• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many elections can neoliberals lose?

Winston

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,728
Reaction score
24,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
With reporting out that Obama helped to orchestrate the dropping out of Biden's opponents before Super Tuesday, we see Obama backing his former running mate in a primary contest that Biden was ill equipped to win himself. If Biden was so ill equipped to navigate the waters in the primary, I assert he will be even less equipped to navigate the waters of the general election. No one but Obama knows the true motivations for his backing a struggling horse. I am convinced he does so based on ideological grounds and not nefarious ones. In my estimation, Obama believes that compromising with Republicans will produce a better society and that nudging them in the right direction through incremental change is the most stable path forward. The problem in the era of today is that the country is tired of the crumbs that Obama's strategy has produced. This allows for fake populists like Donald Trump to exploit the fecklessness of the moderate Democrats by pandering to the insecurities that they refuse to address.

On paper, in 2016 the Democrats should have walked away with it. Going up against one of the most beatable candidates the Republicans had ever produced with a historically unpopular, political dynasty candidate was the most narrow minded move the Democrats could have made. It was a move that reeked of hubris and that exact stench is a political death sentence today. After the Hillary campaign failed rather than reflect on the causes of that failure, the Democrats cried that they should have won if not for the country being tricked by Russia. The ongoing inability to reconcile with the shortcomings of Hillary as a candidate and the ideology she represents creates a vacuum for far right grifters to capitalize on a Democratic Party in identity crisis.

This identity crisis manifests itself from an allegiance to the big money bundlers and lobbyists whose interests are diametrically opposed to the wants of the constituency. Democrats have gambled that they have better odds of winning with the bundlers than winning with the people. But, a game of mirages need be performed in order to convince the people to vote for the big monied bundlers in November. Thus we see performative "wokeness" in the absence of substantive policy. The best example of this performance is the campaign of Pete Buttigieg who represents the dying neoliberal orthodoxy that serves entrenched power, with the rub being his ability to recite the passages of a Rhodes scholar. This gives the impression of Democrats functioning on a higher plane while operating with the continuity of the sleaziest aspects of American governance. We know this reenactment of esoteric hauteur is theatre given how quickly Democrats morph into R. Kelly defending himself on CBS News when faced with the Tara Reade accusations.

All in all, a Democratic Party too afraid to embrace even one pillar of progressive policy will be their undoing. The inability of the Democrats to represent the left which has an umbilical cord tied to what is remaining of the American labor movement, has created a power vacuum that the right has exploited. The right is making the argument that Democrats aren't fighting for your interests. And they're correct. Democrats have the most specious and unconvincing rebuttals that they are. FDR was so popular that term limits were invented. And the right was sent to regroup in the presence of a Democratic Party tapping into its own courage. It's time Democrats grew up and recognized their history as a popular left wing alternative to laissez-faire economic theory of the right. Time to recognize that the fruits of triangulation are rotten to the core. When Biden loses in November will Democrats regroup and reassess their own electoral viability, or will the people be gaslit again in 2024? How many elections can neoliberals lose?
 
Winston said:
With reporting out that Obama helped to orchestrate the dropping out of Biden's opponents before Super Tuesday, we see Obama backing his former running mate in a primary contest that Biden was ill equipped to win himself. If Biden was so ill equipped to navigate the waters in the primary, I assert he will be even less equipped to navigate the waters of the general election. No one but Obama knows the true motivations for his backing a struggling horse. I am convinced he does so based on ideological grounds and not nefarious ones. In my estimation, Obama believes that compromising with Republicans will produce a better society and that nudging them in the right direction through incremental change is the most stable path forward. The problem in the era of today is that the country is tired of the crumbs that Obama's strategy has produced. This allows for fake populists like Donald Trump to exploit the fecklessness of the moderate Democrats by pandering to the insecurities that they refuse to address.

On paper, in 2016 the Democrats should have walked away with it. Going up against one of the most beatable candidates the Republicans had ever produced with a historically unpopular, political dynasty candidate was the most narrow minded move the Democrats could have made. It was a move that reeked of hubris and that exact stench is a political death sentence today. After the Hillary campaign failed rather than reflect on the causes of that failure, the Democrats cried that they should have won if not for the country being tricked by Russia. The ongoing inability to reconcile with the shortcomings of Hillary as a candidate and the ideology she represents creates a vacuum for far right grifters to capitalize on a Democratic Party in identity crisis.

