1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who do you endorse for president in 2020?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Andrew99, May 4, 2019.

  1. AwesomGaytheist

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Messages:
    6,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Now that I have time to elaborate, I think Chip is spot-on. Electability is the only thing that matters in this election, but I still think it’s a crapshoot for a different reason: the owners of this country will not allow someone who threatens their status to get anywhere near the White House.

    I’m talking about what Karl Marx called the bourgeoisie, and what George Carlin called “The Big Club.” They’re the ultra-rich assholes who have all the money, own all the corporations, fund the candidates who will do what they want, and control the media which decides what news and information you get to hear.

    I used to be naive enough to think that this was limited to the Republican Party, but it’s not. Look who Democrats have been electing to office lately. The Democratic Governor of New Jersey is Phil Murphy, a former Goldman Sachs executive who bailed out of there just before the financial crisis. The Democratic Governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, is an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune to the tune of $3.5 billion. When he and his wife bought a vacation home a few years ago, they had the toilets ripped out of it so it would be declared uninhabitable under state law, getting them out of having to pay $500,000 in property taxes.

    The game is rigged. It really doesn’t matter who you vote for because you get the same economic results. Now in 2016 people were just starting to realize this. The problem was they were convinced the “establishment” was the source of their problems and not The Big Club. Using a combination of racism, identity politics for white people, and localized issues (specifically trade deals in the Midwest), Trump convinced people that they could overthrow the bourgeoisie by electing one of its most prominent and disgusting members.

    Unsurprisingly, Trump has filled his administration with CEOs, his criminal friends on Wall Street, and most notably, he put the wife of an evil pyramid scheme leader in charge of public education. Even more unsurprisingly, they’re all pilfering and plundering our federal government for their own enrichment.

    What’s most ironic is that his most militant supporters are the ones getting hurt the worst by his policies. Here in Michigan, Macomb and Monroe counties voted overwhelmingly for Trump because he kept screaming that he’d rip up NAFTA. While NAFTA sent most of our manufacturing jobs away, it brought in far more tech, finance, and STEM jobs and our economy is far more robust because of it. Thanks to the steel tariffs, General Motors, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler are all raising car prices, cutting production, closing plants, laying people off, and are on track for bankruptcy again. If NAFTA was terminated, thousands of businesses in Detroit and other border cities would be devastated. And yet those people will all vote for Trump again next year.

    That folks is the power of racism. White people don’t seem to care if their company goes out of business and they lose their livelihood as long as Blacks don’t get welfare, immigrants get deported, Muslims get banned from entering the country, and we build a wall as a middle finger to our brown neighbors south of the border. That’s your “economic anxiety” right there.

    These are the tricks that the bourgeoisie uses to get good, honest, hardworking people to vote against their own interests. They use the divisiveness of the culture wars as the ultimate and most powerful distraction from how badly they’re getting fucked economically.

    They use the fight against abortion and gay marriage to get mostly evangelical Christians to vote for the party that has given us right-to-work, the destruction of unions, hyper inflation, the worst wealth imbalance in our country’s history, increasingly shitty jobs that pay the same wage as they did 40 years ago while your dollar gets stretched and stretched until it rips in half, but that’s a-ok with them as long as the people they hate get put back in their places. The people in Charlottesville waving confederate and Nazi flags don’t care about economics, they care about making sure white people are coddled and treated as better than everyone else.

    Thankfully we’re getting to the point of end-stage capitalism, where supply-side capitalism collapses because of its own policies. There’s another reason why the car companies are getting into trouble: people just can’t afford new cars. A new graduate like myself is usually coming out of college with $60k in student loans, works a $15/hour job and has a four-figure rent payment. Someone like that will probably never be able afford to drop 40 grand into a new set of wheels.

    Now being the pragmatist that I am, I still vote because there is still a choice. With Republicans you get shitty economic policies as well as white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and a dysfunctional government. With Democrats you get the same shitty economic policies, but at least you get gay marriage, abortion, and legal marijuana. I go with option number two.

    So for that reason, I’m going with Biden in 2020. If Trump is re-elected and gets to continue to pack the courts with right-wing hacks and stack his administration with criminals who openly break the law (most recently Mnuchen refusing to turn over his tax returns), America will not survive four more years.

    My prescription for this country is to start by cleaning house. If I was the one being sworn in as president on January 20, 2021, my first act would be to appoint a special prosecutor to have Trump and his entire family thrown in prison for all their crimes both in and out of office. Trump has committed decades of tax fraud, which is why they’re refusing to turn over his taxes to the House Finance Committee (in direct violation of the law, which says that the committee can view the tax returns of any American taxpayer).

