Honestly this is what keeps baffling me too. A lot of the dems seem incapable of telling their own story about why you should vote for them. Any framing that gives too much prominence to your opponents is losing framing. Their weird fixation on Trump and beating him is one issue, but also Buttigieg, who just dropped out, insisted on calling the public option 'medicare for all who want it'. Bernie Sanders could not have made the public option seem like more of a weak compromise if he had tried. Biden at least has the good sense to frame it as strengthening Obamacare. The same applies to middle ground candidates who portray themselves as not as radical as Bernie or Trump/Bloomberg and being somewhere in the middle. As a leader you have to tell people what the narrative is, not try to fit yourself in somebody else's.SupahEwok said:
The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee
- Thread starter Tireseas_v1legacy
- Start date
That's the conventional wisdom, but Trump's (successful) campaign was built on near-endless insults and accusations aimed at his opponents. Far more than usual (and often without a grain of truth in it).Pseudonym said:
It shows a complete lack of respectability, sure, but sheer negative campaigning has won several major victories recently.
Pseudonym said:
Because mostly everyone who is not a republican, and possibly some who are, can see the need to remove Trump from office as soon as possible? That is why electability becomes a concern. From the outset I would have said that most of the primary candidates had the chance to become the nominee, but not all off them had the chance to beat Trump.
Yeah, but at least then make it properly negative. Calling Warren Pocahontas or Jeb low energy might draw some attention to Warren or Jeb but not attention that they'd want. Presenting Trump as a terrible and nearly insurmountable opponent for the Dems draws attention to Trump that he wouldn't mind at all whilst making the dems seem frightened and weak. Bickering over 'electability' is also a lot of energy spent on a discussion that will be completely moot during the general. When Trump insults people the story is either 'did Warren lie about her ancestry' or 'Trump is so disrespectful omg'. That either weakens his opponent or draws attention to him on something that revolts some people but draws others to him, as long as he picks the right targets. If the dems attack Trump, it's usually either on his demeanor, which his supporters like or can forgive, or his xenophobia, which his supporters like or can forgive. I'd argue that you should attack his xenophobia, but mostly to oppose and marginalize xenophobia, not to harm him. If you want to harm him, do what Bernie did to Biden and hit him right on social security or something like that. Something on which he has said contradictory things, which does not feed into any particular narrative which he can use, and which is properly hated, not just hated by dems.Silvanus said:
Also, Trump definitely has some policies associated with his name such as a Muslim ban and a wall. He takes a stand on immigration. One that draws attention and is easy to remember. Not a stand I like (very xenophobic and the resulting policies are cruel) but still. Those people who want less immigration will be happy. What stance has Buttigieg, Klobuchar or Warren taken that a) you can remember off the top of your head and b) other candidates don't do better?
Also also, some of the ways to reinforce Trumps framing and issues aren't even attempts to hurt him. I've heard Bernie, Klobuchar and Yang all present variants on MAGA (make america kind again, make america think harder, etc). Why would you do that? I know it sounds like a good zinger, but it also reinforces MAGA as a cultural staple and is also an implicit admission that some aspects of Trump should be imitated.
If that were true of 'mostly everyone who is not a republican', you wouldn't have to worry about electability. You worry about electability precisely because a significant portion of the electorate won't vote for just anyone who isn't Trump. If Trump were as hated as you say, you could campaign on 'Trump bad' regardless of who the nominee is. More importantly, just because you want to beat Trump doesn't mean that should be your campaign pitch.shinyelf said:
edit: I've used the word 'also' some fifty times in this post. Sorry if it's a bit of a stapled together list of points.
That...may not be the whole story [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/01/south-carolinas-turnout-makes-bidens-win-even-more-impressive/?arc404=true]. I mean it's WashPo so you can expect them to not add two and two, but basically:Elfgore said:
1. South Carolina turnout, especially for Biden, was way higher than expected.
2. The biggest turnout increases were in the whitest, wealthiest, most conservative areas, not actually among the black vote.
