Jump to content
Olivaw

NYT OPINION: Trump’s Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn’t He?

Recommended Posts

More hand-wringing or sensible warning?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

 

Quote

 

OPINION: Trump’s Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn’t He? 

 

Voters have reason to worry.

Thomas L. Friedman

By Thomas L. Friedman

Opinion Columnist

July 16, 2019

 

I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.

 

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

 

I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country. 

 

I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.

 

And I was shocked by how feeble was front-runner Joe Biden’s response to the attack from Kamala Harris — and to the more extreme ideas promoted by those to his left.

 

So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.

 

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

 

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.

 

 

That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and saidFour years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

 

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

 

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

 

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes — like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

 

That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier. 

 

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

 

But I’m disturbed that so few of the Democratic candidates don’t also talk about growing the pie, let alone celebrating American entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Where do they think jobs come from?

 

The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably. 

 

Trump is growing the pie by cannibalizing the future. He is creating a growth spurt by building up enormous financial and carbon debts that our kids will pay for.

 

Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies.

 

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure — ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets

 

.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Ask Gina Raimondo, Rhode Island’s governor, and my kind of Democrat. She was just elected in 2018 for a second term. In both her elections she had to win a primary against a more-left Democrat. When Raimondo took office in 2015, Rhode Island had unemployment near 7 percent, and over 20 percent in some of the building trades.

 

When I ran in 2014, there was a temptation to appeal to particular constituencies — gun safety, choice, all things that I believe in,” Raimondo recalled. “I resisted that temptation because I felt the single greatest issue was economic insecurity and people who were afraid they were never going to get a job. So I said there are not three or four issues, there’s one issue: jobs.” Unemployment in Rhode Island today is about 3.6 percent.

 

Raimondo has faced a constant refrain from critics on her left that she is too close to business. “I created an incentive program for companies to get a tax subsidy if they created jobs that pay above our state’s median income or jobs in advanced industries,” she noted. “I have cut small-business taxes two years in a row since 2015. I am not ashamed of any of that.”

 

Because, she continued, “I listen to people every day, and you hear what they are worried about. People say to me, ‘Governor, I just got a real job.’ And I’d ask them, ‘What is a real job?’ And they’d say, ‘It’s a job where I can support my family with real benefits.’ So I named our state job-training program ‘Real Jobs Rhode Island.’”It will be impossible to “sustain a vibrant democracy with this level of inequality.”

 

The right answer is to reinvigorate the key elements of a healthy public-private partnership, said Raimondo: higher taxes on wealthier people, more investments in affordable housing, infrastructure and universal pre-K, and empowering the private sector to create more real jobs — “so that no one who is working full time at any job should have to collect Medicaid and need food stamps to make ends meet.”

 

Concluded Raimondo: “I am no apologist for a brand of capitalism that leads to unsustainable inequality. But I do believe a more responsible capitalism is necessary for growth. We need to redivide the pie and grow the pie. I am a ‘pro-growth Democrat.’ I am for growing the pie as long as everyone has a shot at getting their slice.”

 

That’s a simple message that can connect with enough Democrats — as well as independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women — to win the White House.


 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In September 2009, Friedman wrote an article praising China's one-party autocracy, saying that it was "led by a reasonably enlightened group of people"[65] and that China's leaders are "boosting gasoline prices" and "overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power."[66] The article was in turn subject to critical analysis: Matt Lewiswho wrote, "Friedman's apparent wish for a 'benign' dictator is utopian, inasmuch as it ignores Lord Acton's warning that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"[67] and William Easterly who quotes Friedman's one-party autocracy assertions[68] as part of his academic paper in which he concluded that, "Formal theory and evidence provides little or no basis on which to believe the benevolent autocrat story"

 

In April 2018, Barrett Brown criticized Friedman for "his serial habit of giving the benefit of the doubt to whoever happens to hold power", such as Friedman's column supporting Vladimir Putin as a modernizing reformer, in which he urged Americans to "keep rootin' for Putin".]Brown also used this phrase in the title of his 2014 book "Keep Rootin' for Putin: Establishment Pundits and the Twilight of American Competence".

 

Friedman has been criticized by organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for defending Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon as a form of "educating" Israel's opponents; according to FAIR, Friedman was explicitly endorsing terrorism by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians.

