Democratic Primary: Crisis of infinite candidates

Bubble181

Bubble181

George W, Clinton, and Trump were all born in 1946. Biden and Bloomberg are both from 1942. Sanders's from 1941! Warren's from 1949.
Obama was an outlier from 1961. Klobuchar's from 1960.
Buttigieg was born 1982.
Would the white folks from the 1940s please just quit it and leave another generation to try and fix all the messes they've caused by now?
Are there seriously no decent people interested from the 1950s and 1970s? Was Obama the only person born inthe 1960s who could run?
I'm not saying it has to be Buttigieg, but seriously, wtf is going on with a certain generation not being willing to give up power?
 
Terrik

Terrik

Bubble181 said:
George W, Clinton, and Trump were all born in 1946. Biden and Bloomberg are both from 1942. Sanders's from 1941! Warren's from 1949.
Obama was an outlier from 1961. Klobuchar's from 1960.
Buttigieg was born 1982.
Would the white folks from the 1940s please just quit it and leave another generation to try and fix all the messes they've caused by now?
Are there seriously no decent people interested from the 1950s and 1970s? Was Obama the only person born inthe 1960s who could run?
I'm not saying it has to be Buttigieg, but seriously, wtf is going on with a certain generation not being willing to give up power?
Click to expand...
Buttigieg isn't that far over the minimum age to run for president in the first place. It's not all that shocking that largely older individuals with decades of political experience under their belts are running. If no one has the charisma, strength of will, or ability to run and compete for office, then maybe the answer is no, there seriously isn't any decent people interested from the 50s and 70s. Obama certainly had those qualities, but they seem to be in short supply.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

As long as you're going moderate, I stil think Pete and Klobuchar are the better choices than Biden or Bloomberg. We'll see.
Even though Sanders carried the state, he didn't do especially well and underperformed compared to 2016.
We'll see what happens next week with finally more colored people voting.
 
Frank

Frank

Bubble181 said:
As long as you're going moderate, I stil think Pete and Klobuchar are the better choices than Biden or Bloomberg. We'll see.
Even though Sanders carried the state, he didn't do especially well and underperformed compared to 2016.
We'll see what happens next week with finally more colored people voting.
Click to expand...
It was a two horse race in 2016. It's a 2016 horse race in 2020. He still won.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Frank said:
It was a two horse race in 2016. It's a 2016 horse race in 2020. He still won.
Click to expand...
...Sure? I didn't say he didn't. Lower turnout numbers of youth, lower turnout overall, just isn't a great look. I certainly don't blame Sanders for that, and I'm not saying he shouldn't run or should just give up now or anything. I'm just noticing that his own base didn't turn out as much as it did back then.
Despite it being such an open fight, with such high stakes, both in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is less enthusiasm. I honestly don't care which one becomes the democratic nominee, as long as enough people show up to get him/her elected.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Bubble181 said:
...Sure? I didn't say he didn't. Lower turnout numbers of youth, lower turnout overall, just isn't a great look. I certainly don't blame Sanders for that, and I'm not saying he shouldn't run or should just give up now or anything. I'm just noticing that his own base didn't turn out as much as it did back then.
Despite it being such an open fight, with such high stakes, both in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is less enthusiasm. I honestly don't care which one becomes the democratic nominee, as long as enough people show up to get him/her elected.
Click to expand...
Turnout last night was higher than 2016, though I'm guessing a not-insignificant part of his victory then was more anti-Hillary than pro-Bernie.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Yeah I'm not sure I understand some of the narratives being pushed, other than to try and tear him down.

"He didn't win by as much!" - Many more choices than just two with one of those being the eminently likable Hillary Clinton.
"Voter turnout was down!" - NH had record turnout. Record. Highest turnout ever.
"Bernie doesn't do well with non-whites!" - He got 32% of the non-white vote in NH. There just aren't enough non-white people living there to have it make a difference.

I could go on. But there is a real anti-Bernie bias in a lot of places, with MSNBC being one of the worst about it.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Of course there's strong anti-Bernie sentiment. Giving voters the choice between a communist and a fascist in these modern times would probably mean re-electing the fascist.
And I'm well aware Sanders isn't a communist - I'm from Europe, in my country we have an actual communist party to look at and worry - but that's the narrative you'll get for months on end. Choosing him as the democratic nominee may well guarantee Bloomberg as a semi-viable third party candidate, further ensuring a Trump victory.
Anyway, as far as my personal preference goes he's probably third place after Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
 
Frank

Frank

Pete "Service Guarantees Citizenship" Buttigieg and Amy "I'm Extremely Abusive to Everyone Who Works For Me" Klobuchar are both awful candidates. Pete has less minority support than Trump somehow. Bloomberg is just a Republican, right down to the extreme racism.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

This has most of what I want to say in regards to all this.



