• 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!

Hillary will run again in 2020

Bullseye said:
Uh, no. Progressives have been the MAJOR influence in the democratic party since FDR, I think you confusing them with socialists.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've really been paying attention to what's been happening in the Dem party in the past 35 years at least, though if you think people like Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton are progressives, I can't really help you.

Third way Dems are _not_ progressives (nor are progressives 'socialists', as socialists espouse systemic nationalization of the economy which we do not), and they've had their way and dominated the party largely since roughly the mid-late 80s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition (the faction was 'formalized' in 97, per the NDC, but existed long before then).
 
Surrealistik said:
I don't think you've really been paying attention to what's been happening in the Dem party in the past 35 years at least, though if you think people like Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton are progressives, I can't really help you.
Click to expand...
That's gonna come as a big surprise to most of the democratic party.

Surrealistik said:
Third way Dems are _not_ progressive (nor are progressives 'socialists', as socialists espouse systemic nationalization of the economy which we do not), and they've had their way and dominated the party largely since roughly the mid-late 80s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition (the faction was 'formalized' in 97, per the NDC, but existed long before then).
Click to expand...
So you're not even talking progressives at all.
 
Bullseye said:
That's gonna come as a big surprise to most of the democratic party.
Click to expand...

A lot of NDs have been mischaracterizing/camouflaging themselves as progressives lately because that's what gets votes; Obama certainly pretended to be one in 2008. Increasingly fewer people want to vote for status quo Dems.

So you're not even talking progressives at all.
Click to expand...

I am: the progressive wing of the party is the wing that generally agrees more with FDR, Bernie and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren, than they do with say Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton who would be the Third Way/New Democrats.
 
Surrealistik said:
At present a majority of politicos from both parties are merely patrons of big donors and generally pursue power to enrich themselves and those that helped them get into office; this is not something exclusive to Democrats by any means. That having been said, the only real pushback against this paradigm is indeed exclusive to the Dems per its progressive wing; no major Republican organization or faction I know of aims to remove private money from public office and steer power away from megadonors and back towards the people.
Click to expand...

While true, the problem is that after awhile candidates see how nice it is to get donations from big money over begging and they change. So then both parties are dipping from the same well. Consider a company like Comcast who carefully donates to both sides so they will be less likely to vote against their interests. We saw that with health insurers. I think both Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand get more corporate support than most republicans. That has to stick in any union person. Another problem is that the wheel that gets the grease doesnt want to end the gravy train. So the ones who do get big money dont want these upstarts to take it away. Its why I think so many dems turned on Sanders after the election. How dare he do so well on his own with individual support...Progressives are/will learn after Trump, that their path forward is going to be harder than they thought. The mainstream dems dont want to get off the funding and go back to relying on the common man.
 
Surrealistik said:
I don't think you've really been paying attention to what's been happening in the Dem party in the past 35 years at least, though if you think people like Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton are progressives, I can't really help you.

Third way Dems are _not_ progressives (nor are progressives 'socialists', as socialists espouse systemic nationalization of the economy which we do not), and they've had their way and dominated the party largely since roughly the mid-late 80s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition (the faction was 'formalized' in 97, per the NDC, but existed long before then).
Click to expand...


I just dont see a progressive winning the presidency any time soon. The older voters (even the dem ones) like status quo. We saw that on full display with dems who called Medicare for all "pie in the sky" when Hillary laughed at it. You have to realize in order for single payer or UHC, that Medicare is folded in and effectively goes away. Everyone has the same. To tell a 65 year old that is going to get a ton of nastiness and feedback. They know there will bumps in the road and dont want that in their later years. So as much as we keep seeing each young generation try to make their mark, the older voters swat them down.
 
Surrealistik said:
A lot of NDs have been mischaracterizing/camouflaging themselves as progressives lately because that's what gets votes; Obama certainly pretended to be one in 2008. Increasingly fewer people want to vote for status quo Dems.
Click to expand...
I never saw Obama pushing any of those ND goals.


Surrealistik said:
I am: the progressive wing of the party is the wing that generally agrees more with FDR, Bernie and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren, than they do with say Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton who would be the Third Way/New Democrats.
Click to expand...
You sound more like the Socialist Democrat wing than progressive.
 
pilot16 said:
While true, the problem is that after awhile candidates see how nice it is to get donations from big money over begging and they change. So then both parties are dipping from the same well. Consider a company like Comcast who carefully donates to both sides so they will be less likely to vote against their interests. We saw that with health insurers. I think both Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand get more corporate support than most republicans. That has to stick in any union person. Another problem is that the wheel that gets the grease doesnt want to end the gravy train. So the ones who do get big money dont want these upstarts to take it away. Its why I think so many dems turned on Sanders after the election. How dare he do so well on his own with individual support...Progressives are/will learn after Trump, that their path forward is going to be harder than they thought. The mainstream dems dont want to get off the funding and go back to relying on the common man.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely a lot of resistance to getting off the teat of corporate megadonors, but progress has definitely been made and will continue to be made; Bernie demonstrated it was possible to go the distance with aggregate small donors and popular policy, as did Ocasio Cortez who was massively outspent by her opponent Crowley and received essentially no media coverage until after she won in an upset, and Ojeda with his 32 point narrowing of the votation gap in West Virginia; there are other examples of course, but these are some of the more notable ones. Many other Dems have also sworn off corporate contributions, inspired by their example, and the trust/popularity engendered by the move (like Cory and Kristen; corp dollars flows to them in other ways, but it's a start). Unfortunately, to really effect meaningful and lasting change out into the long term, a constitutional amendment will need to be made that either clarifies that political spending isn't speech, or makes an exception to the first amendment in the case of political spending per the historically idiotic and dangerous SCOTUS ruling of Buckley v Valeo 76. To that end, a state convention will probably be required, and there are good, progressive aligned groups like WolfPAC working diligently towards this.

pilot16 said:
I just dont see a progressive winning the presidency any time soon. The older voters (even the dem ones) like status quo. We saw that on full display with dems who called Medicare for all "pie in the sky" when Hillary laughed at it. You have to realize in order for single payer or UHC, that Medicare is folded in and effectively goes away. Everyone has the same. To tell a 65 year old that is going to get a ton of nastiness and feedback. They know there will bumps in the road and dont want that in their later years. So as much as we keep seeing each young generation try to make their mark, the older voters swat them down.
Click to expand...

I do.

So much has changed since Hillary boldly and probably foolishly declared that single payer will never happen, like Medicare for All now becoming a mainstream idea, largely thanks to Bernie. Whether or not older voters support it (and it seems that they in fact do), a substantial majority of Dems and voters at large do; even a narrow majority of Republicans! New Poll: Majority of GOP Voters Support ?Medicare For All? | https://theglobepost.com/2018/12/04/medicare-for-all-support/

That said, I'm not sure why Medicare/Medicaide getting essentially expanded to cover the rest of the country is going to make a 65+ year old go up in arms; it's not like their coverage is being taken away or otherwise degraded, particularly since every proposed roll out I've yet seen is gradual, and phases in from the 65 year cut off point in an effort to minimize disruption.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
I never saw Obama pushing any of those ND goals.
Click to expand...

https://www.obamatheconservative.com/

You sound more like the Socialist Democrat wing than progressive.
Click to expand...

Progressives by and large are social democrats; I'm not entirely sure why Bernie chose to identify himself as a democratic socialist when his policies are clearly the former, but I suspect it was a strategic move to get out in front of the word 'socialist', blunting it as a pejorative as he knew it would be used against him (as it was vs pretty much anyone left of most federal Republicans); something he has largely succeeded at. It just doesn't carry the same weight anymore.
 
Surrealistik said:
There's absolutely a lot of resistance to getting off the teat of corporate megadonors, but progress has definitely been made and will continue to be made; Bernie demonstrated it was possible to go the distance with aggregate small donors and popular policy, as did Ocasio Cortez who was massively outspent by her opponent Crowley and received essentially no media coverage until after she won in an upset, and Ojeda with his 32 point narrowing of the votation gap in West Virginia; there are other examples of course, but these are some of the more notable ones. Many other Dems have also sworn off corporate contributions, inspired by their example, and the trust/popularity engendered by the move (like Cory and Kristen; corp dollars flows to them in other ways, but it's a start). Unfortunately, to really effect meaningful and lasting change out into the long term, a constitutional amendment will need to be made that either clarifies that political spending isn't speech, or makes an exception to the first amendment in the case of political spending per the historically idiotic and dangerous SCOTUS ruling of Buckley v Valeo 76. To that end, a state convention will probably be required, and there are good, progressive aligned groups like WolfPAC working diligently towards this.



I do.

So much has changed since Hillary boldly and probably foolishly declared that single payer will never happen, like Medicare for All now becoming a mainstream idea, largely thanks to Bernie. Whether or not older voters support it (and it seems that they in fact do), a substantial majority of Dems and voters at large do; even a narrow majority of Republicans! New Poll: Majority of GOP Voters Support ?Medicare For All? | https://theglobepost.com/2018/12/04/medicare-for-all-support/

That said, I'm not sure why Medicare/Medicaide getting essentially expanded to cover the rest of the country is going to make a 65+ year old go up in arms; it's not like their coverage is being taken away or otherwise degraded, particularly since every proposed roll out I've yet seen is gradual, and phases in from the 65 year cut off point in an effort to minimize disruption.
Click to expand...