    Second, I’d order the CIA to have Vladimir Putin killed for his interference in the election. Despite what Barr says, the Trump campaign admitted that they colluded with Russia. Paul Manafort gave polling data to the Russians and Jared Kushner admitted to meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. To say that’s not collusion is like saying that walking into a bank, pointing a gun at the teller and demanding all the money isn’t armed robbery.

    Put simply, the only way for America to survive this cancer is to vote him out and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law to serve as a deterrent to any other billionaire from abusing the presidency to line his pockets.
     
  2. Chip

    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,689
    Likes Received:
    3,549
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I know an awful lot of millennials who voted for fucking Jill Stein last election, who is dumb as rocks and completely delusional. Including in states like Wisconsin with razor-thin margins. Those privileged assholes who wanted to Send A Message or Vote Their Conscience get to take responsibility for sticking us with Trump... but they never will, because they're way too focused on their own needs at the expense of the country as a whole.
    Yes, and it's playing straight into the hands of the repubs.

    Dude, you're delusional if you don't see how serious a threat Trump and his administration are. There are a million problems to be solved, but if the courts are packed with crazy right-wing justices with life appointments (30+ appointments already rammed through, with dozens more happening in next 2 years) then little else will matter. And God help us if Trump gets reelected in 2020, because then the Supreme Court will be 6-3, and it will be decades before that can be undone.

    But not to worry... millennials will Vote Their Conscience and Send A Message and that will solve the problems. /sarcasm.
     
    #62 Chip, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  3. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I don't "endorse" anyone, and my endorsement wouldn't be of much value. I can't see a candidate announcing in advertising material: "Vote for me! I'm endorsed by BMC77." LOL
     
  4. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    At this point, my #1 choice is Bernie Sanders. I am very much a progressive. I agree with most of his positions, like the importance of having single payer health insurance--like every other first world nation has.

    Others are making progressive sounding promises, like single payer healthcare, but I have to wonder how committed some of those candidates are. Obviously, the president doesn't legislate, but he or she will have a huge influence on legislative direction. Someone like Sanders is more likely to push Congress into doing single payer than someone who only believes in single payer only when running for office.

    Past Sanders, I'm willing to consider other progressives. But I don't see them surviving the primary season.
     
  5. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    And as far as "electability" is concerned...

    That is important. But it also hugely important that there will be more than mere electability, and more than "somoene other Trump".

    If people don't see the country heading in a positive direction, then Democrats will lose in elections, starting in 2022. And it's entirely possible they'd lose the White House in 2024 to a Republican who will be as bad or worse than Trump.

    While thinking of electability, I'll add this thought: I really question if Biden is a good choice. First, I question if he's really a top electable candidate. I don't think progressives will like him, I can even see the progressives who refused to support Clinton refusing to support Biden (or, at most, half-heartedly support him as "a lesser evil.")

    Then, he is tied to the Obama years, and it seems like that will even be a marketing point. I know a lot of Democrats love Obama, and think he was the greatest thing ever. But it may not be a good marketing point for the Trump voter who was so frustrated by the end of 8 years of Obama that he or she thought Trump was at least worth a try. I question if such voters will happily buy: "Let's go back to the Obama years!"
     
  6. Tightrope

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    5,059
    Likes Received:
    253
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Thankfully, there are Republicans who see it the way you do. Some of them have woken up and smelled the coffee. For those who haven't, I'm scratching my head as to why they haven't. Biden can make inroads into the heartland. The more progressive Democrats probably wouldn't do as well.

    Trump is more and more out of control daily. What is the likelihood of an impeachment and a removal from office? I don't remember my history well enough to know how often it has happened. I believe Nixon resigned as impeachment loomed. I don't recall if it ever occurred prior to that. Melania married a businessman and wasn't expecting this much attention so I don't think she'll miss the White House.
     
    #66 Tightrope, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  7. Tritri

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I support Tulsi Gabbard. She is the only democrat running who is on the correct side of the Russia issue; she knew the Russia investigation would go nowhere, and she identifies the dangerous tensions between the U.S. and Russia that are just as bad as during the official cold war. She is a staunch anti-interventionist, which is needed, because this country is sick of constant war.
    And for some reason, Republicans don't seem to have much of a hate bone for her.

    Trump won the 2016 election largely because he came across as an outsider*. People were sick of the system. If we replace him with an establishment democrat, we are brought back into the same situation that led to Trump in the first place. And we'll elect another right-wing man-child as president within 30 years. It might be someone worse than Trump.

    *Of course, he is NOT an outsider and Trump is NOT anti-establishment. He is just like any other Republican, but with mean tweets and a childish attitude.
     
  8. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Right now it's probably zero. The votes aren't there in the Senate as things stand. The only way those votes would materialize is if Trump turned into a huge liability for the Republicans in the next year.

    I don't know history well enough, either, but IIRC, no president has ever been removed from office.
     
    #68 BMC77, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  9. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I like what little I've heard about Gabbard. Someone whom I greatly respect is (or was) a Gabbard fan.

    I'm afraid, however, she's probably not got a chance. One thing: the system will be biased against her. Her non-interventionist position is not what the military-industrial complex would like.

    One thing I've cynically noted: it's interesting that so much gets said about candidates who might break the white male tradition. We might get our first woman/non-white/whatever president. Gabbard would represent more than one first. And yet she's never mentioned outside of progressive circles. Making me cynically think a woman president is just fine for the establishment...just as long as she'll be business as usual in office.
     
  10. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Yes! Except I don't think it would be 30 years before we had another terrible Republican president. We might not end up with a "man child", but I'd guess we'd have a terrible Republican win 4-8 years. Keep in mind we have had this see-saw since 2000. We went from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump. If Biden wins, I think he'll be replaced by a Republican--and possibly one that has many people "missing" Trump (the way many people "missed" Bush after Trump was elected).
     
  11. Nickw

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,256
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Location:
    Out West
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I wanted to add a couple comments then I'll leave this alone.

    @smurf brought up some great posts about the work Warren has achieved. She achieved this through bi partisan process because that is the only way it works right now. Democrats have to find ways to make GOP look bad to get a bill through. Good on her for doing that. But, the grand ideas so many of us want (college for all,single payer health care, the green new deal) can only be expressed as ideas and not legislated in this environment.

    I love that millineals are pushing for these things. When some of us baby boomers say "whoa, wait a minute", it is not because we think it's a bad idea or we don't understand. It's just that many of us see so many of our ideals, which are not that different, get erased by the prospect of the Supreme Court heading so far right.

    It's why I want someone that we can elect. And, I think we need to tone down the progressive rhetoric to make that happen (hey, I did peace sit ins at 13 and have been politically involved my whole life...I get how frustrating this is).

    Regarding comments about single payer health care. A number of other countries have hybrid systems like the US such as France, the Netherlands and Germany. Obamacare can work if it is properly tweaked. The candidates that push hard for "Medicare for all" are pushing too far and the push back could swing the election,

    IMO, the Democrats need to make health care THE issue with smart plans that show how folks get to keep their Obamacare and private insurance and illustrate how the GOP attacks on Obamacare are the problem.

    I guess what I'm saying is this is the election to set aside the high ambitions and just try and get the orange f##ker out of office.
     
  12. Mike92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Erie, Colorado
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    It's not happening.

    House Democrats would be really stupid to overplay their hand by impeaching Trump because there is zero chance the Senate votes to remove him.

    And it would play right into Trump's narrative that Democrats are obstructionists who are conducting a witch hunt. Republicans got burned when they impeached Bill Clinton, and the same would happen to Democrats here. It would also put the eventual Democratic nominee in a tough spot by forcing the nominee to take a position on impeachment and having to constantly answer questions on the topic. Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but she's smart enough to recognize how dumb it would be to impeach Trump and has done a solid job of keeping the crazy members in her caucus in check.
     
    #72 Mike92, May 8, 2019
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
  13. Nickw

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,256
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Location:
    Out West
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    All very good points. We need to take the country back from Trupism by taking the high road.

    Watch for one of the smart centrist Democrats to figure this out and start to sway the dialogue. It'll likely still be Biden as the nominee. But, I'm hoping Bennett, Klobuchar or Hickenlooper will start to push back on the progressive agenda.

    Just to be clear. I'm a progressive...I just am not going to get my way and I understand that.
     
  14. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    There is also an argument that pushing single payer would win the election. It certainly is popular among many people, and supposedly polls well. It might also be argued that stuff like single payer might encourage voters to vote who might not bother otherwise.

    It's hard for me to say...and I have admittedly a progressive bias.

    As for bi-partisanship, my feeling is that sounds nice. In an ideal world, we'd have two functioning parties that would be forced to compromise and work together. But unfortunately, the Republican idea of "compromise" seems to be "you'll agree to do it our way!" And the Democrat idea is to let the Republicans steamroll them. Best case scenario: we end up with a "center" that is far right of what other countries. I've heard progressives comment that they seem liberal for the US, but for other countries they are very centrist.