Let's be honest here, this isn't even about whether he would be a good challenger for Trump or any of that nonsense, it's because all the people in charge of these news corps and other big businesses have no control over him, and that terrifies them. He isn't letting them control the campaign by taking in huge corporate donations, and he is very open about the fact he is going to raise taxes on the super rich. When the super rich own all these companies, of course they are going to downplay Bernie as much as possible. We saw it in 2016 when the DNC literally fucked Bernie out of the nomination in favor of Hillary because she was more corporate friendly.

Some people have called him "The Trump of the left" and while I don't agree with that in any broad sense of the word, I do agree that both are ultimately outliers of their parties that did stuff their own way. It's just Trump is making the rich gain ever more wealth while playing lip service for the poor working class, while Bernie actually wants to lift everyone up, even if that means the rich need to increase their share.

If anything, this next election is going to prove to me whether we even had a democracy at all. If every election comes down to who makes the billionares that control information happy, then how can we call ourselves a real democracy?
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

I'm not basing my opinion on any one specific source, and definitely not msnbc. My primary source of info about how they're doing is 538, with position info coming from CNN, nyt, the guardian, and others (for example, this forum). I'm definitely not a huge big Buttigieg fan, he's definitely got his issues and seems to me unlikely to become the nominee (this time around, anyway. I do think he may have a decent chance in 4 or 8 years).
Mostly, concerning Sanders, I'm worried about the democratic establishment not supporting him, Bloomberg running as a third party, and his capacity to score outside of "his" demographic - I'm certainly not saying Buttigieg and Klobuchar are perfectly communicating vessels, but together they did much better than Sanders and Warren - the moderates still seem better able to get more votes than the further left candidates. Maybe Sanders would be able to generate more enthusiasm going into the general election than a moderate - certainly one like Biden. Maybe he'd scare off moderate/conservative voters who don't like Trump either, which either of the younger choices might be able to motivate by either being fairly young, or by being female.
I dunno. But I do feel like we're once again getting to a point here were any opinion besides Feeling the Bern is enough to get attacked. Don't forget who the real problem is - not moderate democrats, but the Fascist Party.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

ScytheRexx said:
This has most of what I want to say in regards to all this.



Let's be honest here, this isn't even about whether he would be a good challenger for Trump or any of that nonsense, it's because all the people in charge of these news corps and other big businesses have no control over him, and that terrifies them. He isn't letting them control the campaign by taking in huge corporate donations, and he is very open about the fact he is going to raise taxes on the super rich. When the super rich own all these companies, of course they are going to downplay Bernie as much as possible. We saw it in 2016 when the DNC literally fucked Bernie out of the nomination in favor of Hillary because she was more corporate friendly.

Some people have called him "The Trump of the left" and while I don't agree with that in any broad sense of the word, I do agree that both are ultimately outliers of their parties that did stuff their own way. It's just Trump is making the rich gain ever more wealth while playing lip service for the poor working class, while Bernie actually wants to lift everyone up, even if that means the rich need to increase their share.

If anything, this next election is going to prove to me whether we even had a democracy at all. If every election comes down to who makes the billionares that control information happy, then how can we call ourselves a real democracy?
Click to expand...
The USA hasn't been a true democracy in decades, a system so built to only allow two parties is inherently anti-democratic. The power of the media being ever-more concentrated in few hands exacerbates the problem. See also: Italy. Similar but not exactly the same: UK.
A system like ours where we're currently looking at coalition options with 7, 8 or 9 parties isn't serious either, as it locks parties in a constant struggle for electability.
Frankly, in a world where all media coverage is 24/7 and everyone screams everything on social media, I'm not sure a representative, elected democracy can still work properly in any form. Census-based random people drawn on a per-topic basis à la juries may or may not be a better system, or maybe something completely different, I dunno.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Shakey said:
I find it interesting that the typical critique of Klobuchar is always “She’s mean”.
Click to expand...
it's a very typical anti-female critique. Hillary is supposedly a bitch, too. And Warren too. Any woman who dares to strive for power and/or use it is viewed as mean/bitchy/aggressive.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Bubble181 said:
it's a very typical anti-female critique. Hillary is supposedly a bitch, too. And Warren too. Any woman who dares to strive for power and/or use it is viewed as mean/bitchy/aggressive.
Click to expand...
Klobuchar has lots of allegations of mental and physically abuse to staffers. Not just "she doesn't smile enough."
 