This identity crisis manifests itself from an allegiance to the big money bundlers and lobbyists whose interests are diametrically opposed to the wants of the constituency. Democrats have gambled that they have better odds of winning with the bundlers than winning with the people. But, a game of mirages need be performed in order to convince the people to vote for the big monied bundlers in November. Thus we see performative "wokeness" in the absence of substantive policy. The best example of this performance is the campaign of Pete Buttigieg who represents the dying neoliberal orthodoxy that serves entrenched power, with the rub being his ability to recite the passages of a Rhodes scholar. This gives the impression of Democrats functioning on a higher plane while operating with the continuity of the sleaziest aspects of American governance. We know this reenactment of esoteric hauteur is theatre given how quickly Democrats morph into R. Kelly defending himself on CBS News when faced with the Tara Reade accusations.

All in all, a Democratic Party too afraid to embrace even one pillar of progressive policy will be their undoing. The inability of the Democrats to represent the left which has an umbilical cord tied to what is remaining of the American labor movement, has created a power vacuum that the right has exploited. The right is making the argument that Democrats aren't fighting for your interests. And they're correct. Democrats have the most specious and unconvincing rebuttals that they are. FDR was so popular that term limits were invented. And the right was sent to regroup in the presence of a Democratic Party tapping into its own courage. It's time Democrats grew up and recognized their history as a popular left wing alternative to laissez-faire economic theory of the right. Time to recognize that the fruits of triangulation are rotten to the core. When Biden loses in November will Democrats regroup and reassess their own electoral viability, or will the people be gaslit again in 2024? How many elections can neoliberals lose?
Click to expand...

is there any article on this that Obama did that?
if so that would just be amazing not surprising but amazing.

would be the 2nd time in 2 years that the DNC screwed with people electing who they want to elect.
 
Winston said:
With reporting out that Obama helped to orchestrate the dropping out of Biden's opponents before Super Tuesday, we see Obama backing his former running mate in a primary contest that Biden was ill equipped to win himself. If Biden was so ill equipped to navigate the waters in the primary, I assert he will be even less equipped to navigate the waters of the general election. No one but Obama knows the true motivations for his backing a struggling horse. I am convinced he does so based on ideological grounds and not nefarious ones. In my estimation, Obama believes that compromising with Republicans will produce a better society and that nudging them in the right direction through incremental change is the most stable path forward. The problem in the era of today is that the country is tired of the crumbs that Obama's strategy has produced. This allows for fake populists like Donald Trump to exploit the fecklessness of the moderate Democrats by pandering to the insecurities that they refuse to address.

On paper, in 2016 the Democrats should have walked away with it. Going up against one of the most beatable candidates the Republicans had ever produced with a historically unpopular, political dynasty candidate was the most narrow minded move the Democrats could have made. It was a move that reeked of hubris and that exact stench is a political death sentence today. After the Hillary campaign failed rather than reflect on the causes of that failure, the Democrats cried that they should have won if not for the country being tricked by Russia. The ongoing inability to reconcile with the shortcomings of Hillary as a candidate and the ideology she represents creates a vacuum for far right grifters to capitalize on a Democratic Party in identity crisis.

This identity crisis manifests itself from an allegiance to the big money bundlers and lobbyists whose interests are diametrically opposed to the wants of the constituency. Democrats have gambled that they have better odds of winning with the bundlers than winning with the people. But, a game of mirages need be performed in order to convince the people to vote for the big monied bundlers in November. Thus we see performative "wokeness" in the absence of substantive policy. The best example of this performance is the campaign of Pete Buttigieg who represents the dying neoliberal orthodoxy that serves entrenched power, with the rub being his ability to recite the passages of a Rhodes scholar. This gives the impression of Democrats functioning on a higher plane while operating with the continuity of the sleaziest aspects of American governance. We know this reenactment of esoteric hauteur is theatre given how quickly Democrats morph into R. Kelly defending himself on CBS News when faced with the Tara Reade accusations.

All in all, a Democratic Party too afraid to embrace even one pillar of progressive policy will be their undoing. The inability of the Democrats to represent the left which has an umbilical cord tied to what is remaining of the American labor movement, has created a power vacuum that the right has exploited. The right is making the argument that Democrats aren't fighting for your interests. And they're correct. Democrats have the most specious and unconvincing rebuttals that they are. FDR was so popular that term limits were invented. And the right was sent to regroup in the presence of a Democratic Party tapping into its own courage. It's time Democrats grew up and recognized their history as a popular left wing alternative to laissez-faire economic theory of the right. Time to recognize that the fruits of triangulation are rotten to the core. When Biden loses in November will Democrats regroup and reassess their own electoral viability, or will the people be gaslit again in 2024? How many elections can neoliberals lose?
Click to expand...