Glenn Greenwald and professor Noam Chomsky also accused Friedman of endorsing and encouraging terrorism by Israeli forces.

 

In his September 29, 2005, column in The New York Times, Friedman entertained the idea of supporting the Kurds and Shias in a civil war against the Sunnis: "If they the Sunnis won't come around, we should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind."

 

During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Friedman wrote the following in The New York Times on April 23, 1999: "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too."

 

Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olivaw said:

More hand-wringing or sensible warning?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

 

If the "single greatest issue" is "economic insecurity", it's disappointing not to see not one word about narrowing the wealth gap by switching to Green Energy and fighting Climate Change.  I find it  amazing that Friedman could write a policy article, completely ignoring the colossal existential threat of our times.  With Democrats in power, the jobs created should be highly compensated jobs. 

 

Linking Economic Security to a Green Revolution would give Democrats an issue with which Republicans cannot compete.

 

10 hours ago, Olivaw said:

higher taxes on wealthier people, more investments in affordable housing, infrastructure and universal pre-K, and empowering the private sector to create more real jobs — “so that no one who is working full time at any job should have to collect Medicaid and need food stamps to make ends meet.”

 

These traditionally Democratic measures are important  I also like Bernie's idea of putting a fractional tax on every Wall St transaction.  But the US also needs to become a world leader in the fight against Climate Change.  We need a modern day, New Deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

If the "single greatest issue" is "economic insecurity", it's disappointing not to see not one word about narrowing the wealth gap by switching to Green Energy and fighting Climate Change.  I find it  amazing that Friedman could write a policy article, completely ignoring the colossal existential threat of our times.  With Democrats in power, the jobs created should be highly compensated jobs. 

 

Linking Economic Security to a Green Revolution would give Democrats an issue with which Republicans cannot compete.

 

 

These traditionally Democratic measures are important  I also like Bernie's idea of putting a fractional tax on every Wall St transaction.  But the US also needs to become a world leader in the fight against Climate Change.  We need a modern day, New Deal.

 

I agree bludog. Green technology creates more and better jobs than those lost from the fossil fuel industry.  Economic insecurity can be partially addressed through a green initiative.

 

But Didn't Hillary Clinton run on creating green jobs? 

 

Friedman did give climate change a drive by mention and I like the way he ties climate change to real personal cost. We may not have to pay for it next month or next year but our kids are sure going to have to pay for it. 

"Trump is growing the pie by cannibalizing the future. He is creating a growth spurt by building up enormous financial and carbon debts that our kids will pay for."


 

Democrats have the better message on a issues like climate change, sustainable economic growth, health care and equality. We can win in 2020 if we don't overplay our hand. Keep the message simple and package it in a way that people will understand. 

 

"Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

But Didn't Hillary Clinton run on creating green jobs? 

 

True, Hillary lost in the Electoral College.  But that doesn't mean she didn't get some things right.  She did win the popular vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you add the numbers 24% back Joe Biden, while 38% back a Progressive candidate.  Most Progressives would vote for either Bernie or Warren, but would not vote for Biden.  

 

Overall, 24% say they back Biden, while 19% each support Sanders and Warren. The five-point margin between Biden and the two senators matches the survey's margin of sampling error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

True, Hillary lost in the Electoral College.  But that doesn't mean she didn't get some things right.  She did win the popular vote.

 

She did win the popular vote. That is why I am unsympathetic to the argument that we need to make major changes for 2020. We need only make a few adjustments to increase turnout by a couple of points in swing states. We can win this thing with reasonable evolutionary policy proposals.

 

We don’t need to repeat 1972. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Modearate Hand-wringers:

You had a chance in 2016 to vote a moderate in.  Someone who would appeal to Republicans and moderates.  Instead, you elected to give us four years of hell in Donald Trump.  And you're now threatening once again to give us four more years of Donald Trump because you'd rather keep the status quo where only the wealthy have good health insurance, and where undocumented immigrants are treated like animals.

 

Too damn bad.  We're electing someone more progressive, and we're not backing down.  Stop complaining about our party, and do something about your OWN damn party.  

 

Sincerely, EVERYONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear impatient far left wingers:

 

How many actual presidents have you managed to elect? 

 

Zero. 

 

A moderately progressive candidate with well formulated proposals can beat Donald Trump. A far left wing revolutionary socialist cannot. 

