2020 Democratic presidential primary

So what you're saying is your mom is a Republican and she's always been nice to you? That's fine, but we're talking about politicians here.

we are? i’m not saying we need to compromise. what I’m saying is that hyperpartisan politics is not a good thing, contrary to what this guy suggests. that is what got us Trump. the aestheticization & commodification of politics is inherently right wing.

also you don’t know me so please don’t go making these broad proclamations about my family

no, the assertion that progressives need to get into a big tent with people who want to wipe them and their families and neighbors out is inherently right wing

there are Republicans who didn’t vote for Trump

Do you seriously think Pete Buttigieg wants his big tent to include white supremacists?

the ones at charlottesville? no. the ones that resist public school integration? yes.

Sounds like he’s open to including people who aren’t necessarily opposed to white supremacists or are willing to overlook those views if it benefits them in some other way.

The text if Buttigieg’s big tent line is no different from Sanders’ tbh - Sanders just couches it in “approval of my policy ideas is broadly popular and crosses party lines” rhetoric

Text of

otm

all of these candidates are going to get votes from moderates and centrist Republicans in the general, they shouldn’t pander to the worst of them obviously but it’s not helpful to repudiate them

we are? i’m not saying we need to compromise. what I’m saying is that hyperpartisan politics is not a good thing, contrary to what this guy suggests. that is what got us Trump. the aestheticization & commodification of politics is inherently right wing.

― esempio (crüt), Sunday, 10 November 2019 15:07 (fifteen minutes ago) link

Otm

anyone want to participate in a wild friday night party game?!?!

surely they're polling bloomberg vs the rest of the field right now. who wants to guess how bloomberg will do in a national poll (which, yes, is pointless for primaries, but that's what the first legit polls will probably be)?

i'm gonna go with 4%.

― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Friday, November 8, 2019 8:15 PM (two days ago) bookmarkflaglink

And there it is:

NEW: Bloomberg Is Top Choice for 4% of Democratic Primary Voters https://t.co/1iDRYAWX1z

— Morning Consult (@MorningConsult) November 10, 2019

the "white supremacists aren't a dealbreaker to me" republicans are, what, the party of climate change denial, homophobia, prioritizing billionaires over health care and a living wage, and white supremacists not being a dealbreaker? yeah sounds great, let's definitely design the tent in such a way as to make sure they all feel welcome and listened-to and their boats aren't rocked.

Now that’s a good way to wake up. Checking the phone, checking the primary thread first - that’s the good stuff

xp to Bloomberg 4%

the "white supremacists aren't a dealbreaker to me" republicans are, what, the party of climate change denial, homophobia, prioritizing billionaires over health care and a living wage, and white supremacists not being a dealbreaker? yeah sounds great, let's definitely design the tent in such a way as to make sure they all feel welcome and listened-to and their boats aren't rocked.

― weird ilx but sb (Doctor Casino),

The thing is, some of those people -- a sliver, but I can't give you a size -- are voting for Dems in Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, and elsewhere because they don't like their local Republican.

Picking up voters isn't the same as encouraging gay-hating billionaires who hate health care to run for senator, rep, etc.

Run against the politicians—the republican party as an institution—not the voters imo.

The text if Buttigieg’s big tent line is no different from Sanders’ tbh - Sanders just couches it in “approval of my policy ideas is broadly popular and crosses party lines” rhetoric

sanders' target demo is nonvoters and the majority-poc working class. this is the biggest bloc in the country. pete's target demo is 1) whitecollar dweebs; 2) suburban soft-republicans who think trump's "erratic" and the party's "lost its way" or whatever. these are actually not the same.

also the reason sanders "couches" it in those terms is he actually has saleable policy ideas. pete's policy idea is, we should all love one another, and also him. oh and that thing where we put 5 perfectly impartial dr. manhattans on the court.

And most of all, run on the issues. Avoid the appearance of being the candidate of upscale urban professionals.

Your impartial Supreme Court, ladies and gents!

xp

Agree with what dll said. I also agree with crut that the WWE style divisive rhetoric—“republican voters are monsters!”—is a tactic that can only benefit the right wing. It also obscures the reality. Sanders is running to fix problems that both republicans and democrats had a hand in creating. Red america vs blue america is a cartoon

Buttigieg said “Republicans with a conscience” and then Magary contorted that into “white supremacists” so I think we’re talking past each other

not sure targeting "nonvoters" is a great strategy tbh

nah it's excellent

it is a great strategy if they end up voting!

no flies on crut

yeah it's specifically targeting the group where the thing they most have in common in a tradition of not voting there's gotta be easier votes to pick off!

There’s no need for me to make a case against Pete Buttigieg because that craven asshole can’t be bothered to make one for himself.

and yet you wrote so many paragraphs

well obviously there are a lot of people disillusioned with the political process whom Bernie has given a shred of hope - I know some folks who will only vote if he’s the nom

Did anyone ever figure out how many Democrats didn't vote at all in 2016 due to Hillary?

the doc casino and dlh posts itt are a thousand times more thoughtful than the boneheaded magary piece that generated this discussion imo

i didn't read it i just leapt out of bed and went straight to posting. counting my $200 rn

i recommend never reading anything tbh

instead, you should take a non-voter to vote.

tl;dv

Here's a different take on "maybe partisanship is good"

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/rethinking-polarization

i recommend never reading anything tbh

― american bradass (BradNelson), Sunday, November 10, 2019 8:17 AM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

otm

b-b-but how could I read ILX?

just jump straight to Add a Post my man

If Bloomberg was the nominee, I'd vote for him without hesitation. At least he has been vocal about the climate crisis, which dwarfs all other issues on the table in impacts. But I don't see him drawing any habitual non-voters to the polls, or quashing the third-party Left that cost the election in 2000 and 2016.

Sanpaku not letting us down with the truly bizarre takes

2/3 sentences are fine

Sanpaku's take actually makes a lot of sense! If the climate is your top issue, you could do worse than Bloomberg.

Bloomberg isn't the worst of the candidates on offer. I think Warren is the best candidate at present for the general, but would gladly vote for Sanders or Booker. And begrudgingly vote for Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar or Steyer. As far as I'm concerned, Bloomberg fits amongst this latter group. Hell, I'd vote for Bill Weld if that was the only only option to remove the cancer of Trump.

I for real want to relive the old, white stoop sitters very vocal every day meltdown about Bloomberg's soda tax. I walked my dog like 4 times a day during this era and It was willie wonka level pure imagination.

silby: I've been an Economist reader for two decades. I often don't agree with its editorial content. Bloomberg is pretty much an ideal candidate for the few hundred thousand readers that think rational actors with appropriate incentives can solve societal problems within a free-market framework, which is essentially that publication's editorial stance. In the UK, climate change isn't up for political debate, largely thanks to Thatcher.

That stance obviously has issues in an era of irrational actors and voters, who mostly are indifferent to future consequences.

Bloomberg seems an okay person, but one who is motivated to enter the race mostly because he opposes the wealth taxes of the Democratic frontrunners. I've read my Walter Scheidel and Peter Turchin, so understand that unless the US does something about its rising inequality, there will be violent revolution. It's not a time for the Bloombergs of the world.

Sanpaku I love that you’re a Booker fan, it is vmic

Was just reminded this morning that the Dean Scream happened in January '04 so I guess there's still time for a viable dem candidacy to be derailed for completely inconsequential reasons.