U.S. Democratic Primary

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-more-americans-see-democratic-positions-climate-health-care-abortion-n978401

 

I would suggest the "Democratic positions"  this is based on are probably closer to Biden's than most other candidates...so my point remains...why mess with such a good position? Surely moving left on these positions would lead to the advantage dropping, if not starting to reverse.

Kudos for them at least being honest with the exception of Harris, who now claims she raised her hand in error by misunderstanding the question on universal health care.

[CharonY]

Just now, MigL said:

You could have probably pulled up a very similar graphic from 2015, INow.
How did that election turn out ? 

Enough people who were pissed off about things turned out to vote for D Trump, as opposed to not enough people who cared about the top political issues.

Indeed. And the campaign was a supremely moderate one and we see the outcome. I.e. riding the moderate lane is insufficient to shore up the additional votes needed to get the electoral vote. It appears that most Dems seem to think that at least so they campaign on what the majority wants rather than what appears to be more moderate.

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would suggest the "Democratic positions"  this is based on are probably closer to Biden's than most other candidates...so my point remains...why mess with such a good position? Surely moving left on these positions would lead to the advantage dropping, if not starting to reverse.

Kudos for them at least being honest with the exception of Harris, who now claims she raised her hand in error by misunderstanding the question on universal health care.

That is not how you can read the data. It shows that the democratic platform as a whole is perceived as mainstream. Not just the moderate proportion of the democratic platform. That being said, could you list what you precisely understand to be far left positions?

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

How did that election turn out ? 

Turns out one can lose an election by 3M votes and still “win” by 78K in the electoral college so long as they have help from Russia

[MigL]

Losing, by getting 2 million ( IIRC ) more votes, is a fault of your Electoral System.
Russian 'collusion' is a different matter altogether.

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Turns out one can lose an election by 3M votes and still “win” by 78K in the electoral college so long as they have help from Russia

Which basically means that folks can be convinced not to vote too easily (presumably). The issue of modest propositions is that it may not shore enough enthusiasm. One early analysis indicated the loss of white working-class voters. For the most part there are two major areas which targets this group of voters. One, that was tapped in successfully by the Trump campaign is racial resentment. The Dems are not going to use that. The other are economic in nature (though in the last election they were far weaker than expected). These are addressed via taxation schedules and healthcare access. There is also an effort to target younger voters (UBI, free college, climate change). 

There is a lot to say specifically to the electoral system but my guess is that the aim here is to shore enough support to overcome that specific obstacle (which basically requires a pretty much overwhelming victory rather than a safe one). After all, Clinton's victory should have been a safe one.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Losing, by getting 2 million ( IIRC ) more votes,

3M

 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

votes, is a fault of your Electoral System.

 

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is a lot to say specifically to the electoral system

Let’s continue this over here instead:  https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100305-is-it-true-about-the-us-ballot-papers/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1108258

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

For here at least, we might as well accept that the electoral college system that's in place will decide 2020...regardless of how much collusion, or lack of it, takes place.

...and that might mean it would be better for the Democrats to tread much more cautiously to the left than they might otherwise get away with.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

that might mean it would be better for the Democrats to tread much more cautiously to the left than they might otherwise get away with.

You’re basically suggesting that a milquetoast candidate who waters down their core message and who says only what they think people want to hear has discovered the best way to beat the most bloviating, hyperbolic, untruthful, demagoguing, and over the top president we’ve ever had. 

I don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually this through?

The candidates who win are the ones who inspire people and who form movements. They’re the ones who speak passionately about what they truly believe, who stand up for ways to make the system better and to make the lives of citizens better. 

They're the ones who recognize that the best path to driving voter turnout and campaign support... support where people volunteer to call, canvas, and knock on doors after work and on weekends to build coalitions and people committed to showing up at the ballot box... is to do more than take a mediocre baseline, middle of the road, dulled and uninspiring position on the issues that matter. 

Perhaps a moderate milquetoast position will be what’s needed to win in 2024, but IMO 2020 will be much more about the pendulum swinging hard back in the opposite direction. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

 The candidates who win are the ones who inspire people and who form movements. They’re the ones who speak passionately about what they truly believe, who stand up for ways to make the system better and to make the lives of citizens better. 

 

I hadn't realized you held Trump in such high esteem...