    I hope that the Democrats win the House, Senate, and White House. That takes the Republicans out of the equation. And it possibly oddly creates a more realistic chance of bi-partisanship of a sort inside the Democratic Party (conservative/establishment vs. progressives). That might not result in single payer, but it might result in tolerable short term compromises to the ACA.

    All this said...while I understand that it's important to win, I also strongly feel that the next president should be progressive to some degree. Maybe not to the degree I'd like, but I do feel we are at a critical moment in history, and certain things can't be kicked down the road for 8 years by a "at least I'm not Trump" president. Climate change needed to be addressed yesterday. Healthcare is a crisis, and everyone needs to be covered (regardless of how it happens). I think the struggle so many people are having just to survive isn't sustainable.

    On a practical level of winning future elections, if things aren't better after the next president, then it's very likely that the president after will be a Republican--and possibly a Republican who has many on the more liberal end of the spectrum missing the days of Trump. If things are better for real people (even if not ideal), they would be more likely to support another Democrat.

    I might also add I've heard arguments about "incrementalism". A few changes here and there over time get us to where we want to go. That is nice--if it actually happens. I perhaps cynically feel that incrementalism is most favored by those in power who really don't want to do anything, but need a good sounding excuse. Such as suggesting that if we tweak the ACA regularly, we'll eventually reach single payer. Except, of course, they have no real desire or interest in ever reaching single payer. That would eliminate political donors in the health insurance industry, and we can't have that, can we?
     
  15. Nickw

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,256
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Location:
    Out West
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Obamacare is now polling at 55% approval. With that sort of approval, this is why I believe we shouldn't rock the boat on health care and confuse it with a single payer. Add a public option to Obamacare (It should always have had one). This is the system that works well in some other Western Countries. If I were not quite so progressive and someone told me I would lose the great health care plan that is provided by my employer, I would have to vote for my best interests. It's those union people and suburban white women that need to come back to the Democrats to win. If I were a GOP strategist, I would campaign on the Democrats not knowing what they are doing by admitting, in effect, that O care was a failure when in fact it hasn't been.

    UNLESS minorities and young people vote in numbers that they have never voted for before. I'm not holding my breath.

    Things will likely be worse for the next President. Economies cycle and we will have an adjustment and the tax break deficit and poor immigration policy (we need those workers with our aging population) will drive it further. It would be great for the GOP to have to own this mess. But, the Supreme Court is SO important right now that, IMO, it dwarfs other issues.

    We had an articulate leader who could barely pass Obamacare with majorities in both houses and we had the GOP steal his SC nominee with a narrow majority in the Senate. Unless the red state advantage is somehow reduced we will not move the needle on progressive policies and it will be up to the individual more populated states to deal with advancement of the progressive agenda.

    I guess we will all see if the primary process becoming a fight between progressives and centrists will damage the Democrats possibilities. I think it will and I really hope I am wrong.
     
  16. Tritri

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    The system was also biased against Trump, and he won. I don't think that will matter. We are living in an anti-establishment era.
    The establishment actually doesn't care about your identity. They want someone who will preserve the status quo. But they know the people can't be convinced that pro-establishment policies good, so they try convincing people to vote for establishment candidates based on identity ("wouldn't it be nice to have a woman president? or an openly gay one?"). That's why they care so much about Kamala Harris being a woman, but not Tulsi Gabbard. It's also why they criticize Bernie Sanders for being an old white man, but support Joe Biden.
     
  17. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    The Democrats may need union people to come back. But the Democrats need to start serving their interests again. Not the interests of Wall Street. Not trying to appeal to moderate Republicans, who likely won't be converted (at least not long term).

    Good point. I think if the right candidate ran that young voters might be more interested. But there are no guarantees. One thing I am pretty sure about in my mind: if they run another "business as usual" Democrat, then they can probably forget getting young people interested in voting.

    Forget adjustment. What I'm hearing is severe downturn, possibly as bad as 2008. And yes, it would be "nice" if the Republicans owned it. But if the Democrats were in control, and did the right things, it can be argued that the downturn wouldn't be as painful.

    A big selling point they make for Obama is how he fixed the crash of 2008. Maybe this time they could fix it, and do a better job for real people in the real world.

    And when will it NOT be an important issue? It certainly is a huge problem now--but it has been an issue for years. Election cycle after election cycle, that is something the Democrats use to sell their candidate. Again and again we are asked--no, ordered--to support a candidate, no matter how shitty that candidate might be, for no other reason than Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is important--I'm not saying it isn't--but I've gotten tired of this.

    Possibly. Again, possibly not. We'll see. In my most realistic "compromise is inevitable" moments, I hope for some sort of working together of the two sides.