How many elections can Republicans win until the American public realizes they should not be touched with a 10-foot pole?

From Bush's catastrophic Iraq policy, to the Great recession, to Sarah Palin, to Donald Trump, they have a habit of trashing the country and turning everything they touch to sh-t. This is a lesson that that will be repeated until America learns it. I don't know when that will be, but I hope it will not be too late.
 
ludin said:
is there any article on this that Obama did that?
if so that would just be amazing not surprising but amazing.

would be the 2nd time in 2 years that the DNC screwed with people electing who they want to elect.
Click to expand...

Buttigieg endorsed Biden after reported talk with Obama

Think he told him something to the effect of, "If you drop out now, you'll never have more leverage."

Obama is smart. He knows how to couch language, lol.
 
The only person gaslit here is the OP believing Trump is an acceptable option.
 
Winston said:
This identity crisis manifests itself from an allegiance to the big money bundlers and lobbyists whose interests are diametrically opposed to the wants of the constituency. Democrats have gambled that they have better odds of winning with the bundlers than winning with the people. But, a game of mirages need be performed in order to convince the people to vote for the big monied bundlers in November.
Click to expand...

The mirage here seems to be the bizarre belief that the candidate winning the most votes is not "winning with the people."
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
is there any article on this that Obama did that?
if so that would just be amazing not surprising but amazing.

would be the 2nd time in 2 years that the DNC screwed with people electing who they want to elect.
Click to expand...

I heard those accusations from Sanders supporters right after Super Tuesday and I don't really get what the problem is even if true. Even if Obama influenced Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out, I really don't see how it was nefarious or underhanded. It was the smart move for both of them to both maximize influence and to help nominate a nominee from their "wing" of the party. And it's not like Sanders has any right to run against a fractured field of the less progressive candidates.

All the evidence points to that side of the party having more support. On Super Tuesday, Biden had the better night with Warren and Bloomberg drawing almost equal numbers from both sides. And once they dropped out and it was Biden/Sanders head to head, Biden overwhelmingly was winning the later contests.
 
Winston said:
With reporting out that Obama helped to orchestrate the dropping out of Biden's opponents before Super Tuesday, we see Obama backing his former running mate in a primary contest that Biden was ill equipped to win himself. If Biden was so ill equipped to navigate the waters in the primary, I assert he will be even less equipped to navigate the waters of the general election. No one but Obama knows the true motivations for his backing a struggling horse. I am convinced he does so based on ideological grounds and not nefarious ones. In my estimation, Obama believes that compromising with Republicans will produce a better society and that nudging them in the right direction through incremental change is the most stable path forward. The problem in the era of today is that the country is tired of the crumbs that Obama's strategy has produced. This allows for fake populists like Donald Trump to exploit the fecklessness of the moderate Democrats by pandering to the insecurities that they refuse to address.

On paper, in 2016 the Democrats should have walked away with it. Going up against one of the most beatable candidates the Republicans had ever produced with a historically unpopular, political dynasty candidate was the most narrow minded move the Democrats could have made. It was a move that reeked of hubris and that exact stench is a political death sentence today. After the Hillary campaign failed rather than reflect on the causes of that failure, the Democrats cried that they should have won if not for the country being tricked by Russia. The ongoing inability to reconcile with the shortcomings of Hillary as a candidate and the ideology she represents creates a vacuum for far right grifters to capitalize on a Democratic Party in identity crisis.

This identity crisis manifests itself from an allegiance to the big money bundlers and lobbyists whose interests are diametrically opposed to the wants of the constituency. Democrats have gambled that they have better odds of winning with the bundlers than winning with the people. But, a game of mirages need be performed in order to convince the people to vote for the big monied bundlers in November. Thus we see performative "wokeness" in the absence of substantive policy. The best example of this performance is the campaign of Pete Buttigieg who represents the dying neoliberal orthodoxy that serves entrenched power, with the rub being his ability to recite the passages of a Rhodes scholar. This gives the impression of Democrats functioning on a higher plane while operating with the continuity of the sleaziest aspects of American governance. We know this reenactment of esoteric hauteur is theatre given how quickly Democrats morph into R. Kelly defending himself on CBS News when faced with the Tara Reade accusations.

