the 2020 democratic candidate (and VP)

[Padawanbater2]

You can't handle incremental progress.

Nobody wants incremental progress. That's a guise establishment Democrats sell to their constituents to get them to forgive their ties to industries like Wall Street

Hillary Clinton campaigned on incremental progress and lost. Trump campaigned on right wing populism and won. Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and won, overwhelmingly, then sold out to his corporate interests. Very disappointing.

But we can see a pattern emerge.. People don't support establishment politicians, and today it's much more difficult to hide it. What will 2020 hold? Personally I don't think the Democratic establishment has really given up/given in. They're going to continue to fight for control, even though working class Democrats largely don't support them anymore. Either they shift towards more progressive ideals or they lose control. So I'm expecting to see that shift after 2020.

Unless leadership takes a stand against outside private interests influencing politics, Republicans will continue to win. It's not rocket science, it's the ego

 

[Padawanbater2]

Booker has no future in American politics. Progressives aren't interested in his way of governing

 

[ttystikk]

So, then, keep an open mind about the people circulating in the candidate arena. That's all.

That said, Corey Booker has done a few things that have biased me against him. So I'm not all that pure.

Corey Booker has shown himself to be a shill for the insurance industry. That makes him tough for me to support.

I understand that in the past, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican, this according to @UncleBuck? That said, if she NOW supports the same policies as I do, I don't care.

 

[ttystikk]

So, then, keep an open mind about the people circulating in the candidate arena. That's all.

That said, Corey Booker has done a few things that have biased me against him. So I'm not all that pure.

How does a refusal to support those who sell out your best interests qualify as 'impure'?

 

[Fogdog]

How does a refusal to support those who sell out your best interests qualify as 'impure'?

What do you really know of Perez? Where has he sold out? He has support of establishment Democrats. Is that the same as selling out?

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not arguing with you here. I'm just asking if you know anything about Perez that would be as bad as some of the shit Booker has said and done. If interested I can dredge up my reasons for bias against him. I just don't know enough about Perez. I liked his passion and determination in a video. That's not much to go on.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Nobody wants incremental progress. That's a guise establishment Democrats sell to their constituents to get them to forgive their ties to industries like Wall Street

Hillary Clinton campaigned on incremental progress and lost. Trump campaigned on right wing populism and won. Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and won, overwhelmingly, then sold out to his corporate interests. Very disappointing.

But we can see a pattern emerge.. People don't support establishment politicians, and today it's much more difficult to hide it. What will 2020 hold? Personally I don't think the Democratic establishment has really given up/given in. They're going to continue to fight for control, even though working class Democrats largely don't support them anymore. Either they shift towards more progressive ideals or they lose control. So I'm expecting to see that shift after 2020.

Unless leadership takes a stand against outside private interests influencing politics, Republicans will continue to win. It's not rocket science, it's the ego

Isn't 'incremental progress' better than the regressive regime we're now stuck with?


Hey, I'd like to see some of the things you want. But it's going in the wrong direction right now.

l'd take an establishment Democrat over the douchebag taking over on Friday.
Wouldn't you? At least there would be some chance of getting something. Better judges, better cabinet appointments, better environmental policies, etc.

 

[Padawanbater2]

That said, if she NOW supports the same policies as I do, I don't care.

I agree, shouldn't that go for any politician?

If Trump opposes TPP, why would I oppose him on it? That doesn't make sense. You support the guy you oppose when he supports or opposes the same things you do. You don't obstruct and try to block everything he does like Mitch McConnell did with Obama just to do your part in ensuring he fails. If you do that, you look like a little bitch who supports party over country, like McConnell. If you support Trump in places you actually agree with him, and oppose him in places you don't, you look like the level headed, pragmatic politician people want to reelect. We get to look back on Obama's administration and actually have a legitimate reason to point to when we say he didn't accomplish everything he said he was going to because the Republican congress' first priority was to obstruct progress.

