Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

a lot of people were those guys

i wasn't (i don't think), but that's because i was one of the "um he's not going to WIN the primary in the first place, just wait until voters learn about ___" guys

what can we say. we ran the simulations and 82% of them said we were right

it can be tough to remember that "anything can happen" means that there's the slightest possibility that this might even sometimes include good things

I was big Santorum “supporter” in 2012

Thanks to the Bernie thread, I condensed my wisdom to this post.

I like that post, Alfred

thank you

Calls for socialism are much more successful when a larger number of voters are disaffected with capitalism, rather than elements like their health care bills..

lol at the idea that bernie’s best chance was in 2008

hm I think for some folks not obsessed w politics they may have very well thought they were voting for a Bernie-esquire figure in 2008. the recession was p scary.

but I guess the worst if it didn’t really manifest until a year or so later and by that time the proto-chuds and big $$$ astro-turfing had wrangled control of the narrative

good post Alfred

xp: Everyone's savings accounts and home values were plunging in 2008. That's the sort of environment where calls for fundamental change are more attractive. I'm sure most of us are disappointed that Obama, the most gifted politician of his generation, was in nearly all respects a moderate, and inclined to surround himself with moderates. 2008 was a wasted opportunity.

The 2020 campaign is conducted in the midst of the second major expansion of Federal Reserve shoving money at the financial system. The business cycle has been abrogated, perhaps until economic elites get the electoral outcome they want. Calls for fundamental change are clawing uphill.

awesome, do you have any cool ideas for a way to get these harebrained youngsters excited about incrementalism?

no let's wait for the next fiscal apocalypse to pitch that better things are possible

(I don't think anyone thinks that winning this election will be easy.)

xp: Aim at winning the presidency and 53-56 senate seats.

Whether Warren, Sanders, or the departed Castro or Booker, all have platforms far more progressive than the legislation that any plausible Senate will pass. With respect to what might actually change after an election from within this group, they're more or less equivalent as far as I'm concerned. It's down to who is more electable in the general. So electability concerns are fair game, when we're talking amongst ourselves.

Everyone's savings accounts and home values were plunging in 2008. That's the sort of environment where calls for fundamental change are more attractive.

Rough for everyone with savings accounts and their own homes. The turn in the Democratic Party is being driven by people who have neither because of last 12 years, who saw what an Administration not dedicated to fundamental change has done.

managed to do, that is

sanpaku don't you live in the same "purple suburb" that elected david duke to statewide office

The turn in the Democratic Party is being driven by people who have neither because of last 12 years, who saw what an Administration not dedicated to fundamental change has done.

Exactly. The voters the Democrats are, or should be, chasing are the people who know that they're never going to own a house, they're unlikely to have a four-digit bank balance for longer than a week at a time, and if they get really sick they're going to die in penury. People living in suburban comfort as Sanpaku defines it are a distinct minority, and the Republicans have mostly got them.

otm x1000

wait what? It's suburban women who have abandoned the GOP in droves. Dems own the professional class.

We are talking about white men, Alfred. They’re the only ones that matter, after all.

New CBS/YouGov poll in Iowa this morning:

Sanders 26%
Biden 25%
Buttigieg 22%
Warren 15%
Klobuchar 7%
Everyone else 1% or less

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) January 26, 2020

klobmentum can't be stopped

a reminder of who rules

Corporate mercenaries, oil and gas shills, spooks, pro-Israel flacks, influence peddlers, bundlers, billionaires, weapons contractors, Pharma lobbyists, union-busters, health insurance industry execs, bank directors—a real who’s who of everything rotten in the Democratic Party. https://t.co/YFKJ1qDbEB

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 26, 2020

Suburbia: washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-extend-their-dominance-of-the-suburbs-with-an-eye-to-2020/2019/11/06/faa0a73a-00af-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

Suburbia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VCqAjYO3NM

the (potential) voters unperson is describing may include white men but I’ll go out in a limb and posit that it’s mostly not

I'm a white man and it describes me, but I'm also the only white person in my apartment building and it describes all my neighbors, too.

https://i.imgur.com/dQoije3.png

but yes, things are changing quickly:

Between 1970 and 2000, the share of African Americans living in suburban Atlanta increased from 27 percent to 78 percent; while in greater Washington D.C it rose from 25 percent in 1970 to 82 percent. Those trends have continued to accelerate, according to the Lacy’s research. There are two parts to this African-American suburbanization. On the one hand, it is the result of low-income African Americans being pushed out of gentrifying parts of cities. And on the other, it involves the black middle class choosing to move to more upscale suburbs. Taken together, they add up to considerable shift.

But it is not just African Americans who are headed to the suburbs: other minority groups are, too. Demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution has documented the dramatic growth of “melting pot suburbs,” where minorities constitute 35 percent or more of the population. As result, today’s suburbs no longer look much like the lily-white places portrayed on 1950s and 1960s sitcoms. Whites comprised less than ten percent of growth of the suburban population in America’s 100 largest metros between the years 2000 and 2010.

who can afford cities?

looking at that convention nominee list, I can only imagine how much Barney Frank hates Sanders and his supporters; so that'll be a great Rules Committee.

yeah, eff you Barney

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/barney-frank-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-would-be-a-loser-against-trump-in-2020.html

Mahlon Mitchell is on the rules committee. Head of the Wisconsin firefighter's union, finished second (admittedly a distant second) in the Dem governor primary in 2018. I think he's got a real political future and I'm glad to see him getting DNC uptake.

Morbs, did you check the date on that link?

The Des Moines Register has endorsed Warren

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2020/01/26/elizabeth-warren-president-democrat-iowa-caucuses-des-moines-register-editorial-board-endorsement/4562157002/

The biggest problem with a Green New Deal is defining it simply, clearly and believably, because if you define it too broadly and vaguely the Republicans and FOX News will supply the missing details by defining it nonstop as "taking away your hamburgers" and other fearsome nonsense.

ugh "policy wonk." People really hate knowledge, don't they? I need to add that phrase to our rolling thread.

xpost

Republicans and Fox News (and the Koch Brothers network) will fight it to the death with disinformation and confusion no matter how clearly it's defined.

that doesn't mean that the details or how they are communicated aren't important. those that are listening in good faith and want a better world will appreciate it. but it's a mistake to tailor a message in an attempt to stymy the fox news crowd.

I see nothing wrong with Green New Deal as slogan. Dems have often sucked at pithiness; when this came out I thought, "Finally."

I dunno if someone linked to this article about Sanders fans published a day ago:

The meme shared by Walters, the retired Michigan factory worker, was just one of dozens of anti-Warren images circulating recently and one of several that portrayed her as the second coming of Clinton, whose own bid to become the first female president in 2016 ended in division and defeat for Democrats. The version that Walters reposted reached about 500,000 Facebook users on 50 groups since it began circulating on Facebook in September, according to Davis.

The Sanders and Warren campaigns are promising a detente after Warren accused Sanders of saying in a private meeting that a woman couldn’t win the White House, and Sanders denied having done so. But the memo hasn’t been received by denizens of the digital world. Sanders supporters who are active on Facebook described in interviews growing disenchantment with other candidates and rising concern that the system might be rigged against their candidate.

Already, the pro-Sanders crusade has spawned groups calling for protests at the party’s national convention in July should Sanders not emerge as the nominee. #BernieOrVest is their rallying cry, echoing the Yellow Vest demonstrations that have roiled France. In December, an activist wore one of the high-visibility vests for a picture with Sanders, which he proceeded to upload to a group, claiming falsely that the senator had endorsed their movement.

what a shitty hashtag

Right?

And I realize Russians are involved too but still.

xposts

the actual biggest problem with the green new deal is the same biggest problem that faces anyone trying to do anything about climate change: human beings are not good at evaluating risk when they perceive it as a future concern (especially politicians hesitant to introduce costly programs that likely won't see results until well beyond the next election cycle). when those risks begin turning into tragedies, and when the scale of the problem is so enormous,
the inclination is to turn to the most prominent and powerful protectors and actors: the government and corporations, who effectively control ($$) and operate (as contractors) our government. i strongly believe that the "solution" they'll both turn to will be geoengineering. it's a fate both foreseeable and very sad.

so in short: the GOP and fossil fuel industry will lie and cheat no matter what. be aware of them, but don't formulate a campaign in an attempt to appease them. it is impossible. the most important battle will be trying to drag corporations and the government away from the technocratic allure of geoengineering. in a vacuum, which sounds more appealing to a politician: a society-altering program to remake the energy, transportation, and manufacturing sectors at great cost, or investing some more money in tech so that eventually some company can try to "solve It" at a later date? that's the real enemy

xp adam: KKK Duke is from East Baton Rouge, 70 miles away. I'm presently renting a 2 Br in a well off white-flight suburb but one with 3 synagogues within a mile, near enough to be of aid to my 76 yr old father. The precinct is purple, but its in a red congressional district.

It works well as a context-free slogan, but in that case your candidate should treat it as one, as Nixon did with "Law and Order" (which was one of the best slogans for its time and target audience ever delivered in my lifetime - however much I detested it).

xp KM’s take is so otm strategically imo- you won’t change them and half or more will become strong marketers developers promoters of the geoengineering they will claim is DESPERATELY NEEDED AND ESSENTIAL AND TOTALLY SAFE.

From my standpoint, stratospheric sulfate geoengineering is cheap compared to decarbonization, and has modest short term harms (though its just a plaster over a festering wound). The oceans still die from adidification, and here's the huge risk of discontinuation shock (stop injecting sulfates for any reason, and global climate reverts to the flying off the cliff state within 5-10 years).

There will be a 10-year run up to any effective geoengineering approach, and the fossil/right wing are so invested in denial that it won't get seriously engineered or started in earnest until the 2050s-60s. By then the developed world will face the frequent crop failures and hunger that afflicted the developing world in the prior decades, and most fossil fuels will be in natural decline (with a lot of unmined coal on the sidelines). People will gladly vote for it when they're worried about their children starving.

i strongly believe that the "solution" they'll both turn to will be geoengineering. it's a fate both foreseeable and very sad.

i give it no play at all but when i do environmental ethics and my students get to bits on geoengineering they are quite eager about its prospects, by their usual indifferent standards. especially any of the ones with scientific or technical background

sanpaku david duke went to the louisiana state house from district 81 which at that point included east jeff parish. a seat held subsequently by david vitter and steve scalise lol. either way it was a shitty dig and i apologize

Morbs, did you check the date on that link?

yes, I saw it, I assume Frank believes the same today bcz he's a badass POS

Ah! Politician retired years ago, said some things in spring 2019.

and Fox News (and the Koch Brothers network) will fight it to the death with disinformation and confusion no matter how clearly it's defined.

A read through references to the press in the climate change thread this month should provide a handy preview for the US.