All in all, a Democratic Party too afraid to embrace even one pillar of progressive policy will be their undoing. The inability of the Democrats to represent the left which has an umbilical cord tied to what is remaining of the American labor movement, has created a power vacuum that the right has exploited. The right is making the argument that Democrats aren't fighting for your interests. And they're correct. Democrats have the most specious and unconvincing rebuttals that they are. FDR was so popular that term limits were invented. And the right was sent to regroup in the presence of a Democratic Party tapping into its own courage. It's time Democrats grew up and recognized their history as a popular left wing alternative to laissez-faire economic theory of the right. Time to recognize that the fruits of triangulation are rotten to the core. When Biden loses in November will Democrats regroup and reassess their own electoral viability, or will the people be gaslit again in 2024? How many elections can neoliberals lose?
Click to expand...

Have you ever read Michael Mcgerr’s a fierce discontent: the rise and fall of the progressive movement in America? I did. And the author makes a good argument explaining why America always approaches talk of political reform with caution.
 
Anagram said:
I heard those accusations from Sanders supporters right after Super Tuesday and I don't really get what the problem is even if true. Even if Obama influenced Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out, I really don't see how it was nefarious or underhanded. It was the smart move for both of them to both maximize influence and to help nominate a nominee from their "wing" of the party. And it's not like Sanders has any right to run against a fractured field of the less progressive candidates.

All the evidence points to that side of the party having more support. On Super Tuesday, Biden had the better night with Warren and Bloomberg drawing almost equal numbers from both sides. And once they dropped out and it was Biden/Sanders head to head, Biden overwhelmingly was winning the later contests.
Click to expand...

It's not nefarious, but it was egregious and blatant wagon circling meant specifically to hedge out Sanders while furthering the individual political ambitions of Klob and Butt; that remains true at the end of the day, as does the fact that Sanders probably would have clinched ST (and likely would have had subsequently hard to beat momentum, particularly given the staunch dispelling of Biden's crucial electability argument in that case) without that abrupt drop out and endorsement given Biden's fairly narrow win then. This is doubly true when you consider the seats K&B were expected to take, and all the polling data prior to that consolidation.

Fast forward to the present, and regardless of whether or not Biden/the moderates deserved to win as a representatives of the party's majority, the fact is they're drafting policy and platforms as though they're 100% of the party as opposed to 60% or so in a winner take all approach where no substantive reconciliation, compromise or overtures are being made to the progressive wing, even on topics which had majoritarian support among the general population; something that is absolutely a prescription for disaster.

Basically if it weren't for COVID-19, I don't think Joe would have a snowball's chance in hell given how his campaign is being prosecuted.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Fast forward to the present, and regardless of whether or not Biden/the moderates deserved to win as a representatives of the party's majority, the fact is they're drafting policy and platforms as though they're 100% of the party as opposed to 60% or so in a winner take all approach where no substantive reconciliation, compromise or overtures are being made to the progressive wing, even on topics which had majoritarian support among the general population; something that is absolutely a prescription for disaster.
Click to expand...

Right.

Biden Taps AOC and Jayapal to Help Shape Party Policy. Isn’t This a Win for Progressives?
Imagine my surprise then — or was it disbelief? — to discover on Wednesday morning that they had been appointed as co-chairs of three of the six “joint task forces” that are meant to unify the Democratic Party on policy in the run-up to November.

Jayapal, sponsor of the Medicare for All bill in the House, is co-chair of the health care task force. Ocasio-Cortez, sponsor of the Green New Deal bill in the House, is co-chair of the climate change task force. Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants and a champion of organized labor, is co-chair of the economy task force.
Click to expand...
“We’ve set up joint committees together to deal with how we would deal with everything from the virus all the way down to education, the criminal justice system, the new green deal, etc.,” the former vice-president told a Las Vegas TV news outlet. “I’m working with Bernie and his people and, so, we’ve made some changes and listened to Bernie supporters. And for example, we have, you know, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. She is on one of the panels as well.”

This is all, to borrow an old line of Biden’s, “a big ****ing deal.” It isn’t only the impressive trio of AOC, Jayapal, and Nelson who feature on these panels. Also on the health care task force is Abdul El-Sayed, who ran an insurgent campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Michigan and is the co-author of a book on Medicare for All. Also on the economy task force is Stephanie Kelton, a pioneer of Modern Monetary Theory and author of a forthcoming book on deficit hysteria. Also on the climate change task force is Varshini Prakash, executive director and co-founder of the Sunrise Movement — the progressive group behind the Green New Deal that gave Biden’s presidential climate plan an “F” rating in 2019. Meanwhile, Heather Gautney, an activist-scholar and top Sanders adviser, is co-chair of the education task force.
Click to expand...
Above all else, kudos to grassroots organizations and activists on the left who demanded the presumptive Democratic nominee reach out to them. “Biden’s announcement demonstrates the progressive movement’s growing power as a key constituency within the party,” Waleed Shahid, of Justice Democrats, told me. “As the Democratic nominees, Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary Clinton did not make a major effort to appoint progressives.”