 

[Fogdog]

Nobody wants incremental progress. That's a guise establishment Democrats sell to their constituents to get them to forgive their ties to industries like Wall Street

Hillary Clinton campaigned on incremental progress and lost. Trump campaigned on right wing populism and won. Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and won, overwhelmingly, then sold out to his corporate interests. Very disappointing.

But we can see a pattern emerge.. People don't support establishment politicians, and today it's much more difficult to hide it. What will 2020 hold? Personally I don't think the Democratic establishment has really given up/given in. They're going to continue to fight for control, even though working class Democrats largely don't support them anymore. Either they shift towards more progressive ideals or they lose control. So I'm expecting to see that shift after 2020.

Unless leadership takes a stand against outside private interests influencing politics, Republicans will continue to win. It's not rocket science, it's the ego

I'm actually more in favor of incremental progress in climate change than in radical change. Same goes for a lot of areas with high risk of serious damage if the changes go wrong.

To me, repeal of Citizen's united would be incremental change because all that would do is bring us back to where we were before the loony supreme court decision.

An immediate switch to universal health care would be radical change that I think we could handle with the right conditions in Washington. But you can see how even a small change like the ACA can be fucked up by the wrong conditions in Congress.

So, no.. Not everybody is against incremental change.

 

[UncleBuck]

Isn't 'incremental progress' better than the regressive regime we're now stuck with?


Hey, I'd like to see some of the things you want. But it's going in the wrong direction right now.

l'd take an establishment Democrat over the douchebag taking over on Friday.
Wouldn't you? At least there would be some chance of getting something. Better judges, better cabinet appointments, better environmental policies, etc.

whenever pad starts talking it starts to sound like a trump rally in here. eating our own is not gonna help shit, neither will his whiny tantrums.

"obama is a sellout! DNC rigged! establishment wall street democrats!"

we actually have a pretty decent real enemy to focus on right now, and instead the kid insists on trashing the only hope that progressive values have.

 

[Fogdog]

Nobody wants incremental progress. That's a guise establishment Democrats sell to their constituents to get them to forgive their ties to industries like Wall Street

Hillary Clinton campaigned on incremental progress and lost. Trump campaigned on right wing populism and won. Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and won, overwhelmingly, then sold out to his corporate interests. Very disappointing.

But we can see a pattern emerge.. People don't support establishment politicians, and today it's much more difficult to hide it. What will 2020 hold? Personally I don't think the Democratic establishment has really given up/given in. They're going to continue to fight for control, even though working class Democrats largely don't support them anymore. Either they shift towards more progressive ideals or they lose control. So I'm expecting to see that shift after 2020.

Unless leadership takes a stand against outside private interests influencing politics, Republicans will continue to win. It's not rocket science, it's the ego

Obama did not sell out.

 

[ttystikk]

Isn't 'incremental progress' better than the regressive regime we're now stuck with?


Hey, I'd like to see some of the things you want. But it's going in the wrong direction right now.

l'd take an establishment Democrat over the douchebag taking over on Friday.
Wouldn't you? At least there would be some chance of getting something. Better judges, better cabinet appointments, better environmental policies, etc.

His point is that promising big change is what gets you elected.

I think @Fogdog would agree with me that the Republican party has been indeed playing a very incrementalist game, all the while using extremes in their rhetoric to get noticed, supported and elected.

Senator Sanders used these tactics well and it got him within shouting distance of the Oval Office, and a bully pulpit for the foreseeable future.

I think the appropriate tactic here may be to shout extreme versions of your positions- throwing red meat to your base, in political parlance- and then accept incremental but consistent change as small battles won in a long term campaign.

This gives cover to keep moving the ball forward. It's also the establishment's worst nightmare- on both sides of the aisles in legislative halls all across the country- and so some way must be found to make such a movement competitive against such well funded, if corrupt adversaries who share common cause in keeping the populace powerless.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Isn't 'incremental progress' better than the regressive regime we're now stuck with?

