This is hugely important, and it is great some of the left candidates are embracing it. STV/PR is some ways away, but this would be a great start, and hopefully result in a moderation of the republican party.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
This is hugely important, and it is great some of the left candidates are embracing it. STV/PR is some ways away, but this would be a great start, and hopefully result in a moderation of the republican party.
Trump is so damaged by all his scandals that the GOP cannot muster enough votes to overcome Democrats. There are simply more Democratic voters in the Electoral College
Isn't that what social liberalism has always been? To be honest, the phrase economic conservative doesn't even really make sense. The common right/centre-right economic policies like capitalism and free trade are liberalism.
If the Dems nominate a centrist like Biden I am actually going to bet on Trump to win in the futures markets. I don't have nearly the confidence you do that the scandals are affecting his re-election changes. I'd love to be wrong but if I am betting on 2020, I am betting on Trump to beat Biden.
I'm coming round to this.
Every vote needs to have equal weight.
Something has to be done about the Senate representation too.
States like Wyoming and Nebraska have the same number of Senators as California, Texas and NY is ridiculous.
I've never really heard the phrase "social liberalism" by itself either in academic settings or among general conversation in the US.
Also yes traditional "classic liberalism" means center-right market driven policies but the phrase liberalism has a differnt colloquial meaning in the US - which obviously doesn't help fix any confusion. I can't tell you how many times I've heard two people talking and using two different definitions of liberalism (or even three).
Well Biden is a loose mouth.
Who knows.
And him embracing the Republicans is a huge turn off for many Democratic voters. So you may be right.
In the context of American politics, which is what 538 literally exists for, AOC is "super progressive". She'd probably be a social democrat in Europe (centre seems wrong), but in the US she is certainly far to the left of traditional politics.
The Democrats are essentially a social liberal party. IMO that partly explains the "liberal is the left" thing in the US, because the US never really had actual left (i.e. socialist) politics to any real degree.
FDR
FDR was cool, but a socialist he was not. It's just that the state of American politics up until that point was so anti-left that his rather reasonable policies seemed radical in comparison. Maybe if he had been given more time, he could have continued turning American politics, but he wasn't.
I'd argue that anything polling 60-70% cannot accurate be called "far to the..." anything of the mainstream. It IS the consensus view of the people. Its just that certain special interests are working in overdrive to distort, corrupt and misstate this consensus view.
Its important to note that the US started a big swerve to the right in the 1980s. Even Richard Nixon a Republican was in favor of universal healthcare back in the 1970s and the idea that doing something about climate change is outside the mainstream views of a majority of Americans is a massive propaganda victory for Fox News because most Americans consistently poll recognizing climate change.
Another point I want to make is the reality is there is no "American culture" and there is no "American mainstream". There are probably at least a half-dozen distinct cultures in the US if not more so these media assertions that just place AOC's quite popular policy views on the "far left" is just ludicrous. Its basically what Chomsky would call manufacturing consent. AOC is absolutely to the far left of the Southern suburban/rural culture in areas that had Jim Crow laws. But she is probably slightly to the right of the majority of the citizens in San Francisco and Berkeley. I know this is a side point but the idea that there is anything like a 'median American' is just make believe. No such median American exists. The culture of San Francisco for example has more in common with London culture than it does the Southern Appalachian Republican culture of honor yet both are allegedly "American Culture".
Last edited:
labels are meaningless.
What FDR did was to seek to ensure the financial security of ordinary people.
Social Security was a start. but future presidents did not improve on it.
true.
Thats like some politicians saying we are a Center right country.
Ridiculous.
Absolutely. People are also underestimating the Trump must go sentiment which will definitely animate higher Dem turnout.
Which party is that? He's an independent.
Good point. I guess we'll never know what afro was referring to.
Yeah , this is something that people very often forget or just are not aware of. I am not sure if there has been any other precedent like this before.
While I don't have any polling available and could be talking out of my arse, I think the problem is that the 60-70% figure is something that perhaps applies more in theory than in practice. For example, a fairly racist Republican may actually quite like the idea of free healthcare...but may resent their tax money also going to providing free healthcare for minorities they dislike. Similarly, a social conservative may like the idea of healthcare provisions, but may be completely unwilling to support a candidate who is also pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Ultimately the extensive support for healthcare surely has to be tempered with the various factors that'll prevent a voter opting for a candidate who also holds a myriad of other views alongside their desire for free healthcare, views that they may prioritise as being more important. And again, when it comes to potentially paying more tax, such voters may become more reluctant. And similarly they'll also be more reluctant when the Republicans start to push scare stories.
Of course, that doesn't mean the Dems shouldn't try. The best way to fight scare stories against free healthcare is to provide a compelling counter-narrative which demonstrates why that isn't true. Instead of capitulating to the opposition narrative. And I'll agree with the notion that a progressive candidate like Sanders would be the best way for the Dems to mobilise support and inspire enthusiasm ahead of 2020. But I'm also not sure it's as simple as pointing to polling figures for one policy, which voters may not even understand fully. Whether voters are willing to continue supporting that policy depends on who's advocating it, and whether it's a priority for them ahead of other potentially contradictory policies being advocated as well. Although, again, yeah - they should try, obviously.
He's an independent but it's fairly obvious that within a two-party system you're going to have to run under the platform of either one of those two parties if you want to have a chance of winning. Naturally you're going to pick the major party closest to your platform, even if you don't align with them on a lot of things.
And I'd argue Bernie showed the Dems plenty of goodwill in 2016. A bolder candidate could've fecked them over by running as an independent or not endorsing Clinton, but he did both and indeed campaigned for Hilary vigorously in the run-up to the main election.
briana is good. he also hired david sirota
Agreed with the first part.
Vigorously? Wouldn't say so but my memory might be clouded.
Bernie did not do cartwheels of Joy when endorsing Hillary.
Must have been due his age.
Must have been due his age.
New poll out, (finally) with detailed crosstabs
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/19/rel4b.-.2020.pdf
fecking hipster Bernie bros
It's basically old and rich white men that are going for Biden, in massive numbers (especially sharp by age).
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/19/rel4b.-.2020.pdf
fecking hipster Bernie bros
It's basically old and rich white men that are going for Biden, in massive numbers (especially sharp by age).
overall
women +19 bernie
men -12 bernie
non-white +30 bernie
democrats +59 bernie
indepedents +5 bernie
moderates +12 bernie
among democrats
women +58 bernie
men +62 bernie
white +52 bernie
non-white +68 bernie
typical bros
women +19 bernie
men -12 bernie
non-white +30 bernie
democrats +59 bernie
indepedents +5 bernie
moderates +12 bernie
among democrats
women +58 bernie
men +62 bernie
white +52 bernie
non-white +68 bernie
typical bros
women +39 beto
men +32 beto
white +48 beto
non-white +21 beto
beto is +27 white vs non whites
bernie is -16 white vs non whites
[white suburban soccer mom who spends 4 hours per day on pinterest]: black folk ain't having no bernie
hardcore ratio'd
That's the same poll I posted - it's fascinating he doesn't see the race or sex divide which is the on the very graph he posted. (difference among white voters and male voters for biden v bernie).
...
Nothing can be more reassuring than totally failing among registered lobbyists.
What's wrong with dabbing? oh please, you'd suck Bernie's cock if he said Mother Russia. How irrelevant is Cory booker and his coffee nonsense. Just move on ffs
fishfingers15 and i broke up a few nights ago. im dating altodevil now - shes hot!
- Status