Yet Biden has. And his own appointments to the six committees aren’t all bad, either. Rep. Karen Bass, who has one of the most liberal voting records in the House, is his choice for co-chair of the economy task force, while neoliberal ideologues like Larry Summers and Erskine Bowles are, thankfully, nowhere to be seen. AOC’s fellow co-chair is former Secretary of State John Kerry, who signed the Paris climate accords on behalf of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Anagram said:
I heard those accusations from Sanders supporters right after Super Tuesday and I don't really get what the problem is even if true. Even if Obama influenced Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out, I really don't see how it was nefarious or underhanded. It was the smart move for both of them to both maximize influence and to help nominate a nominee from their "wing" of the party. And it's not like Sanders has any right to run against a fractured field of the less progressive candidates.

All the evidence points to that side of the party having more support. On Super Tuesday, Biden had the better night with Warren and Bloomberg drawing almost equal numbers from both sides. And once they dropped out and it was Biden/Sanders head to head, Biden overwhelmingly was winning the later contests.
Click to expand...

That point I made about Obama making calls behind the scene, isn't an indictment so much of his character but, of his judgement.
 
Greenbeard said:
Right.

Biden Taps AOC and Jayapal to Help Shape Party Policy. Isn’t This a Win for Progressives?
Click to expand...

You're linking this as though you believe I'm not already aware of it (or you mistakenly imagine this to be some kind of devastating counterpoint).

Fact is, I'll believe this 'task force' to be meaningful when I see progressive policy actually hitting the official platform. As ever, 'show me the money'; I'm not interested in tokenism or the facade of compromise.

Having said that, maybe something does indeed come of all this, and I'm certainly open to it, but only when it does and no sooner, will I be inclined to change my view on the Biden campaign's thus far uncompromising commitment to neoliberal policy.
 
Surrealistik said:
You're linking this as though you believe I'm not already aware of it (or you mistakenly imagine this to be some kind of devastating counterpoint).
Click to expand...

Ah, so "they're drafting policy and platforms as though they're 100% of the party as opposed to 60% or so in a winner take all approach where no substantive reconciliation, compromise or overtures are being made to the progressive wing" was a conscious lie. Cool.
 
Greenbeard said:
Ah, so "they're drafting policy and platforms as though they're 100% of the party as opposed to 60% or so in a winner take all approach where no substantive reconciliation, compromise or overtures are being made to the progressive wing" was a conscious lie. Cool.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

The appearance of reconciliation and compromise is not reconciliation and compromise.

Show me the money.
 
Winston said:
That point I made about Obama making calls behind the scene, isn't an indictment so much of his character but, of his judgement.
Click to expand...

Aren’t people forgetting that biden won South Carolina decisively: nearly 50 percent of the vote went to him.

And the previous results? Iowa was a inconclusive split between sanders and Buttigieg. Bernie won in New Hampshire but still not by a decisive margin.

Bernie’s margin of victory in Nevada earned him front runner status, and that should have been the time Bernie should have been making overtures to the party establishment or trying to expand his base of support.

Biden’s win in South Carolina was decisive, it changed the narrative and the party gathered around him.
 
Winston said:
If Biden was so ill equipped to navigate the waters in the primary, I assert he will be even less equipped to navigate the waters of the general election.
Click to expand...

If Bernie was so ill-equipped to navigate the waters in the Democratic primary, I assert he will be even less equipped to navigate the waters of the general election.

Imagine if Bernie had won. What would be the point of all his expensive programs at a time when the nation is broke? When Obama took office, he faced a similar problem. The nation was broke and the priority became rebuilding the economy.
 
Surrealistik said:
You're linking this as though you believe I'm not already aware of it (or you mistakenly imagine this to be some kind of devastating counterpoint).

Fact is, I'll believe this 'task force' to be meaningful when I see progressive policy actually hitting the official platform. As ever, 'show me the money'; I'm not interested in tokenism or the facade of compromise.