Who do you think will be the potential progressives running in 2020? I think Bernie either will or will support another like Tulsi Gabbard in his place. But I feel like most of the others are fairly moderate status quo democrats including Beto who has taken a great deal of oil monies over the years.
 
pilot16 said:
Who do you think will be the potential progressives running in 2020? I think Bernie either will or will support another like Tulsi Gabbard in his place. But I feel like most of the others are fairly moderate status quo democrats including Beto who has taken a great deal of oil monies over the years.
Click to expand...

Bernie, Warren, Tulsi, Ojeda, Beto (if you assume he's turned a new leaf and is now a progressive; I don't, but others do; the man screams duplicity/Obama 2.0 to me personally) are the big ones at this time.

By the way, I have to admit it astonishes me how Beto is somehow considered this big political force and a serious contender for the nomination (just check out the odds on betting sites) despite losing his district and Ojeda is somehow not, with the same people vaunting and praising Beto dismissing Ojeda over his loss in a much more hostile district, despite having made far more progress there than Beto did in Texas; the sheer cognitive dissonance baffles the mind.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Bernie, Warren, Tulsi, Ojeda, Beto (if you assume he's turned a new leaf and is now a progressive; I don't, but others do; the man screams duplicity/Obama 2.0 to me personally) are the big ones at this time.

By the way, I have to admit it astonishes me how Beto is somehow considered this big political force and a serious contender for the nomination (just check out the odds on betting sites) despite losing his district and Ojeda is somehow not, with the same people vaunting and praising Beto dismissing Ojeda over his loss in a much more hostile district, despite having made far more progress there than Beto did in Texas; the sheer cognitive dissonance baffles the mind.
Click to expand...

Yea that is a good point. Ojeda was also a veteran wasnt he? Thats a huge plus in many areas. I do think Bernie might run again but not clear on what measures the DNC took so he can or cannot run again as a democrat. If he runs as an indie it wont end well. I also just saw Deval Patrick says he wont be running.
 
pilot16 said:
Yea that is a good point. Ojeda was also a veteran wasnt he? Thats a huge plus in many areas. I do think Bernie might run again but not clear on what measures the DNC took so he can or cannot run again as a democrat. If he runs as an indie it wont end well. I also just saw Deval Patrick says he wont be running.
Click to expand...

Ojeda worked his way up from grunt to a rank of Major in the army, served in Korea, Honduras, Jordan, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq over a 24 year career including in combat zones where friends of his died; he's definitely the real deal.

TBH, whether Bernie ultimately runs I think depends on the field of candidates in the end; if he sees no suitable progressive to bear his torch, he will do whatever is necessary to step in (which I feel was the case last time), I have no doubt.
 
Surrealistik said:
Ojeda worked his way up from grunt to a rank of Major in the army, served in Korea, Honduras, Jordan, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq over a 24 year career including in combat zones where friends of his died; he's definitely the real deal.

TBH, whether Bernie ultimately runs I think depends on the field of candidates in the end; if he sees no suitable progressive to bear his torch, he will do whatever is necessary to step in (which I feel was the case last time), I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

Sanders did say this past weekend that he will announce who he will pick as his VP when or if he decides to announce. I think the idea is to have voters get behind him if he has a younger VP so the age thing wont be around his neck. That I would like to see. Tulsi or maybe even Ojeda would be interesting choices. I dont think Warren will get in if he does and her ancestry thing kind of hurt her. Her being a former republican also might not help her.
 
pilot16 said:
Sanders did say this past weekend that he will announce who he will pick as his VP when or if he decides to announce. I think the idea is to have voters get behind him if he has a younger VP so the age thing wont be around his neck. That I would like to see. Tulsi or maybe even Ojeda would be interesting choices. I dont think Warren will get in if he does and her ancestry thing kind of hurt her. Her being a former republican also might not help her.
Click to expand...

I do think he needs to give his VP pick careful consideration, as it most definitely matters. I would be fine with either Tulsi or Ojeda, and I feel both, particularly Ojeda, would help him with the southern states and the rust belt.

Warren I don't mind, but yeah, I think she has some exploitable aspects, and her brand among progressives has diminished per her complete lack of support of Bernie during the primaries and recent creep towards the center, while the establishment wing didn't particularly care for her in the first place as she actually took a meaningful stand against their megadonors from time to time; rock and a hard place situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom