Should we fear the Democratic Party?

[Delphic Oracle]

I suspect so.

Help a sincere schlump out here. Is this when I'm supposed to return the infantile name calling?

It was a failed attempt at a clever zinger.

Schumer made a damning quote in 2016, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

I was pairing it to "ok, boomer."

Bah-dum-tiss

 

[Delvo]

Bernie is the only chance the Democrats even have of winning at all.

The main other alternative that they're pushing for is Biden. And in addition to the fact that he'd just be, at the best of times, a re-enactment of the Democrats' last several losing campaigns, he has a whole extra problem, seldom or never seen before. As much as people point out how far gone Trump's mind clearly is now, putting them in a debate together invites the comparison, and it will be perfectly clear to everybody that Biden's is even farther gone than Trump's. There is simply no chance at all of winning that way. All it takes to be any better than zero is any chance at all above zero.

 

[Cabbage]

In the democratic primary, Sanders had only to worry about Democratic voters (where Sander's policies would gain the most traction.)

When it came to the general election, Sanders would have had to worry about both attracting moderate voters AND in minimizing the number of people casting votes for Trump. In general, extreme candidates often have problems with that.

So there is no guarantee that Sanders would have done any better in the General election if he were the candidate.

But I'm not making any sort of claim about the general election (in 2016 or in 2020) here. I was specifically challenging the notion that Sanders is the most frightening candidate in the rust belt. None of the evidence I have seen supports this--Not the primary results in 2016 nor the primary polling to this point in 2020.

 

[Venom]

I do fear Biden a bit more with endorsements from Klobuchar and Buttigieg.

 

[uke2se]

If Biden is the nominee we'll have to hope he is saving his form for the general election, because if he keeps on like he has in the primary, he will lose. He can also hope for lingering Obama-loyalty, so that's a plus. In pure electability terms, I fear Biden has a much lesser chance to beat Trump than Sanders does. Buttigieg would have had a better chance imo, as would Warren.

 

[Distracted1]

If Biden is the nominee we'll have to hope he is saving his form for the general election, because if he keeps on like he has in the primary, he will lose. He can also hope for lingering Obama-loyalty, so that's a plus. In pure electability terms, I fear Biden has a much lesser chance to beat Trump than Sanders does. Buttigieg would have had a better chance imo, as would Warren.

I don't agree that Sanders has a better chance than Biden, but a lot depends on how well the Biden campaign can cover his slide into dementia.

Not Joes' fault, obviously, but he has really come across as someone who is physically and mentally fading fast.

Warren, she has a better chance than Sanders- and seems more "in her prime" than Biden. Thats why I hope she stays in- I am hoping for some miracle that makes her the nominee.
If that miracle is a brokered convention-I am fine with that.

 

[Delvo]

If Biden... keeps on like he has in the primary, he will lose.

a lot depends on how well the Biden campaign can cover his slide into dementia.

And of course, that's who the Democrat establishment picked to pull all their strings and push all their buttons for. Just when it seemed like they surely must have used up their least electable "candidate" they could possibly find last time, they manage to go and find an even worse one... two, actually, counting their late Biden-panic-move, Bloomberg.

And they obviously know how bad it is, not only because they've spent time with him in private, but also because they wouldn't need to push so desperately hard on their moldy old "it takes a republican to beat a Republican" scam, if they didn't know perfectly well that the voters actually favor Bernie overall and nobody has any reason to vote otherwise other than if you can get them to fall for that scam.

You couldn't come up with more Republican-favoring decisions if your goal were to lose and hand everything to the Republicans. It's getting harder & harder to imagine a way to say with a straight face that the Democrat establishment does anything other than work for their Republican masters when they pull stuff like this.

 

[varwoche]

It was a failed attempt at a clever zinger.

Schumer made a damning quote in 2016, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

I was pairing it to "ok, boomer."

Bah-dum-tiss

Not failed. I got it the first time, and it is clever.

 

[Distracted1]

And of course, that's who the Democrat establishment picked to pull all their strings and push all their buttons for. Just when it seemed like they surely must have used up their least electable "candidate" they could possibly find last time, they manage to go and find an even worse one... two, actually, counting their late Biden-panic-move, Bloomberg.

And they obviously know how bad it is, not only because they've spent time with him in private, but also because they wouldn't need to push so desperately hard on their moldy old "it takes a republican to beat a Republican" scam, if they didn't know perfectly well that the voters actually favor Bernie overall and nobody has any reason to vote otherwise other than if you can get them to fall for that scam.

You couldn't come up with more Republican-favoring decisions if your goal were to lose and hand everything to the Republicans. It's getting harder & harder to imagine a way to say with a straight face that the Democrat establishment does anything other than work for their Republican masters when they pull stuff like this.

In spite of all. He is better than Sanders.

We can always hope for a Warren miracle though.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And this has been the problem since day one.

Sanders and his supporters know full well he's be a distant 3rd, if he's lucky, if he runs as an independent so he's decided (until he changes his mind again) that he's a Democratic so he can run on their ticket because now that's beneficial to him.

But then both he and his followers are either annoyed that he has to play party politics or outright hostile that the DNC is looking out for the DNC and not Bernie. Sanders and his supporters both act like he's too good for the DNC that he needs to win and alternate between demonizing the DNC and whining that the DNC isn't rolling out the red carpet.

It's the Democratic Party, not the Progressive Party, not the "Who's Gonna Beat Trump" Party, not the even the Liberal Party.

Why the Democratic Party might have an issue with a candidate who sort of a Democratic when he feels like it isn't that hard to understand.

And yes this whole thing is very Trump like, but the Dems can't bet the Republicans at their own game.

Bernie doesn't run as an independent presidential candidate because he actually wants to accomplish his goals and not run some vanity spoiler campaign. He's not Ross Perot or Ron Paul. He understands that the best chance to make a change in this country is to cooperate with the Democratic Party and not to sabotage them as a left wing spoiler. For all the talk about him being a disloyal outsider of the party, his record as an independent is one of him being very cooperative and helpful for the party.

The Democratic party is not the progressive party, you're right. What do you want all these progressives to do then? The party neither wants Bernie to run as a spoiler, but also wants to do everything in their power to ensure he does't win within the party as well.

It's quite clear what the party elites really want. They want Bernie to go away, but his supporters to remain loyal party voters. That's not a realistic option.

The two wings of the party need eachother. Bernie understands that, his supporters understand it, seems that most everyone understands it but the elites running the DNC.

 

[Delvo]

There's no honest, legitimate way to call anybody a spoiler in this situation but Warren.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "Spoiler" thing just seems to be a way to reword "We picked a candidate with limited appeal" into something that is somehow our fault.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Bernie doesn't run as an independent presidential candidate because he actually wants to accomplish his goals and not run some vanity spoiler campaign. He's not Ross Perot or Ron Paul. He understands that the best chance to make a change in this country is to cooperate with the Democratic Party and not to sabotage them as a left wing spoiler. For all the talk about him being a disloyal outsider of the party, his record as an independent is one of him being very cooperative and helpful for the party.

And that's all a wonderful bit of idealism to have... when you're not running for the Democratic Candidate Ticket.

And yes he is functionally the same as "I'm a Libertarian except when it benefits me to be a Republican and vice-versa" Ron Paul for the exact same reasons, just coming from the other side of the scale.

The Democratic party is not the progressive party, you're right. What do you want all these progressives to do then?

Live in reality.

The party neither wants Bernie to run as a spoiler, but also wants to do everything in their power to ensure he does't win within the party as well.

Well yeah because they have a responsbility to the party that Bernie is having a really hard time getting for some reason.

It's quite clear what the party elites really want. They want Bernie to go away, but his supporters to remain loyal party voters. That's not a realistic option.

Yes the want to run a candidate that will win the general election but not fundamentally change the party.

What exactly is shocking or hard to understand about this?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Bernie doesn't run as an independent presidential candidate because he actually wants to accomplish his goals and not run some vanity spoiler campaign. He's not Ross Perot or Ron Paul. He understands that the best chance to make a change in this country is to cooperate with the Democratic Party and not to sabotage them as a left wing spoiler. For all the talk about him being a disloyal outsider of the party, his record as an independent is one of him being very cooperative and helpful for the party.

The Democratic party is not the progressive party, you're right. What do you want all these progressives to do then? The party neither wants Bernie to run as a spoiler, but also wants to do everything in their power to ensure he does't win within the party as well.

It's quite clear what the party elites really want. They want Bernie to go away, but his supporters to remain loyal party voters. That's not a realistic option.

The two wings of the party need eachother. Bernie understands that, his supporters understand it, seems that most everyone understands it but the elites running the DNC.

There's a lot of selective amnesia about the criticisms he's facing.

You point out the alternative to the refrain "in the Democratic primaries, but not a Democrat" is that he'd hurt us worse and there would be even more valid criticism of him for doing so.

The Cuba question, notice how little discussion of what Cuba was like before gets discussed and hashed out. No context, just a brief glance at a subatomic aspect of it.

Let's discuss Nicaragua but casually leave out the part about U.S.-backed Contra death squads.

Does that sound like the way liberals, even moderate liberals discuss U.S. history? Then why are moderate liberal outlets pushing surgical hits like this?

I've noticed also we're starting to do exactly what we hated about Republicans doing to Obama "we're for it until they are, then we hate it." Someone said up thread (perhaps another related thread) Bernie isn't proposing grandiose changes to foreign policy as much as a shakeup of policies that have been on autopilot forever.