Having said that, maybe something does indeed come of all this, and I'm certainly open to it, but only when it does and no sooner, will I be inclined to change my view on the Biden campaign's thus far uncompromising commitment to neoliberal policy.
Click to expand...

What progressive policy are you expecting to see? Medicare for all? The green new deal? The elimination of student debt? Tax increases aimed at corporations? Bernie Sanders was unapologetic in saying that taxes had to be raised, but that is exactly why the party leadership was so rattled: not everyone shares Sanders veiws and most people don’t have such radical change being forced upon them without some sort of guarantee that they would benefit from it.

That is the sad reality: self interest is a powerful motivation for people, and the party saw Sanders’s proposals as political dynamite and something that would demolish the gains made in 2018.

Politics is the art of the possible
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Aren’t people forgetting that biden won South Carolina decisively: nearly 50 percent of the vote went to him.

And the previous results? Iowa was a inconclusive split between sanders and Buttigieg. Bernie won in New Hampshire but still not by a decisive margin.

Bernie’s margin of victory in Nevada earned him front runner status, and that should have been the time Bernie should have been making overtures to the party establishment or trying to expand his base of support.

Biden’s win in South Carolina was decisive, it changed the narrative and the party gathered around him.
Click to expand...

Clyburn's endorsement changed the narrative but yes; with Jim's indispensable help, Biden won SC by the crushing margin he needed (not merely a win) in order to revive his campaign and serve as a viable rallying point for the conservative Dems against their progressive opposition.
 
Surrealistik said:
Clyburn's endorsement changed the narrative but yes; with Jim's indispensable help, Biden won SC by the crushing margin he needed (not merely a win) in order to revive his campaign and serve as a viable rallying point for the conservative Dems against their progressive opposition.
Click to expand...

Why did Sanders’s not try and earn clyburn’s endorsement? He is a powerful and recognized figure in South Carolina’s political scene and African American voters would have been swayed to give Bernie a chance?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What progressive policy are you expecting to see? Medicare for all? The green new deal? The elimination of student debt? Tax increases aimed at corporations? Bernie Sanders was unapologetic in saying that taxes had to be raised, but that is exactly why the party leadership was so rattled: not everyone shares Sanders veiws and most people don’t have such radical change being forced upon them without some sort of guarantee that they would benefit from it.

That is the sad reality: self interest is a powerful motivation for people, and the party saw Sanders’s proposals as political dynamite and something that would demolish the gains made in 2018.

Politics is the art of the possible
Click to expand...

Party leadership was rattled because it would mean a turn over of party leadership with Sanders as the de facto party leader. I'm sure there are some true believers who incredibly thought Hillary 2.0 XY edition would be a good idea despite prior compelling evidence to the contrary, but for the most part it was really about jersey politics, wagon circling and keeping the other guy out in order to preserve faction hegemony; certainly there was no objective basis per the polling for believing Sanders to be unviable in the general given the polling and pretty much every tangible metric. Moreover if politics is the 'art of the possible', someone really ought to have informed the centrist democrats with their centrist leadership when they lost the House, Senate and White House to Republican majorities.

Beyond that, it is telling that Biden's campaign thus far isn't even looking at elements of the Sanders' platform that consistently polled well among the general population; again, thus far it seems their behaviour is less about the pursuit of political success and more about intraparty politics and factional supremacy.
 
Winston said:
With reporting out that Obama helped to orchestrate the dropping out of Biden's opponents before Super Tuesday, ...
Click to expand...

Here's my take:

For four months, in the face of a national crisis, Trump has had access to the very best experts in the world to help him. After four months, he put his ignorance on full display:

Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment - BBC News


How is this possible? And more to the point, how can anyone vote for such a person to be the leader of their county?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why did Sanders’s not try and earn clyburn’s endorsement? He is a powerful and recognized figure in South Carolina’s political scene and African American voters would have been swayed to give Bernie a chance?
Click to expand...

He should have; though the consolidation itself that ultimately cost Sanders the primary could not be pinned on his campaign, at least not directly, it certainly wasn't free of mistakes and not going for the kill on Georgia was absolutely one of its worst and most seminal.
 
ecofarm said:
The only person gaslit here is the OP believing Trump is an acceptable option.
Click to expand...
CTs are not limited to rightists. The two ‘so-called’ Sanders supporters on here represent a clientele that gave us Bush/Cheney, along with Roberts and Alito.

A clientele that gave us Trump, along with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They’re determined to keep McConnell in charge in the Senate, confirming more Trump judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom