are important. How strong is Bernie in the swing states vs Biden. This needs to be factored in to determine who is best suited for defeating Trump.

if Bernie can flip the rust belt he can win the election.

The problem is that every comment made against each other is being saved up for Republican advertising. The money the Democrats need to fight the GOP is being spent fighting each other. 

This is a special case -- a sitting President. These are seldom dislodged -- and this one is prone to cheating and widely considered more dangerous to the US itself.

I am not saying these things out of any lack of support for Bernie. Like everyone elese here I think he would be a better President and that he would have a better chance against Trump in the general election. But still not a great chance. The present war in the Democrat party guarantees that he has almost no chance now short of a major problem for Trump that has not yet materialized and would help any Democrat.

Looking at the Electoral College for the general election -- the States Sanders needs to win look unlikely. The US has not moved away from being terrified of socialism in the battleground states even if the coasts have moved on.  Yes, I know he would pile up the vote in the best states but that does not win you any more than a bare majority does in those states. The US is simply not a country that suddenly became progressive overnight.

The Democrats know this. I think that a majority of Democrats prefer Bernie -- but they do not think he can win and that is why they are going to Biden. I think this is the wrong calculation as Sanders still would have been best if they had gone to him, and the result is none of them can win now.

I think that the Democrats have moved to Biden becuase they think he can win. I know socialists who are delighted becuase while they like Bernie and cannot stand Biden they think Bernie cannot win. There are enough of these types to make him lose. This means Biden can win the Democrats. I think they are incorrect and that Sanders would have had a better chance in the general than Biden. However, right now, I think neither one has much of a chance against Trump becuase the Democrats have pooched their chances and I believe have already damaged Sanders in what would have been a tight election.

Sanders needed to be far ahead now to be able to unite the party enough to take marginal states. Whoever wins will be damaged enough and weak enough that there will be less money and less support and they will not get enough people to the polls. 

All that said, I think the Democrats are going to win a higher popular vote victory than last time and still lose. They will do this regardless of candidate in their best states.

Sean in Ottawa

To complete my thought -- progressive people in the US cannot win until they have electoral revolution (not even saying reform). 

You need a millionaire to run for congress and a billionaire for President. This has been increasing exponentially. this kinds of money will not flow to someone like Sanders.

Secondly, you need the foundation of democracy to be repaired: information. To manage that either you have a benevolent authority making judgments which is anti-democratic and will be abused and the chance of a beneveloent control of information is by definition a contradiction -- or you need a population educated to be able to think.

The US as I said previously is a highly specialized population: even those with a PhD know little outside their field as they are educated to perform their service but not for indepdent thought. This means education reform. It means money spent so people can think for themselves. Who is going to spend that money? The corporations who do not want independent thought (interferes with sales)? Somehow you need to raise the value of critical thinking in the population so that the population teaches itself this.

The US is in many ways a theocracy. Indepdent thought is anti-religious. Sorry to be blunt but religion is a package deal of belifs without evidence. Independent thought and critical thinking encourages people to pick and choose and at least consider. No religion would ever want that out of control.

the problems of electing Sanders run very deep in the US and through both the primary and general elections. People might want to be realistic about this. The chance of an old-style Democrat taking on a Republic may be loathesome but the prospect of a person like Sanders being able to get  that far is distant. It was possible up until super Tuesday. With the withdrawel of candidates and consolidation of the party against Sanders, it was clear this was not to be. With that gone as I beleive it surely is, as Sanders would emerge mortally wounded or defeated, the only question was the choice between bad and worse. Trump is worse.

You want better choices? Electoral revolution (call it reform if you like).

Bacchus

Democrats scared of Sanders would either not vote (handing victory to Trump) or vote for Trump to avoid Sanders (handing victory to Trump) as 4 more years of Trump would be preferable to them, especially if that meant they could control who would be the next Democratic President after him

 

Sean in Ottawa

Bacchus wrote:

Democrats scared of Sanders would either not vote (handing victory to Trump) or vote for Trump to avoid Sanders (handing victory to Trump) as 4 more years of Trump would be preferable to them, especially if that meant they could control who would be the next Democratic President after him

 

I do not agree with this. I think many Democrats are afraid of Sanders becuase they are afraid he would lose. 

I also think that Democrats also gamed the polls exaggerating the value of their candidate. I suspect in the end most would vote against Trump. Including many who are upset if Sanders loses and those upset if he wins.

That said there re numbers in key close states on both sides who might not vote, I think this number is exaggerated on both sides.

The difference is that there are independent Sanders voters who would otherwise not vote -- people who are unhappy with the Democrats and there are people unhappy with the system that I think a Sandars candidacy could inspire to vote. This is why I think Sanders while a longshot against Trump has a better chance than Biden. Another reason is that Bide does seem to have too many senior moments and is very uninspiring (boring). Sanders may be contrversial (in the USA) but he is an exciting candidate.

If Warren opts for Sanders there could be a path for him if there is a Biden stumble but this has to be very soon. I am worried that the Democrats at this point have a fading path to win. 

voice of the damned

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Obama is apparently pulling strings behind the scenes to help Biden. Can Bernie flip this on its head?

You mean can Sanders say "Don't vote for Biden, he's endorsed by that old-school party hack Obama?" I don't think that would have the desired effect.

I don't imagine too many of Trudeau's supporters in 2019 were put off by Obama's endorsement of their man, even though most of them probably regard themselves as being to the left of your average mainstream Democrat. Obama's still a popular guy with liberals and the centre-left, both around the world and in the US itself.

Aristotleded24

Misfit wrote:
It was mentioned in Aristotle's video that the swing states are important. How strong is Bernie in the swing states vs Biden. This needs to be factored in to determine who is best suited for defeating Trump.

if Bernie can flip the rust belt he can win the election.

Iowa was the first of 6 states that flipped from Obama to Trump. Sanders won the popular vote there.

Aristotleded24

voice of the damned wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Obama is apparently pulling strings behind the scenes to help Biden. Can Bernie flip this on its head?

You mean can Sanders say "Don't vote for Biden, he's endorsed by that old-school party hack Obama?" I don't think that would have the desired effect.

You didn't click the link. It's an ad were Sanders tries to piggyback off Obama's popularity.

NDPP

'Blood is on your hands. Millions are Dead in Iraq' (and vid)

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1235701093528743936

"Joe Biden cowardly walks away after a veteran confronts him about his support for the criminal Iraq war."

NorthReport

So how will Biden do against Trump?

Research shows that incumbent Presidents usually win re-election but this year could prove to be the exception.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
So how will Biden do against Trump? Research shows that incumbent Presidents usually win re-election but this year could prove to be the exception.

You think that this man who is uninspiring and clearly in mental decline is going to defeat a sitting president? This is a colossal mistake. Fact is if the Democrats had not knee-capped Sanders he would have had a better chance. Now probably nobody has a chance unless Trump screws the pooch beyond repaid on either covid19 or the economy of both.

So now Democrats have to hope for a crisis as that is what it will take for their man to win.

They need electoral reform in a really bad way....

kropotkin1951

Prescribing electoral reform for the American political system seems to me to be akin to prescribing an aspirin for terminal cancer.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So now Democrats have to hope for a crisis as that is what it will take for their man to win.

The U.S. has so many intractable structural flaws that a crisis may be inevitable, especially with the Covid-19 outbreak. The US's lack of political financing laws have been a complete disaster. The US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 has basically destroyed US politics. Income inequality is getting worse than it was in the 1920's. Fox News has a huge amount of political power. Red America versus Blue America has become a cold civil war. Many Americans are no longer even able to talk about politics to each other because Red America has introduced so much hate into the political process. Trump is just the natural outcome of America's polarization and corporate rule. Trump's horrific presidency is just a symptom of the US's structural flaws that can only be changed through constitutional changes which won't happen as long as the Republicans have at least 34 seats in the Senate. The only thing keeping the U.S. together is the increased economic productivity from the Internet. Even with huge gains in productivity, most gains are just going to the top 1%. Unemployment in the U.S. is low but very many working Americans are living just above the poverty line. Racial tensions are also growing in the U.S. I think with Covid-19 the US economy is going to take a big hit by Election Day and Trump will likely lose the election. Even if Trump loses I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't concede defeat and who knows if Fox News will not back him up on that?

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Prescribing electoral reform for the American political system seems to me to be akin to prescribing an aspirin for terminal cancer.

I think PR would improve  U.S. politics, but that's not going to happen in the U.S any time over the foreseeable future. As they say in parts of the U.S., "that dog don't hunt." The U.S. is probably going to have to go through another Great Depression before it can save itself. Even if Sanders somehow wins he won't be able to get his policies through a Senate with many Republicans and a few moderate Democrats.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Prescribing electoral reform for the American political system seems to me to be akin to prescribing an aspirin for terminal cancer.