Shakey

Shakey

blotsfan said:
Klobuchar has lots of allegations of mental and physically abuse to staffers. Not just "she doesn't smile enough."
Click to expand...
A few. Do you honestly not think it would be reported on differently if she wasn’t female? It would have been written off by saying he was having a bad day, or stressed, or it would just be a non-issue.

I know people who have personally worked for her, and they’ve never said anything like that. I’m not saying the stories didn’t happen, but is it the norm? I doubt it.

Either way, people like to talk about the media bias against Bernie, but then gladly accept and repeat what hear about Klobuchar.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Shakey said:
A few. Do you honestly not think it would be reported on differently if she wasn’t female? It would have been written off by saying he was having a bad day, or stressed, or it would just be a non-issue.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Haven't heard anything like that about Warren. Didn't hear about that with Hillary either.
 
Shakey

Shakey

blotsfan said:
I dunno. Haven't heard anything like that about Warren. Didn't hear about that with Hillary either.
Click to expand...
I remember hearing that all the time with Hillary. Like I said, I’m not saying the people who experienced that are lying, and maybe it is something to consider. I don’t know why it seems to be the biggest reason that people want to dismiss her though. If you talk to people who have either worked for her or with her, that’s not what they see.

If you want to say she’s too moderate? Fine, maybe she is for those who push to the far left. I’m just tired of the need to push the extremes, and I like that she’s not someone who’s going to scare away a good chunk of the population. Yet she doesn’t back down on what’s important to her. So it’s frustrating to see her brushed aside just because of a couple stories that you know wouldn’t have gotten any attention for a male candidate.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Shakey said:
If you want to say she’s too moderate? Fine, maybe she is for those who push to the far left. I’m just tired of the need to push the extremes,
Click to expand...
In America, supporting a health system along the lines of literally every other western country makes you "extreme"
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

I don't care if Klobuchar is mean. She's a neoliberal centrist that needs to be burned at the stake with the rest of them. Same with Biden, same with Mayor Pete, and I don't even know why Bloomberg is in the discussion since he's basically a republican, but him too.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

If you consider Biden and Klobuchar neoliberals - which isn't a centrist position - your view of the political center is seriously skewed. They'd all be centrist in Europe, but the American reality simply is more conservative than the European - and our politics is sadly moving towards yours these days, rather than the other way around.
 
Shakey

Shakey

Ravenpoe said:
I don't care if Klobuchar is mean. She's a neoliberal centrist that needs to be burned at the stake with the rest of them. Same with Biden, same with Mayor Pete, and I don't even know why Bloomberg is in the discussion since he's basically a republican, but him too.
Click to expand...
Now that is an honest answer, thank you.
I think that’s fine, and I’m not saying you need to sacrifice your beliefs for others, but I worry it will push us even farther on the pendulum.
I think most agree that Obama was a pretty decent president, but I get the feeling he would have never been a candidate to consider today. Are we really at the point where we can’t even consider someone who would be willing to work with the other side?
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Shakey said:
Now that is an honest answer, thank you.
I think that’s fine, and I’m not saying you need to sacrifice your beliefs for others, but I worry it will push us even farther on the pendulum.
I think most agree that Obama was a pretty decent president, but I get the feeling he would have never been a candidate to consider today. Are we really at the point where we can’t even consider someone who would be willing to work with the other side?
Click to expand...
While I'm more or less a centrist myself, the problem with working with the other side, is the other side becoming ever worse. In the days of Clinton, working with republicans was possible (and some would say he went too far that-away. The banking crisis and our current economic situation can at least partly be attributed to him). The republicans who stalled a supreme court justice appointment for a year, appointed a guy we all know committed sexual assault, defend a president who abused power, etc etc, aren't exactly interested in any kind of moderate compromise.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Shakey said:
Are we really at the point where we can’t even consider someone who would be willing to work with the other side?
Click to expand...
The republicans are literally fascists who can not be "worked with" in the slightest. The aforementioned Supreme Court justice nomination that was never listened to was fairly conservative for a democrat to nominate and they did not care. They wanted their fascist. It is naive and foolish to think they've shown any signs of being able to be reasoned with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top