Trump is a bumbling tyrant, no doubt. Some of his bumbling has broken patterns liberals and progressives have agitated over for decades, yet suddenly "oh, our precious institutions!"

This is the problem with defining oneself upon what they are not or what they are against first, rather than sorting out what are our principles, what are our goals, and what do we believe in.

 

[Belz...]

Out of the two of us, I am the only one who has shown such a priority.

You sound like Biden.

 

[Belz...]

Trump and pals seem to have succeeded with the "socialism" scare. They tell the base that giving healthcare to people will lead to socialism, and the American Dream is dead. You can't get rich and move up the ladder!

Gosh, that stupid myth gets a lot of mileage. Rubio's "nation of haves and soon-to-haves" perfectly encapsulates a lot of Americans' delusions about their futures.

And how callous is it to tell people that having better healthcare is evil?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes the want to run a candidate that will win the general election but not fundamentally change the party.

What exactly is shocking or hard to understand about this?

I understand that perfectly. The party elites would like things to remain the same, largely because they are comfortable with things the way they are.

I suggest that the interests of the party elite are no longer aligned with enough of the voting base of the party. I suspect there simply aren't enough status quo third-way liberals in this country to win elections any more. The party must adapt, or surrender to an increasingly reactionary, proto-fascist right wing Republican party.

I trace the explosion of progressive political popularity directly back to the failure of the party to defeat Trump in 2016.

 

[Segnosaur]

I understand that perfectly. The party elites would like things to remain the same, largely because they are comfortable with things the way they are.

How exactly do you know that? Are you a mind reader?

Maybe the party elites like things the way they are because they actually like the policies that result.

I suggest that the interests of the party elite are no longer aligned with enough of the voting base of the party.

Yet Hillary Clinton (representitive of the status quo/elite) beat Sanders in the 2016 primaries. Sounds like there are quite a few of the voting base that don't mind things the way they are.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

How exactly do you know that? Are you a mind reader?

Maybe the party elites like things the way they are because they actually like the policies that result.

You're both making the same point.

What you're missing is that maybe, just maybe, the party elites have a different value system than working stiffs who make up a vast majority of this country.

So you've got about 10% of the country who have a huge slice of pie and want more, maybe another 20% who think their horse is coming in any day now.

I'm sorry, you can't win with that.

Yet Hillary Clinton (representitive of the status quo/elite) beat Sanders in the 2016 primaries. Sounds like there are quite a few of the voting base that don't mind things the way they are.

Primary results are poor indicators of national sentiment. That's the 10% of the most politically motivated left-leaning voters. There are "quite a few" in basically every category. Which is to say, no real determination can be made from that. But true to form, let's just mention that one category has "quite a few." Then there's the flaw that her win strengths and weaknesses were in the very places that turned out to matter.

We've also been over endlessly that people don't select a candidate by comparing scorecards on policy issues. There's "I'm with her" female solidarity, there's the name familiarity and ongoing rose-colored fond remembrance of the Clinton name, there's any number of totally irrational-to-mildly-relevant reasons people go with that have no basis in strategy.

Yes, that applies to me just as much :9.

ETA:Iowa was close. MI, IN, and WI went Bernie. Clinton did perform strong in PA, but then look at the county level, Sanders did strong in the disaffected rural areas while Clinton did well in urban and suburban belts.

Something the party elites don't get is that measly 30% showing we get in the midwest rural areas? That's what makes the difference between winning and losing a lot of battlegrounds. States where we get maybe 2 Democratic representatives but can still put up a dozen EC votes for Democrats are states that should matter. That's why charismatic candidates with no hope of winning their district should be given support rather than only helping candidates who have industry connections and wink-wink SuperPAC money tied to their being treated nicely (this gets into DCCC and DSCC shenanigans, so I'll digress).

 

[theprestige]

I understand that perfectly. The party elites would like things to remain the same, largely because they are comfortable with things the way they are.

I suggest that the interests of the party elite are no longer aligned with enough of the voting base of the party. I suspect there simply aren't enough status quo third-way liberals in this country to win elections any more. The party must adapt, or surrender to an increasingly reactionary, proto-fascist right wing Republican party.

I trace the explosion of progressive political popularity directly back to the failure of the party to defeat Trump in 2016.

I trace it back further than that, all the way back to the emergence of the Tea Party movement. For years, voters on the left and the right have been demanding relief from establishment politics. The Tea Party movement on the right was a manifestation of this. Likewise the election of Donald Trump. On the left, it manifests in Bernie Sanders' strong showing in 2016, and his strong showing again in 2020.

Defeating Trump is pointless if it just means a return to establishment politics and another generation of moderate Democrats selling out progressive ideals for corrupt political advantage. The goal isn't to defeat Trump; the goal is to defeat establishment Democrats. (See also: The Rise of AOC.)

- American Progressives, apparently