I think PR would improve  U.S. politics, but that's not going to happen in the U.S any time over the foreseeable future. As they say in parts of the U.S., "that dog don't hunt." The U.S. is probably going to have to go through another Great Depression before it can save itself. Even if Sanders somehow wins he won't be able to get his policies through a Senate with many Republicans and a few moderate Democrats.

PR is really a fantasy in the US. If we focus on the things that might be possible we can see that there are things that would represent drastic improvements and major reform. 

A short list of what the House might be able to do:

1)Setting aside PR for legislative assemblies -- they can abolish the electoral college. Only a strong Democratic majority could achieve this but it is not impossible and discussions about it exist.

2) They can limit spending by candidates. This is extremely difficult however the conversation could be advanced and seeing the low quality candidates getting advantages it is possible that there might eventually be support for this.

3) They cannot take electoral control from the States. However they could produce a much more robust national watchdog to report on gerrymandering and vote restrictions and shame the worst states.

4) They can take seriously misinformation by advancing mechanisms to publish public statistical informaiton in more accessible ways and promote the informaiton accesss. They can pass laws to censure outright provable lies. By this I do not mean intentions, subjective statements, future plans but lies that relate to objective facts like how many immigrants are there according to border authorities or about measurable data including economic indicators from the past. With laws like this at least you can get a hearing and finding of fact by a court that the person lied. When running for office people could be bound by such laws.  It may be too draconian to impose punishment but having a legal hearing and a finding of fact is a political penalty.

5) On the topic of law -- the political appointment process can be reformed to allow for minimum provable qualifications and greater accountability than the leader picking whomever the leader chooses.

6) Voter rights laws allowing for minimum accest to voting standards that do not presently exist.

In Canada me debate much more ambitious reforms that of course the US could benefit from but even setting those aside the above reforms would be extremely difficult to do as it is but not impossible and they would improve the situation there dramatically. I am sure some modest and obvious reforms could be added and maybe some of the above might not be possible but a few measueres will not make the US democratic but it will improve things over the serious state it is in now.

The above would be nothing less than a revolution for the US but a package like that could be passed by a democratic congress and the GOP would face tremendous shame opposing elements of it.

The US democracy has never been good but it has been worsening in some key areas just as other may have been getting better (So we can point to strides in the US over the last 150 years but as each area of progress comes, a new method to turn back fairness is begun -- an attack on those is what I mean by a revolution).

If the Democrats were serious about this (big if) -- and they gained the House, Senate and Presidency -- they possibly could bring in some of these changes. They might have to inflate the court (as is possible) to do this to remove the effective power to veto from the right wing Supreme court. I think  this is a given anyway since this court will stall any Democrat moves following an election in any case.

So do not expect much but something is possible in terms of reform and that soemthing could make a remarkable difference when you consider just how bad things are there now.

NDPP

CrossTalk: Taking Down Bernie

https://youtu.be/pN9RcROvKxY

The Democratic Party's fear of Bernie Sanders' candidacy. It ain't over yet. They just want you to think so.

kropotkin1951

I think that if you want to fix the US political system the first order of business is to amend the Constitution to ensure that only living breathing human beings are considered people. Much of the abuse of the election laws in the US and many of the underpinnings of our Charter law is based on rulings that use the fiction that an incorporated company is a person in its own right.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that if you want to fix the US political system the first order of business is to amend the Constitution to ensure that only living breathing human beings are considered people. Much of the abuse of the election laws in the US and many of the underpinnings of our Charter law is based on rulings that use the fiction that an incorporated company is a person in its own right.

Sure -- but don't set the bar of doing anything that high. What I proposed needs a majority to pass. What you propose needs a 2/3 majority in both Senate and House to pass. It will not happen at least before these other things.

When speaking about the US the idea of making that country democratic is not something that can happen in this generation. It requires a broad consensus that is not there. Their problem is they are all deluded into thinking they are already the best in the world and then swamped by rightist propaganda.

However, you can get things done with a majority when one becomes available that can at least slow the descent with some modest measures. 

Long term efforts would have to be done to change the political culture to get what you are calling for.

kropotkin1951

Sean we are talking hypothetical scenarios, none of which are probable but only remotely possible, so I'll set the bar anyplace I want to. I don't understand dreaming small when one is talking about changing the world. Incrementalism is useless in a crisis and no body on the planet has time for the US voters to stop voting for imperialist parties. One of the reasons I picked going after the corporate personhood is because it has become a millennial issue not just an old anarchist's idea and it is one of the cornerstones of the corporate "rule of law" in America.

However when all is said and done the US needs a revolution not minor changes and revolutions are always bloody awful affairs that only sometimes produce a better society.  The conditions in the US are ripe for a revolution unfortunately the best armed and trained militias in the country are right wing, racist, religious groups.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean we are talking hypothetical scenarios, none of which are probable but only remotely possible, so I'll set the bar anyplace I want to. I don't understand dreaming small when one is talking about changing the world. Incrementalism is useless in a crisis and no body on the planet has time for the US voters to stop voting for imperialist parties. One of the reasons I picked going after the corporate personhood is because it has become a millennial issue not just an old anarchist's idea and it is one of the cornerstones of the corporate "rule of law" in America.

However when all is said and done the US needs a revolution not minor changes and revolutions are always bloody awful affairs that only sometimes produce a better society.  The conditions in the US are ripe for a revolution unfortunately the best armed and trained militias in the country are right wing, racist, religious groups.

We were talking about Sanders and I was saying that I did not think any worthwhile candidate would likely be possible without a minimum reform and laid out the kind of reform the Democrats could do if that wanted to. I also stated that what I laid out was a big ask in their current position.

Sure you can set the bar way above what is even remotely possible if that is the kind of dreaming you wish to do. I was just identifying the reforms I thought would be required as a minimum to get out of the imediate rut with shitty canddiates and nothing possible even for a stepping stone. I had said that reforms were needed to even begin to think of a Sanders like person having a shot and I went on to say what those were.

I see no popint in holding out any hope of the kind of revolution you say is required for the reasons you state.

I identified the things that might be remotely possible with  the Democrats in charge.

I think the chances of what you want are about the same hoping for the Americans to do it or hoping for little Green Martians to come and do it for them. This is why I aimed a little less ambitious and laid out some target ideas that could happen in the present universe.

JKR

I think two target ideas that can happen in the present universe are election finance reform and universal Medicare coverage. Universe Medicare coverage wouldn't even have to be single-payer.

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/zzPVovAJ6F8

"Establishment hacks deny establishment colluding against Bernie."

Aristotleded24

Per Wikipedia, here are the contests taking place next week: Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Washington. Based on the 2016 numbers, the only bad state listed is Mississippi, however that will go to Biden with such a large margin and is not a delegate rich state. Every other state went to Bernie, or tied in the case of Missouri. I like Bernie's chances in Michigan because of the trade issue, and in Washington State because that place is very left-leaning. North Dakota and Idaho are more rural states. Oklahoma went from Bernie in 2016 to Biden in 2020. Could that be because Hillary Clinton isn't on the ballot this time, thus there is no strong "not that candidate" sentiment? If North Dakota and Idaho trend similarly to Oklahoma, does that present a legitimate worry about Bernie losing ground? Does he still have a strong chance of winning the night overall? Thoughts?

iyraste1313

As I predicted quite some time ago, here, his chances are dead in the water...the DNC's superdelegates will guarantee a Biden victory....a candidate totally proven corrupt....running against Trump? who will preside over a collapsing system?

If Tulsi Gabbard runs a third party ticket with a good running mate, she will shock the system with her success.....

Aristotleded24

iyraste1313 wrote:
If Tulsi Gabbard runs a third party ticket with a good running mate, she will shock the system with her success.....

She has clearly stated many times that she is not going to run third party.

kropotkin1951

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean we are talking hypothetical scenarios, none of which are probable but only remotely possible, so I'll set the bar anyplace I want to. I don't understand dreaming small when one is talking about changing the world. Incrementalism is useless in a crisis and no body on the planet has time for the US voters to stop voting for imperialist parties. One of the reasons I picked going after the corporate personhood is because it has become a millennial issue not just an old anarchist's idea and it is one of the cornerstones of the corporate "rule of law" in America.

However when all is said and done the US needs a revolution not minor changes and revolutions are always bloody awful affairs that only sometimes produce a better society.  The conditions in the US are ripe for a revolution unfortunately the best armed and trained militias in the country are right wing, racist, religious groups.

We were talking about Sanders and I was saying that I did not think any worthwhile candidate would likely be possible without a minimum reform and laid out the kind of reform the Democrats could do if that wanted to. I also stated that what I laid out was a big ask in their current position.

The remark I answered began with this phrase. Sorry I forgot about responding to you.

"A short list of what the House might be able to do:"

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

The remark I answered began with this phrase. [snipped some crap]

"A short list of what the House might be able to do:"

Exactly -- I was focusing on things the House could do (that would need a simple majority in the House and Senate) rather than things you need both the Senate and House at 2/3 majority. I do not think that the type of consitutional amendment you are imagining could even be passed by the Democrats never mind the GOP. It speaks to the ideology of the country. This is why I aimed for much more modest but still significant things.

kropotkin1951

Your gyrations are impossible to follow so forget it. I don't want to play dodge ball.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

The remark I answered began with this phrase. [snipped some crap]

"A short list of what the House might be able to do:"

Exactly -- I was focusing on things the House could do (that would need a simple majority in the House and Senate) rather than things you need both the Senate and House at 2/3 majority. I do not think that the type of consitutional amendment you are imagining could even be passed by the Democrats never mind the GOP. It speaks to the ideology of the country. This is why I aimed for much more modest but still significant things.

[/quote=Sean in Ottawa]

We were talking about Sanders and I was saying that I did not think any worthwhile candidate would likely be possible without a minimum reform and laid out the kind of reform the Democrats could do if that wanted to. I also stated that what I laid out was a big ask in their current position.

 

kropotkin1951

A short list of what the House might be able to do:

(Here is the SNIPPED CRAP REFERENCED ABOVE)

1)Setting aside PR for legislative assemblies -- they can abolish the electoral college. Only a strong Democratic majority could achieve this but it is not impossible and discussions about it exist.

2) They can limit spending by candidates. This is extremely difficult however the conversation could be advanced and seeing the low quality candidates getting advantages it is possible that there might eventually be support for this.

3) They cannot take electoral control from the States. However they could produce a much more robust national watchdog to report on gerrymandering and vote restrictions and shame the worst states.

4) They can take seriously misinformation by advancing mechanisms to publish public statistical informaiton in more accessible ways and promote the informaiton accesss. They can pass laws to censure outright provable lies. By this I do not mean intentions, subjective statements, future plans but lies that relate to objective facts like how many immigrants are there according to border authorities or about measurable data including economic indicators from the past. With laws like this at least you can get a hearing and finding of fact by a court that the person lied. When running for office people could be bound by such laws.  It may be too draconian to impose punishment but having a legal hearing and a finding of fact is a political penalty.

5) On the topic of law -- the political appointment process can be reformed to allow for minimum provable qualifications and greater accountability than the leader picking whomever the leader chooses.

6) Voter rights laws allowing for minimum accest to voting standards that do not presently exist.

NDPP

'But U Keep Worrying About Russia'

https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1236469562876428288

"Our elections are rigged by the Oligarchs through the DNC and the Corporate Media. Here they are blatantly changing the rules to cheat the sharpest Establishment critic.  #LetTulsiDebate

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
NorthReport wrote:
So how will Biden do against Trump? Research shows that incumbent Presidents usually win re-election but this year could prove to be the exception.

You think that this man who is uninspiring and clearly in mental decline is going to defeat a sitting president? This is a colossal mistake.

This. Biden's mental capacity is being actively hidden from the public in the hopes of continuing his front-runner status, and deserves far more attention and scrutiny than is currently happening.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Your gyrations are impossible to follow so forget it. I don't want to play dodge ball.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

The remark I answered began with this phrase. [snipped some crap]

"A short list of what the House might be able to do:"

Exactly -- I was focusing on things the House could do (that would need a simple majority in the House and Senate) rather than things you need both the Senate and House at 2/3 majority. I do not think that the type of consitutional amendment you are imagining could even be passed by the Democrats never mind the GOP. It speaks to the ideology of the country. This is why I aimed for much more modest but still significant things.

[/quote=Sean in Ottawa]

We were talking about Sanders and I was saying that I did not think any worthwhile candidate would likely be possible without a minimum reform and laid out the kind of reform the Democrats could do if that wanted to. I also stated that what I laid out was a big ask in their current position.

 

Your hate campaign is boring and you are a one-note singer. The only contradiction is in your little hate-infused biased mind.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

A short list of what the House might be able to do:

(Here is the SNIPPED CRAP REFERENCED ABOVE)

1)Setting aside PR for legislative assemblies -- they can abolish the electoral college. Only a strong Democratic majority could achieve this but it is not impossible and discussions about it exist.

2) They can limit spending by candidates. This is extremely difficult however the conversation could be advanced and seeing the low quality candidates getting advantages it is possible that there might eventually be support for this.

3) They cannot take electoral control from the States. However they could produce a much more robust national watchdog to report on gerrymandering and vote restrictions and shame the worst states.

4) They can take seriously misinformation by advancing mechanisms to publish public statistical informaiton in more accessible ways and promote the informaiton accesss. They can pass laws to censure outright provable lies. By this I do not mean intentions, subjective statements, future plans but lies that relate to objective facts like how many immigrants are there according to border authorities or about measurable data including economic indicators from the past. With laws like this at least you can get a hearing and finding of fact by a court that the person lied. When running for office people could be bound by such laws.  It may be too draconian to impose punishment but having a legal hearing and a finding of fact is a political penalty.

5) On the topic of law -- the political appointment process can be reformed to allow for minimum provable qualifications and greater accountability than the leader picking whomever the leader chooses.

6) Voter rights laws allowing for minimum accest to voting standards that do not presently exist.

You have not made a point. But please do not bother -- it will just be some biased.

The crap I snipped that I referenced was your little juvenile snipe at me. 

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
NorthReport wrote:
So how will Biden do against Trump? Research shows that incumbent Presidents usually win re-election but this year could prove to be the exception.

You think that this man who is uninspiring and clearly in mental decline is going to defeat a sitting president? This is a colossal mistake.

This. Biden's mental capacity is being actively hidden from the public in the hopes of continuing his front-runner status, and deserves far more attention and scrutiny than is currently happening.

Absolutely. If it makes it past the point of no return in the Primaries -- it certainly will not in the general.

I think that what we are seeing is nervous Democrats elbowing out Sanders and making a loss more likely and win if there were some miracle, more pointless.

Observers have reason to find this depressing.

Aristotleded24

Now there is even talk about shifting the debate to a sit-down town hall kind of thing, to which the Sanders campaign is objecting. The optics are that the DNC is trying to change the debate format to something that Biden is more comfortable with. What? Do you think Trump will agree to make these concessions for Biden at all? No way!

The DNC is trying to actively manage perceptions here. They think they can control their party to the point where Biden wins the Primary. That may be so, but they do not control Republicans, Independents, or Fox News. Trump is already going after Biden for this. If just questioning Biden's capabilities is mean, do you think Trump is going to hold back? This was a man who openly mocked a disabled reporter and bragged about inappropriately touching women and still won re-election. Trump is already a confirmed bully, do you think his agressiveness with Biden will flip more people?

The first rule of effective communication is to understand how others perceive things. It's amazing that considering how well educated the Democratic base is that so many people in that base forget that. Instead they lecture, condescend, call people racists, and wonder why people don't like them.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Now there is even talk about shifting the debate to a sit-down town hall kind of thing, to which the Sanders campaign is objecting. The optics are that the DNC is trying to change the debate format to something that Biden is more comfortable with. What? Do you think Trump will agree to make these concessions for Biden at all? No way!

The DNC is trying to actively manage perceptions here. They think they can control their party to the point where Biden wins the Primary. That may be so, but they do not control Republicans, Independents, or Fox News. Trump is already going after Biden for this. If just questioning Biden's capabilities is mean, do you think Trump is going to hold back? This was a man who openly mocked a disabled reporter and bragged about inappropriately touching women and still won re-election. Trump is already a confirmed bully, do you think his agressiveness with Biden will flip more people?

The first rule of effective communication is to understand how others perceive things. It's amazing that considering how well educated the Democratic base is that so many people in that base forget that. Instead they lecture, condescend, call people racists, and wonder why people don't like them.

I agree with all of this. I think from reading comments from Democrats that they are in full panic mode and are trying to justify anything in order to protect themselves from a second Trump victory while making that more likely to happen.

JKR

Almost all Trump has going for him is the strong US economy and the US economy is looking incredibly weak nowadays with the Covid-19 outbreak. The stock markets had a horrible week last week and it looks like this week may be another very bad one. Trump's biggest asset by far is the US's very low unemployment rate. Trump will be in a huge amount of trouble if the US's unemployment rate goes up, which it likely will now. I think if the US unemployment rate goes over 6% by Election Day, either Biden or Sanders will have an easy time defeating Trump. Biden may be a weak debater but without a strong economy Trump will look very bad in the debates.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Almost all Trump has going for him is the strong US economy and the US economy is looking incredibly weak nowadays with the Covid-19 outbreak. The stock markets had a horrible week last week and it looks like this week may be another very bad one. Trump's biggest asset by far is the US's very low unemployment rate. Trump will be in a huge amount of trouble if the US's unemployment rate goes up, which it likely will now. I think if the US unemployment rate goes over 6% by Election Day, either Biden or Sanders will have an easy time defeating Trump. Biden may be a weak debater but without a strong economy Trump will look very bad in the debates.