    Problem is...I question the willingness of the standard Democrat to work with progressives. It seems the mentality is Republican Lite--compromise is doing it the way we want to. Fitting, since the Democrats have become, overall, Republican Lite. Maybe it's not as bad as the Republicans, but it's pretty bad.

    So, for example, let's say single payer can't happen in the near future. The likely message: "It's dead! But you progressive voters had better go along with us, because we aren't Trump!" (This will likely have many progressives voting Stein, or staying home.) Instead, they can have this message: "We can't do this now. But we can--AND WILL--make meaningful changes to the ACA that will move us in a positive direction, and being meaningfully helpful for real people in the real world." And then, if elected, do everything possible to FOLLOW THROUGH. So, for example, a public option gets added. Many Democrats will be able to tell their corporate donors: "Yes, this isn't ideal for you--but I staved off the inevitable." Progressives can say to the people: "Yes, this isn't ideal--but we've made a step in the right direction. I'll continue fighting, and we'll eventually have single payer!"

    I sometimes think that the best thing that could happen is if the Democrats broke into two parties. We could have the Democrats for people like Obama and Clinton and a large chunk of the existing party. And we could have a new party of progressives. The two, at this point, would have to work together to get anything done--but maybe the fighting wouldn't be as bad, since it would be clear "we are different parties working on a project." And even if it did get really bad, the individual parties wouldn't have bad internal strife.

    Of course, this is not the best time for something like this to happen. Maybe if 2020 goes badly, 2021 can be a "regrouping year" that involves a divorce.
     
    #77 BMC77, May 9, 2019
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  18. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    True. One thing that helped Trump: he was well known. Gabbard doesn't have that advantage. But, of course, one never knows what might happen.

    Absolutely.
     
    #78 BMC77, May 9, 2019
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  19. Nickw

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,256
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Location:
    Out West
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I respect your frustration with a two party system you feel leaves many behind. And, it probably does.

    Here's the real problem. The Democrats have to get 55% or more of the vote just to break even in the House of Rep. due to gerrymandering. The Senate may even be worse because the red states get a head start.

    Progressives flock to the blue states and this diminishes their effectiveness to elect a large number of Senators or Representatives.

    Obama was a progressive at heart but a realist. A friend of mine who is a good friend of Obama told me in 2008 that he would be heavily criticized by the liberal wing for trying to get things accomplished by compromise. But, even at that, there was no way to fight the shear representation advantage the GOP has.

    Regarding single payer. I struggle to understand this drive by the progressives. France, Germany and the Netherlands have health care systems that offer universal coverage without a single payer at costs way less than ours using systems not all that un like Obamacare.

    In my opinion, this attitude by progressives to behave like spoiled brats and whine when they don't get everything is part of the problem. I'm progressive but an incrementalist. My whole life I have achieved a little bit at a time towards an end goal and it has paid off professionally, socially and personally.

    When we toss up our hands with frustration and disengage because we feel it is business as usual that's when the needle moves a little bit to the right and it is so hard to move it back.

    The ONLY way to change this is to get every young person and every minority to vote in every election from the top of the ballot to the bottom.

    There is no precedent for this regardless of the candidate. Obama lost his majorities in the House, the Senate and statehouses throughout the country because his coalition didn't show up at the mid terms.

    There is no candidate in the democrat primary who is the Obama this time no matter how we want Buttigieg or Harris or Warren to be that person.

    That's why I feel we cannot afford to have a nasty and divisive primary battle.
     
  20. BMC77

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Call me cynical, but my impression of Obama is that he is a standard establishment Democrat who could sound progressive on the campaign trail. But perhaps I'm just a bitter, burned out, cynical, one-time Obama supporter.

    I can't speak for all progressives, but I, myself (and others, too, I'm sure) don't necessarily expect to get everything at once.

    Meanwhile, I think progressives have a right to be frustrated because election cycle after election cycle we get handed a shit sandwich and told to enjoy it because the alternative is so much worse.

    Incremental changes is reasonable IF IT HAPPENS. But--again this may be because I'm a burned out cynic--it seems like just a way of trying to sell the status quo.

    And then what? Is there any real reason to believe that things will get better? More likely it will send a message that the status quo establishment Democrats and their message is just fine and no changes are needed.

    Of course, if those election cycles can be used to elect progressives then things might get better. But the Democratic establishment will fight that tooth and nail to protect the status quo.

    Of course, not voting means that things get potentially worse. So we really are faced with a seeming lose-lose situation.

    I can't speak to all the factors at work. But one issue is very likely that people got disillusioned with Obama. He did sound very progressive and like a breath of fresh air in 2008. And then he ended up being Bill Clinton 2.0.