I don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually thought this through?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That is not how you can read the data. It shows that the democratic platform as a whole is perceived as mainstream. Not just the moderate proportion of the democratic platform. That being said, could you list what you precisely understand to be far left positions?

It seems he’d rather take personal jabs at me (“haha... derp derp... guess you like Trump then... derp derp”) than actually answer your straight forward question in a way he may need to later defend. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

It seems he’d rather take personal jabs at me (“haha... derp derp... guess you like Trump then... derp derp”) than actually answer your straight forward question in a way he may need to later defend. 

No. I really think you are off the mark equating winning strategies with the ones who inspire change. It's great when it happens, but it's rare.

[iNow]

I spoke of inspiring people, not inspiring change (though, I suppose that’s implicit in my mention of trying to make people’s lives and the system which governs them “better”). 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

could you list what you precisely understand to be far left positions?

As JCM appears unable and/or unwilling to offer you a direct response, I’ll share (in no particular order) what I think are the largest vulnerabilities right now that one might classify as “far left”:

- Wealth tax on every dollar earned above $50M

- Medicare for All and total elimination of private insurance for anything other than cosmetic surgery (only 4 of the 20 debaters on stage took this position, though... most are offering a public option to buy into, or Medicare for All Who Want It)

- Offering medical help as part of those plans to undocumented immigrants

- Covering all aspects of women’s reproductive health, including abortions, under those plans (though Bernie and Gillibrand seem to be the only ones openly stating this right now)

- Treating undocumented border crossings as a civil offense instead of a criminal one

- Finding a path to citizenship for those here undocumented instead of engaging in mass deportation

- Deferring action on children brought here across the border without documentation by their parents and through no fault of their own

- Providing debt free higher education (again, though, only a tiny percentage support this right now)

- Eliminating gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United, and making voting easier instead of harder (like this great set of plans from Senator Warren: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715793/elizabeth-warren-2020-voting-rights-election-security-plan )

[MigL]

You and JC seem to be talking apples and oranges, INow.

JC is talking about what a large number of Americans consider the 'far left'.
You want to discuss what JC ( and I ) consider the 'far left'.
The two are not equivalent.

You should realize that, most of the 'positions' mentioned in your post above, we already have in Canada.
And JC and I probably voted for them; but we don't get to vote in American elections

I just hate to see someone like J Biden, who would make an excellent President, being taken to task ( and damaged ) by the other contenders, because he is not 'far left' enough. He can win the election, and rid the world of President D Trump, while the others run the risk of being labelled Socialists and Communists ( like B Sanders did ). And not by JC or I, but by a large number of American people.

Sticking to principles but losing the election accomplishes a lot less than compromising on some and winning the election.
But hey, we are just two observers from North of the border.

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

JC is talking about what a large number of Americans consider the 'far left'.

I appreciate this, but since he never answered the question, all you and I can do is speculate what he may have meant until (if?) he answers for himself. 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

[Biden] can win the election, and rid the world of President D Trump

I’m not convinced this is a valid prognostication. He’s already run for President 3x and lost each. 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

while the others run the risk of being labelled Socialists and Communists

Here’s what you seem to be dismissing: ANYONE who wins the Democratic nomination will be labeled those things, and a great many others, by Trump and the GOP. This applies also to Sleepy Uncle Joe.

They don’t care if their claims are accurate or if they apply, only that they can convince  millions of people that a one-dimensional one-word label is sufficient to pigeonhole the “other” and dismiss them as subhuman garbage. 

Ronald Regan himself would likely be labeled socialist by today’s GOP if he were the 2020 nominee, and repeated well intentioned calls for a moderate middle milquetoast candidate can’t erase how firmly the GOP (and Trump himself) have anchored themselves into an extremist right base-focused stance, and how successfully they’ve shifted the Overton Window on these topics in their favor (incidentally, we’re seeing similar trends with Brexit and across the EU more broadly). 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect you’re both essentially arguing for the best path to steal away Trump voters, but his base is firm. 40% approval for almost 3 years in the face of children in cages, ban on Muslims, nazis as very fine people, Mexicans as rapists, believing Putin over his own intelligence agencies, looking away when Saudi Arabia murdered an American journalist, and the ten bazillion other insane things he’s done, promoted, and given sanction to... that 40% is rock solid even in the face of all that. It barely flickered.

This isn’t about winning them over. If they happen to vote against Trump, then great, but this election IMO is more about stirring equal passions in the remaining 60%... the others who do see Trump as anathema to our values and who want to help better define who we want to be as a nation and a culture.

The Trump 40% is lost and won’t vote for a Dem no matter how moderate they are, but bold messages can, in fact, inspire the other 60% to come out and make their voices heard... but only if the passion and fire to do so is first lit by an inspirational candidate with a plan and a willingness to fight for it. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by iNow

[iNow]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Let's not repeat, please.

Btw - We don’t disagree here. It just feels a bit like a useless platitude that offers no real insight or guidance, if that’s fair?

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

I spoke of inspiring people, not inspiring change (though, I suppose that’s implicit in my mention of trying to make people’s lives and the system which governs them “better”). 

As JCM appears unable and/or unwilling to offer you a direct response, I’ll share (in no particular order) what I think are the largest vulnerabilities right now that one might classify as “far left”:

- Wealth tax on every dollar earned above $50M

- Medicare for All and total elimination of private insurance for anything other than cosmetic surgery (only 4 of the 20 debaters on stage took this position, though... most are offering a public option to buy into, or Medicare for All Who Want It)

- Offering medical help as part of those plans to undocumented immigrants

- Covering all aspects of women’s reproductive health, including abortions, under those plans (though Bernie and Gillibrand seem to be the only ones openly stating this right now)

- Treating undocumented border crossings as a civil offense instead of a criminal one

- Finding a path to citizenship for those here undocumented instead of engaging in mass deportation

- Deferring action on children brought here across the border without documentation by their parents and through no fault of their own

- Providing debt free higher education (again, though, only a tiny percentage support this right now)

- Eliminating gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United, and making voting easier instead of harder (like this great set of plans from Senator Warren: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715793/elizabeth-warren-2020-voting-rights-election-security-plan )

Here are some thoughts on how I perceive things (not my personal positions on policy)

- Wealth tax on all assets above $50M

...I wouldn't consider this "leftist" or "far left"...depending on how much and how it would be determined

 

- Medicare for All and total elimination of private insurance for anything other than cosmetic surgery (only 4 of the 20 debaters on stage took this position, though... most are offering a public option to buy into, or Medicare for All Who Want It)

...certainly...there seems to be an assumption that the feds can draw a nice line somewhere that is affordable through taxes...and an unstated willingness to disallow services beyond that

 

- Offering medical help as part of those plans to undocumented immigrants

...offering emergency services (which would be later payed for by the recipient if possible) to anyone would be a pretty much a mainstream position...additional services, regardless of whether American or not, and not caring who pays for it...would be leftist 

- Covering all aspects of women’s reproductive health, including abortions, under those plans (though Bernie and Gillibrand seem to be the only ones openly stating this right now)

...this would certainly be left of centre...considering a late third trimester fetus less than human would be far left.

- Treating undocumented border crossings as a civil offense instead of a criminal one

...certainly left of centre...

- Finding a path to citizenship for those here undocumented instead of engaging in mass deportation

...fairly mainstream

- Deferring action on children brought here across the border without documentation by their parents and through no fault of their own

...fairly mainstream

- Providing debt free higher education (again, though, only a tiny percentage support this right now)

...plus forgiving all current student debt...definitely in the far left category of unlimited spending (not that the right controls spending well either)

- Eliminating gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United, and making voting easier instead of harder (like this great set of plans from Senator Warren: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715793/elizabeth-warren-2020-voting-rights-election-security-plan )

...left of centre in the USA...other democratic countries not so much (not that there aren't elements of it)

...far left would be allowing those incarcerated to vote (something I agree with, but I would want to focus on others getting their votes back first)

-Calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist

...far left (not to be confused with liberal...especially not classic liberal)...but all too common right now

Edited June 29, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

So, if I read you correctly, you feel far left equates to:

- Not caring who pays for healthcare for undocumented immigrants 

- Considering 3rd trimester fetuses nonhuman 

- Forgiving student loan debt with unlimited spending 

- Calling anyone who holds other ideas a racist

 

Thank you for answering.

Now, which of the 24 primary candidates seeking the Democratic nomination are you suggesting is doing those?

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, if I read you correctly, you feel far left equates to:

- Not caring who pays for healthcare for undocumented immigrants 

- Considering 3rd trimester fetuses nonhuman 

- Forgiving student loan debt with unlimited spending 

- Calling anyone who holds other ideas a racist

 

Thank you for answering.

Now, which of the 24 primary candidates seeking the Democratic nomination are you suggesting is doing those?

- plus allowing incarcerated felons to vote

I didn't suggest any did (though I will suggest Sanders does for the most part, and many agree with much of it without carefully qualifying, and/or adding up the costs and stating how the bill gets paid)

 

17 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For here at least, we might as well accept that the electoral college system that's in place will decide 2020...regardless of how much collusion, or lack of it, takes place.

...and that might mean it would be better for the Democrats to tread much more cautiously to the left than they might otherwise get away with.

"Tread more cautiously to the left" does not equate to stating they've all lemminged themselves off the leftist cliff...yet

...but Sanders of course is trying to lead that charge

Edited June 29, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

You seem to be arguing against straw men

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to be arguing against straw men

A straw man argument could be made by suggesting my caution against moving too far left is a claim they are all (not just Sanders) on the far left.

So if one was made on that basis...I would certainly argue against it.

[iNow]

Nobody is saying they don’t care how things get paid for. Nobody is saying spending should be unlimited. Nobody is saying 3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman. Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing. This includes Bernie. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody is saying they don’t care how things get paid for. Nobody is saying spending should be unlimited. Nobody is saying 3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman. Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing. This includes Bernie. 

Most aren't doing the accounting. If they care, they often don't care to suggest how it will get paid for, or attempt to keep it as vague as possible.

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody is saying they don’t care how things get paid for. Nobody is saying spending should be unlimited. Nobody is saying 3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman. Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing. This includes Bernie. 

Most of the candidates have positions that amount to considering them less than human under the law...very much contrary to their interests, to put it mildly.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody is saying they don’t care how things get paid for. Nobody is saying spending should be unlimited. Nobody is saying 3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman. Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing. This includes Bernie. 

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody is saying they don’t care how things get paid for. Nobody is saying spending should be unlimited. Nobody is saying 3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman. Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing. This includes Bernie. 

Still too common for them to even imply it, even about each other.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody is saying they don’t care how things get paid for. Nobody is saying spending should be unlimited. Nobody is saying 3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman. Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing. This includes Bernie. 

Bernie is the only one who admits to being a socialist. He is essentially Marxist, with no trust in private enterprise.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here are some thoughts on how I perceive things (not my personal positions on policy)

 

-  - Treating undocumented border crossings as a civil offense instead of a criminal one

...certainly left of centre...

...

-Calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist

...far left (not to be confused with liberal...especially not classic liberal)...but all too common right now

Who is advocating each of these?

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who is advocating each of these?

 INow was interested in where I might consider the far left to be and gave some examples...I placed them roughly where I saw them on the spectrum, and added a couple. Treating undocumented border crossings was discussed in the debate (at least Thursday, not sure of Wednesday)

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Most aren't doing the accounting. If they care, they often don't care to suggest how it will get paid for

First, Congress writes laws and decides how they’re paid for, not presidents.

Second, plans do exist and will continue to explain as we get closer to the election, but there are still 24 candidates in the race.

I’m not gonna look up all 24 candidates for you, but here are the top 2 on this issue:

Warren: https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/

Sanders: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing?id=860FD1B9-3E8A-4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file

As these are the candidates you seem to consider farthest left, I’ll assume this addresses your concerns. 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Most of the candidates have positions that amount to considering them less than human

Name them and use quotes to back this up, otherwise you’re simply spouting bullshit.

Which of these “most” candidates see a 3rd trimester fetus as nonhuman? This should be fascinating to watch, but I’m confident you don’t have the courage of your convictions and you’ll just evade yet again. 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Bernie is the only one who admits to being a socialist. He is essentially Marxist, with no trust in private enterprise.

He says he’s a democratic socialist, and that’s different, and it’s definitely not Marxist. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Quote

the term democratic socialism, the adjective democratic is added and used to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism which to many is viewed as being undemocratic or authoritarian in practice.

 Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Soviet-type economic system, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and highly centralised command economy that took form in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states in the early 20th century.

Remember my mention of you arguing against men of straw? You should stop doing that. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by iNow