Trump has more money, more statehouses controling the election in critical states, more willingness to cheat, gerrymandering in his favour, incumbancy, the electoral college but I guess apart from that you may be right. 

josh

NDPP wrote:

'But U Keep Worrying About Russia'

https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1236469562876428288

"Our elections are rigged by the Oligarchs through the DNC and the Corporate Media. Here they are blatantly changing the rules to cheat the sharpest Establishment critic.  #LetTulsiDebate

Yes, the rank and file Democratic voters are part of the oligarchy.

josh

iyraste1313 wrote:

As I predicted quite some time ago, here, his chances are dead in the water...the DNC's superdelegates will guarantee a Biden victory....a candidate totally proven corrupt....running against Trump? who will preside over a collapsing system?

If Tulsi Gabbard runs a third party ticket with a good running mate, she will shock the system with her success.....

The superdelegates cannot vote on the first ballot.  But if things keep going where they appear to be heading, there won't be a need for a second ballot.

Douglas Fir Premier

JKR wrote:

Almost all Trump has going for him is the strong US economy and the US economy is looking incredibly weak nowadays with the Covid-19 outbreak. The stock markets had a horrible week last week and it looks like this week may be another very bad one. Trump's biggest asset by far is the US's very low unemployment rate. Trump will be in a huge amount of trouble if the US's unemployment rate goes up, which it likely will now. I think if the US unemployment rate goes over 6% by Election Day, either Biden or Sanders will have an easy time defeating Trump. Biden may be a weak debater but without a strong economy Trump will look very bad in the debates.

Except COVID-19 and the economic upheaval it's triggered are global phenomena. It'll be very easy for those already leaning towards voting Trump to rationalize these things as largely beyond his control, and that a Democratic president wouldn't have done any better.

NDPP

"My, my, how reality can turn on a dime, even if perception lags behind. March 1st Bernie had the Democratic nomination in the bag and anyone truly concerned about the coronavirus was a bit deluded or selling sugical masks...You didn't really think that the super rich who own and control the Democrats and the corporate media were going to let Bernie win the nomination , did you? Every imaginable smear and fear has been unleashed against him in an epic counterattack that resembles the ending of Bonnie and Clyde. Sorry kids, but it's worse than 2016 all over again. Bernie will be urging his movement to Vote Blue No Matter Who They Screw, along with all the rest of the liberal and left pantheon of Blue cheerleaders. Gotta dump Trump!

The Democrats and their scared, propagandized centrist voters are in a first things first mood, and agenda item one is stopping the democratic socialist threat in their midst whose wild in the streets throngs would force the Party to stand for all those rhetorical niceties it always betrays, like real health care for all...We have entered a period of fast collapse. The Bernie tale has a moral which is this: don't tie movements to leader worship, especially when the leader is a politician beholden to one of the two Parties owned by the Oligarchy.

Americans are deeply divided and will remain so, but maybe the agony ahead will help build a movement for Medicare for All or something better, even as the one candidate most committed to it is taken down by the super rich, their Party and media."

Coronavirus is Good for You

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/09/coronavirus-is-good-for-you/

NDPP

dp

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Almost all Trump has going for him is the strong US economy and the US economy is looking incredibly weak nowadays with the Covid-19 outbreak. The stock markets had a horrible week last week and it looks like this week may be another very bad one. Trump's biggest asset by far is the US's very low unemployment rate. Trump will be in a huge amount of trouble if the US's unemployment rate goes up, which it likely will now. I think if the US unemployment rate goes over 6% by Election Day, either Biden or Sanders will have an easy time defeating Trump. Biden may be a weak debater but without a strong economy Trump will look very bad in the debates.

Have you seen Biden speak lately? His appearances are very tightly managed and scripted, and he still goes off on incoherent thoughts. How well do you think he's going to do during a campaign where hiding will be taken as a sign of weakness and against Trump in a debate?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here is a short (2:51) video comparing Biden's presentation in 2012 compared to the last year. It is a dramatic decline, and Trump will use it as cruelly as possible. I would put the chance of Biden winning the presidency (assuming he is the Dem nominee, which seems very likely at this point) at about 1 in 20. He was a bad, bad choice for the Dem establishment to foist on the U.S. population.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Almost all Trump has going for him is the strong US economy and the US economy is looking incredibly weak nowadays with the Covid-19 outbreak. The stock markets had a horrible week last week and it looks like this week may be another very bad one. Trump's biggest asset by far is the US's very low unemployment rate. Trump will be in a huge amount of trouble if the US's unemployment rate goes up, which it likely will now. I think if the US unemployment rate goes over 6% by Election Day, either Biden or Sanders will have an easy time defeating Trump. Biden may be a weak debater but without a strong economy Trump will look very bad in the debates.

Have you seen Biden speak lately? His appearances are very tightly managed and scripted, and he still goes off on incoherent thoughts. How well do you think he's going to do during a campaign where hiding will be taken as a sign of weakness and against Trump in a debate?

At this point the Democrats have two candidates who probably have no chance of success. Both candidates have the public concerned about their age and health (in Bernie Sander's case it is his heart and in Biden it is cognitive decline). Both candidates are already damaged probably beyond repair for the general election and we may have more evidence of this tomorrow. Both candidates face questions about unifying the party.

The Republicans are running a canddiate and campaign designed to win the electoral college. The Democrats have candidates alternately designed to win the nomination or the popular vote -- but not the electoral college. 

The 2020 election may end up between two undesireable cognitively impaired candidates standing before a population unable to recognize that this the the product of their system.

I am inclined to give the edge to the Trump team given the greater ability for his followers to live in a fantasy.

I would not be surprised if the US had a low turnout in an election that ought to have gone the other way.

Every single person at the top of the Democrat party should hang their heads and shame, make their apologies and resign to make room for a leadership that can propose at least the minimum reforms needed to make that system less dysfunctional (if not functional) and to find a way to allow competence to rise to the top in their party.

I am not convinced that Sanders was the best candidate to take on Trump despite his supporters here. I think he is more progressive that can succeed in the US given their present system. I agree Trump is too dangerous to make this the election to go for the needed "revolution." I think the attacks from the Democrats were predictable and the kind of campaign that would materialize against him is equally predictable. All this despite the fact that he may have been a great president. With Biden I cannot imagine a more uninspiring and weak choice to put up against Trump other than running Clinton for a second time. This party could have raised up a person with better odds. They could even have found one somewhat progressive if not a self-declared socialist. the polarization in the Democratic party reflects that in the country as a whole. Its failures will be echoed in the country as well.

We are still not seeing much of the kind of campaign outside of political parties that would be required to turn the US into a a country receptive to the kind of change they need and Sanders represents. While Sanders represented a leap forward in terms of being a progressive candidate, the country is perhaps less receptive now than when it defeated progressive people in the past. 

For Canada, the Corona virus epidemic could well be an unwelcome reminder of why US failures are dangers to us.

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:
Here is a short (2:51) video comparing Biden's presentation in 2012 compared to the last year. It is a dramatic decline, and Trump will use it as cruelly as possible. I would put the chance of Biden winning the presidency (assuming he is the Dem nominee, which seems very likely at this point) at about 1 in 20. He was a bad, bad choice for the Dem establishment to foist on the U.S. population.

Politics aside, this is a sad thing to watch on a human level, and cannot be good for his own physical well-being. It is despicable that the DNC Establishment is using him and propping him up in a cynical game to preserve their own power.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Here is a short (2:51) video comparing Biden's presentation in 2012 compared to the last year. It is a dramatic decline, and Trump will use it as cruelly as possible. I would put the chance of Biden winning the presidency (assuming he is the Dem nominee, which seems very likely at this point) at about 1 in 20. He was a bad, bad choice for the Dem establishment to foist on the U.S. population.

Crossposted and did not see this -- absolutely.

The paths for a Democratic win are closing. Only one left is from a catastrophic decline in the US economy and that is only a chance as the Trump supporters could say this was not his fault.

It is hard to imagine the oldest candidate in history, and an uninspiring one at that, knocking off a sitting President.

The reality is that the Democrats have raised to the top two unelectable candidates. One unelectable becuase their own party would predictably tear him down and then Biden. After 2016 who would have predicted the Democrats would repeat their mistakes so effectively.

Pages

Topic locked