 

Sincerely, EVERYONE. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

Dear impatient far left wingers:

 

How many actual presidents have you managed to elect? 

 

Zero. 

 

A moderately progressive candidate with well formulated proposals can beat Donald Trump. A far left wing revolutionary socialist cannot. 

 

Sincerely, EVERYONE. 

 

 

 

 

How many moderate Democratic candidates have been defeated:  Al Gore (2000),  John Kerry (2004), Hillary Clinton (2016).

 

We have only had the White House for 8 out of 20 years.  For 12 of those 20 years we put forward moderates who lost.

 

Moderate Democrats lose more often than they win.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bernie-sanders-beaten-donald-trump-pre-election-poll-a7412636.html

 

Nov 11, 2016

 

Bernie Sanders would have crushed Donald Trump according to new pre-election poll. 

 

In the wake of the shocking election results, many have wondered what would have happened were the Democratic socialist chosen as the nominee. 

 

The poll found that the Vermont senator would have likely earned 56 per cent of the vote, while Mr Trump would have only received 44 per cent. 

 

Crucially, independent voters, who made up nearly one-third of the general election voters this year, favored Sanders over Trump, 55 percent to 45 percent, the poll found. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, lost independents 48 percent to 42 percent, according to exit polls.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero?  I'd say FDR was pretty far left, and he was so popular they elected him four times.

 

But go on, put another John Kerry up for election and watch him lose.  Give us four more years of Trump because the rest of us are 'impatient'.  Don't blame us when you lose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LoreD said:

 

How many moderate Democratic candidates have been defeated:  Al Gore (2000),  John Kerry (2004), Hillary Clinton (2016).

 

We have only had the White House for 8 out 20 years.  For 12 of those 20 years we put forward moderates who lost.

 

Moderate Democrats lose more often than they win.

 

Add one more term and we have had the White House for 16 of 28 years;  above 50%. 

 

I 'm not Bill from NHB. I am sympathetic to the progressive wing and willing to work with you but I counsel patience. We win on a universal healthcare/single payer (so long as we don't outlawing private health insurance).  We win on public schools. We win on student debt relief,  humanity towards asylum seekers, the environment, wealth inequality, progressive taxation and wealth inequality. We will lose if we make it about revolution or socialism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olivaw said:

Add one more term and we have had the White House for 16 of 28 years;  above 50%. 

 

I 'm not Bill from NHB. I am sympathetic to the progressive wing and willing to work with you but I counsel patience. We win on a universal healthcare/single payer (so long as we don't outlawing private health insurance).  We win on public schools. We win on student debt relief,  humanity towards asylum seekers, the environment, wealth inequality, progressive taxation and wealth inequality. We will lose if we make it about revolution or socialism.

 

 

 

 

Biden has already stated that there will be no Medicare for All.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18515699/joe-biden-2020-presidential-campaign-medicare-for-all

The health care industry is betting on Joe Biden in its war against Medicare-for-all

 

The health care industry is happy to see Joe Biden jumping into the Democratic presidential race, hoping he can be a bulwark against their true 2020 opponent: Medicare-for-all.

 

Many of the top Democratic primary candidates have embraced Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan, which would essentially eliminate private health insurance.

 

Biden hasn’t. He also hasn’t rolled out his health care platform, as Vox’s Sarah Kliff recently wrote, but he seems likely to present a center-left alternative to single-payer.

 

“I’ve definitely had clients ask, where is Biden?” said Kim Monk, the managing director at Capital Alpha, which advises Wall Street investors from Washington, DC. “He’s basically an establishment candidate and would be much more in tune to building on what’s there as opposed to coming in and destroying what’s there and starting over.”

 

One analyst told investors amid a mild market freakout over single-payer the other day, as Axios reported: “How could the news get better? Biden wins the Democratic nomination without changing his current view against single payer.”

 

Industry lobbyists aren’t certain Biden will win. One Democratic health care lobbyist grimly predicted to me Sanders would take the Democratic nomination. A trade association leader brought up Biden’s two previous failed presidential bids. But they finally have a candidate in their corner with the profile to battle Sanders and single-payer.

The health care industry versus Medicare-for-all

The health care industry — doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceuticals — has united in the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, a lobbying coalition, to stop Medicare-for-all. That organization aggressively denounces single-payer at every opportunity, and has condemned proposals like a public option or letting people 55 and older buy into Medicare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://fortune.com/2019/05/15/joe-biden-medicare-for-all/

 

Joe Biden Is Wrong. Businesses Will—and Want to—Pay for Medicare for All

May 15, 2019

 

 

Earlier this week, former vice president and current presidential hopeful Joe Biden made one of the more unusual arguments against Medicare for All.

“Right now you have this … overwhelming number of employers who are paying into the health care plan. Why let them off the hook? All the sudden they don’t have to pay anything?”

 

I’m one of those employers, and I’m supportive of Medicare for All, but it’s not about being let off the hook. As the founder and CEO of a business that has always provided health care for our employees, MCS Industries, I’d rather pay a predictable, manageable payroll tax to finance health care than pay impossibly high and unpredictable premiums.

 

Medicare for All is about freeing up businesses and the middle class while reducing our national health care bill.

 

We can lower overall health care spending by cutting out a massive intermediary (insurers), streamlining the financing of care by converting from a multi-payer to single-payer system, and strengthening negotiating power for rates. Medicare operates at a significantly lower administrative cost than does commercial insurance, and doesn’t use money for things like inflated executive salaries, advertising, or sales.

 

Medicare for All would save money on the provider side as well. Currently, the average primary care provider in the U.S. spends about $100,000 a year on dealing with commercial insurance companies, which all have different systems and standards for filing claims, and are financially incentivized to deny them—which usually means appeals. Finally, Medicare for All would have leverage to control pharmaceutical costs, bringing us much closer to international standards, and would be able to standardize rates at hospitals and other providers, which frequently overcharge or are inconsistent on costs.

 

We can finance Medicare for All by replacing the current system’s premiums, deductibles, copays, and other out-of-pocket costs with a progressive system that fairly taxes capital gains, dividends, and payroll. Economists have estimated the potential savings to be more than $5 trillion between 2017 and 2026.

 

The vice president, who is fond of referring to himself as “Middle-Class Joe,” has good reason to embrace Medicare for All. A large part of any new health care system will be payroll taxes, which are largely covered by employers. The remainder are paid by employees, and since the taxes are based on income, the wealthiest would be asked to pay a bit more—further evening the playing field.

Medicare for All doesn’t let employers off the hook, but it does keep commercial insurance companies from fishing us into extinction.

 

Richard Master is the CEO of MCS Industries and founder of the Business Initiative for Health Policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderate Democrats have been defeated in 3 out of the last 5 elections.

 

We aren't going to show up for Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 minutes ago, LoreD said:

 

 

Biden has already stated that there will be no Medicare for All.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18515699/joe-biden-2020-presidential-campaign-medicare-for-all

 

It isn't just about Joe Biden but his plan doesn't look too bad to me. It appears to offer a public option to all Americans without requiring them to enroll. Key points are:

  • government-sponsored public insurance option.
  • Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices
  • Lower prescription drug costs through regulatory measures.
  • Coverage for low-income Americans in 14 Republican-led states that refused to expand Medicaid under the ACA. 

The difference between Bernie's plan and Biden's plan is that Bernie would force everybody to give up their private insurance whereas Biden would allow them the option to keep it. 

 

I'm hopeful that Warren will back off from her proposal to eliminate private insurance in favor of a more balanced approach. 

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/15/joe-biden-unveils-health-care-plan-that-would-preserve-and-expand-obamacare/

i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LoreD said:

Moderate Democrats have been defeated in 3 out of the last 5 elections.

 

We aren't going to show up for Biden.

 

In 2016 we had won 3 of the previous 5 elections.  There are no lessons to be learned. 

 

Do you plan to sit out 2020 if Biden is the nominee or will you vote for Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

In 2016 we had won 3 of the previous 5 elections.  There are no lessons to be learned. 

 

Do you plan to sit out 2020 if Biden is the nominee or will you vote for Trump? 

 

No, you didn't win 3 out of the last 5 elections.  You LOST 3 out of the last 5 elections.

 

1.  2000 lost 

2.  2004 lost

     2008 won

     2012 won

3.  2016 lost

 

The Progressive wing of the party didn't show up for Clinton, and we won't be there for Biden. 

 

This story is mostly wrong. Trump did not win because he was more attractive to this base of white voters. He won because Hillary Clinton was less attractive to the traditional Democratic base of urban, minorities, and more educated voters. This is a profound fact, because Democratic voters were so extraordinarily repelled by Trump that they were supposed to have the extra motivation to turn out. Running against Trump, any Democratic candidate should have ridden a wave of anti-Trump sentiment among these voters. It therefore took a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton among the Democratic base to not only undo this wave, but to lose many additional liberal votes.

 

 

Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

 

Wisconsin tells the same numbers story, even more dramatically. Trump got no new votes. He received exactly the same number of votes in America’s Dairyland as Romney did in 2012. Both received 1,409,000 votes. But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This is how a 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama in the Badger State became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Progressives Think Joe Biden Is Not 'Electable'

 

There isn't unanimous agreement among progressive activists about who they want as a nominee. Some remain deeply loyal to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for his role in pushing the party leftward. Others say they like the policy plans that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been rolling out. And yet others say they like what California Sen. Kamala Harris represents — a black woman who could take on President Trump.

 

 

But where activists agree is on Biden — they would prefer almost any other 2020 Democrat over him.

 

While they are purists in many ways, if Biden were to become the nominee, activists at Netroots said, they would vote for him, perhaps begrudgingly. Their fear is that others will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LoreD said:

 

No, you didn't win 3 out of the last 5 elections.  You LOST 3 out of the last 5 elections.

 

1.  2000 lost 

2.  2004 lost

     2008 won

     2012 won

3.  2016 lost

The Progressive wing of the party didn't show up for Clinton, and we won't be there for Biden. 

 

No  my words were "In 2016 we had won 3 of the previous 5 elections.  There are no lessons to be learned"

1996 won

2000 lost

2004 lost 

2008 won

2012 won

 

Please don't play games with what I said. It will not convince me to jump to the Bernie camp (or whatever). 

 

Quote

The Progressive wing of the party didn't show up for Clinton, and we won't be there for Biden. 

Turnout was low among numerous demographics. Should we allow every group in the coalition to hold a gun to our heads?

 

This is about more than the candidate, it is about policy. If you want to make it all about Biden then that is your prerogative. 

 

If Biden is the nominee, or some other candidate who does not seem progressive enough to you, will you sit out the election or will you vote for regressive candidate Trump? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

No  my words were "In 2016 we had won 3 of the previous 5 elections.  There are no lessons to be learned"

1996 won

2000 lost

2004 lost 

2008 won

2012 won

 

Please don't play games with what I said. It will not convince me to jump to the Bernie camp (or whatever). 

 

Turnout was low among numerous demographics. Should we allow every group in the coalition to hold a gun to our heads?

 

This is about more than the candidate, it is about policy. If you want to make it all about Biden then that is your prerogative. 

 

If Biden is the nominee, or some other candidate who does not seem progressive enough to you, will you sit out the election or will you vote for regressive candidate Trump? 

 

 

 

In 2016 we count the 2016 election.

 

Should we allow you to hold a gun to our head?

 

I wrote in Bernie Sanders in 2016, and if Biden is the nominee I will write in the Progressive candidate of my choice.  It is about policy.  I don't personally dislike Biden.  He seems to be a charming fellow.  I won't vote for him because of his policies.

 

I had voted Democratic for 40 years, and 2016 was the first time I voted for a write in candidate.

 

As I said:  We didn't show up for Clinton, and we aren't showing up for Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously this is just anecdotal, but of the people who consider themselves 'neither' (Not moderate, but not republican nor democrat) all of them have said they'd vote Bernie or Warren over Trump, and that's it.  People ignore the 'neithers' in hopes of drawing in Republicans -- the same party that has Susan Collins and Mitt Romney who cannot condemn President Trump without taking pot shots at the Democrats.  Those Republicans are NEVER voting Democrat.  They're perfectly fine with Trump, they just hope the left chooses someone moderate so in the event Trump loses they still get what they want.

 

Your wealthy journalists wringing their hands want to keep the status quo.  But your average person wants the system to change.  Trump (though obviously, 100% dishonest) is a 'threat' to the system.  Those who want change will be far more likely to change their votes because they know Trump is a liar.  But if we keep giving them people in the system, they're going to stick with Trump in hopes that something actually changes.  Or out of spite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...