3. A quarter of South Carolina voters identified as "independent or other" rather than Democrat. They broke for Biden.
4. Half of South Carolina voters identified ideologically as conservative. They overwhelmingly broke for Biden.
5. This created significant variance from polling numbers, a key indicator of cross-party voting in open primaries as only likely-Democratic voters are polled.
6. South Carolina has an open primary, and the Republican primary was cancelled.
Basically, Biden won the margins he did, because of Republican cross-party voters turning out for him. Operation Chaos was in full effect, it just didn't go for Bernie as some have said it would.
This is what happens when I turn my back. Two more candidates have ended their presidential bids:
From last night: Pete Buttigieg [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/03/01/57a3b384-5743-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html] ended his presidential campaign bid following the results from South Carolina.
Fun personal note: I was exchanging texts from a very polite Buttigieg volunteer yesterday afternoon inviting me to a rally later this week (my state votes on the 10th). About a half-hour after we concluded our exchange, this news dinged on my phone. I sent a text expressing sympathy right after.
Today: Amy Klobuchar [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amy-klobuchar-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/03/02/7e272ee4-4219-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html] ended her bid today, and there is anticipation she will endorse Biden.
From last night: Pete Buttigieg [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/03/01/57a3b384-5743-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html] ended his presidential campaign bid following the results from South Carolina.
Fun personal note: I was exchanging texts from a very polite Buttigieg volunteer yesterday afternoon inviting me to a rally later this week (my state votes on the 10th). About a half-hour after we concluded our exchange, this news dinged on my phone. I sent a text expressing sympathy right after.
Today: Amy Klobuchar [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amy-klobuchar-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/03/02/7e272ee4-4219-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html] ended her bid today, and there is anticipation she will endorse Biden.
I don't think it was operation chaos if Republicans were voting for Biden. I think, from a Republican perspective, that's just actually voting for the preferred candidate of the bunch. Old, conservative voters who don't enjoy the game like me aren't interested in Bernie "any left you can do I can do lefter" Sanders ever being on the general election ballot.Eacaraxe said:
Given the current state of affairs, Bernie is a compromise between electoral politics and yellow vests. People in The Bubble^TM don't realize quite how pissed-off people are at the moment.trunkage said:
He's had his day in the sun for this election. He's talked beautifully and optimistically about not very much in a way some people have found very amusing and inspiring, and no doubt has boosted his profile immeasurably to secure a good run at high office - a Senatorial seat, or something. Which, let's face it, will have been his real aim.crimson5pheonix said:
Electability matters to some degree. If Sanders scares the willies out of enough moderate voters, he needs to get the boot. However, polls repeatedly suggest he'd be about as competitive as Biden, so this is not a good argument.SupahEwok said:
However, I think electability or "credibility" is basically just a sort of way of trying to damn some candidates without actually demonstrating there's anything wrong with them and their policies. If the media constantly question this about a candidate, it makes everyone think there's something wrong with them, often a poisoning dripfeed of doubt and suspicion. And it's often employed by cosy journos who might not be getting out and about much in the wider country to desccribe anyone who doesn't meet their cosy preconceptions.
Name one policy implemented literally anywhere that Bernie would balk at for being too far left.trunkage said:
Edit: to be clear, Bernie doesn't talk the communist game as hard as some people with no influence. But that's not because he's moderate, it's because the game he plays is to pick whatever point is just left of anyone else being taken seriously. Whatever it takes to be the leftmost voice in the conversation, that's the spot he claims.
The mainstream left, and even the "centrists" in a large number of European countries support nationalised utilities. Hell, various utilities are nationally-owned in loads of countries. Higher tax rates on high earners and higher corporate tax rates than Sanders espouses are also in place in countless countries. Far stricter corporate regulation is in place in most developed countries.tstorm823 said:
The idea that Sanders is far to the left in a global perspective is laughable. The US centre of political gravity is significantly further to the right than the international average in the developed world.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1234573252221120513"]
Our hero, ladies and gentlemen.
Our hero, ladies and gentlemen.
Bernie Sanders is down for nationizing utilities [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-climate-federal-electricity-production-110117].Silvanus said:
Bernie Sanders would raise the corporate tax back up [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/bernie-sanders-would-raise-corporate-tax-rate-to-35percent-ban-stock-buybacks.html], which would basically be second place globally under only Suriname [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates].
Bernie would tax the richest people at a 97% marginal tax rate [https://www.gq.com/story/bernie-sanders-tax-400-richest-americans], the current standing highest is in the mid 50%s. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates]
And like, "stricter corporate regulation" is much tougher to spike the ball on you, but his plans with regards to labor is to put in place basically every single pro-labor law ever imagined by Europe [https://berniesanders.com/issues/workplace-democracy/], and then on top of that force corporations to hand over 45% control of the business to employees at the level of boards of directors.
Like, I asked for policies Bernie would balk at, so here's an opportunity: you think he's lighter on regulation than most developed countries? Name one corporate regulation that Bernie Sanders has ever heard and said it was too far. Just one concrete example please.
The US is left of that average on the vast majority of issues. It's right of center basically just on labor laws, and a hair right on healthcare. If you think you can argue otherwise, bring it on.
So, a public option, with private companies still competing. So, not a takeover. That's not nationalisation.tstorm823 said:
I mean, that's just expansion of a provider that already exists as an option. So if you consider that to be a nationalised utility... then you already have nationalised energy.
I was certainly wrong on "countless"; global corporate tax rates have drastically fallen in recent years and I wasn't aware (the average used to be comfortably over 40 percent).
Still, this isn't accurate. UAE, Comoros & Suriname are higher, and 10 countries share that 35 percent rate. The US had it at 35 percent until a year or two back.
Oh, lol. So, this figure isn't an actual proposed tax rate; it's an estimate, aiming to evaluate the impact of an 8% wealth tax on specifically the richest 400 Americans as a proportion of income, combined with the income tax rate.
So, uhrm, hopefully I don't need to point out how that's not the same thing as a 97% tax rate.
Shall I go to the second google result [https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html] for "Bernie Sanders nationalize utilities"? Bernie Sanders has supported nationalized industry for decades.Silvanus said:
The US corporate income tax used to be comfortably over 40% as well. The trend of lower corporate tax rates is being lead by the most egalitarian countries that everyone loves pointing to, and the places with high corporate income taxes are mostly poorly developed nations. As it turns out, lowering corporate income tax is not a handout to the rich like Bernie Sanders says, corporate taxes are not a progressive way to fund a government in the first place.
UAE has a weird variable tax rate that they aim the maximum 55% at their discretion. Some pay 55%, some pay 0%. I don't know about Comoros, there are a couple things suggesting to me that their corporate tax is also highly variable, but I'm willing to concede Suriname and Comoros as higher than 35%. I don't think either of those places have enviable economic systems.
I mean, without accounting for wealth taxes at all: direct source from Bernie, proposed 52% federal income tax [https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file], which on it's own takes 10th highest on the planet, but we have state income tax here as well, so income taxes for the top bracket would be between 52% and 65.3%. Solidly the highest personal income tax in the world right there. People would hit the current highest marginal rates on the planet at $500,000 of income.
We're getting pretty nit-picky here. Hopefully you're at least moved past the point of laughing at the idea of Bernie being left in a global perspective.
Congratulations. You found an article that half a century ago Sanders supported nationalizing various industries. That article, for all it's details, doesn't show a single case of him believing in or advocating for that policy any time after the 1970s.tstorm823 said:
FTFY based on your own source....tstorm823 said:
So, you're trying to say that the man who currently wants to implement a national energy system, who wants to pay for all healthcare at the national level, who in the late 80s defined democracy as public ownership of the means of production, who wants the federal government paying directly for higher education, who wants a moratorium on charter schools, who wants a ban on basically any government agency contracting to private entities, be it education, justice, mail service... you're saying this man has changed his opinion? Really?Avnger said:
"Yeah, but he hasn't stated it so broadly recently" is not a good argument. How 'bout you, Avnger? You got any single example where someone said we should nationalize an industry and Bernie disagreed?