Of course, but you present a false dichotomy; 'incremental progress' or 'regressive regime'

We had the option of radical change, something history shows us is what is supported by a majority of voters. People who voted for Obama wanted radical change. Didn't get it. They wanted radical change again in 2016, Clinton offered more of the same. Trump pushed to "Make America Great Again", that message resonated. Clinton lost the same pivotal states Trump won to snag the election to Sanders during the primary, his critics condemning him for only attracting "white, middle-class voters"..

Hindsight, right..?

 

[Fogdog]

His point is that promising big change is what gets you elected.

I think @Fogdog would agree with me that the Republican party has been indeed playing a very incrementalist game, all the while using extremes in their rhetoric to get noticed, supported and elected.

Senator Sanders used these tactics well and it got him within shouting distance of the Oval Office, and a bully pulpit for the foreseeable future.

I think the appropriate tactic here may be to shout extreme versions of your positions- throwing red meat to your base, in political parlance- and then accept incremental but consistent change as small battles won in a long term campaign.

This gives cover to keep moving the ball forward. It's also the establishment's worst nightmare- on both sides of the aisles in legislative halls all across the country- and so some way must be found to make such a movement competitive against such well funded, if corrupt adversaries who share common cause in keeping the populace powerless.

Maybe the Republican Party is stepping us backward in incremental movements in some areas. Suppressing voting rights and their plan to privatize medicare is radical. Also, repeal of the ACA without even a shred of a replacement plan is radical too. 18 million people are at risk of losing coverage because of this action That's pretty radical.

 

[Fogdog]

Of course, but you present a false dichotomy; 'incremental progress' or 'regressive regime'

We had the option of radical change, something history shows us is what is supported by a majority of voters. People who voted for Obama wanted radical change. Didn't get it. They wanted radical change again in 2016, Clinton offered more of the same. Trump pushed to "Make America Great Again", that message resonated. Clinton lost the same pivotal states Trump won to snag the election to Sanders during the primary, his critics condemning him for only attracting "white, middle-class voters"..

Hindsight, right..?

Bernie isn't a radical.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Bernie isn't a radical.

Which is exactly my point; Sanders is a Centrist, that's exactly why most sane people, both right and left, agree with his views

The only reason he's portrayed as a "radical" is because the Overton window has moved to the right since Reagan was president and it benefits the media establishment. Aka political TMZ

Most Americans support the same exact stances Bernie Sanders supports. Disagree? Let's test it. What stance (outside of gun control and capital punishment) do the American people side with over Sanders?

 

[UncleBuck]

I think the appropriate tactic here may be to shout extreme versions of your positions- throwing red meat to your base, in political parlance- and then accept incremental but consistent change as small battles won in a long term campaign.

gee, kinda sounds like you support a public position and a private position!

i do too. this is exactly the right way to go about things. i am glad padawan agrees.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sanders is a Centrist

HAHAHAHA

you are funny.

 

[Fogdog]

Which is exactly my point; Sanders is a Centrist, that's exactly why most sane people, both right and left, agree with his views

The only reason he's portrayed as a "radical" is because the Overton window has moved to the right since Reagan was president and it benefits the media establishment. Aka political TMZ

Most Americans support the same exact stances Bernie Sanders supports. Disagree? Let's test it. What stance (outside of gun control and capital punishment) do the American people side with over Sanders?

I'll support Sanders if he wins the nomination in 2020. I'll give him the nod as front runner right now given that I know him better than others. I'd prefer a man who is younger for the reason that I'm concerned the Democratic party leadership all looks pretty old and out of touch. Also concerned that Sanders didn't get good support from Black and Latino factions in the Democratic party. That said, I support the policies he ran on last year. No reason why other candidates voicing the same positions can't be as good or better.

And so, I'm open minded right now. Except for Booker. I haven't seen much from him that I like.

 

[Fogdog]

HAHAHAHA

you are funny.

Sanders isn't a radical leftist. I wouldn't call him centrist but he's not very far left of center.