2020 Elections

[hmaria1609]

Bernie was the lead story/interview with Anderson Cooper on CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight.

[marshwiggle]

But Russia is not communist any more, and under Putin it has had nothing even resembling a communist worldview. So (b) is out.

This is what I'm curious about. For Democrats who think socialism is a good thing, then  it seems to me one of two things must be true:

• Russia is still closer to socialism than to American capitalism, in which case they are allies.
• Russia is close to (or possibly even beyond) American capitalism, in which case having had all of the benefits of government control of the economy and so on, they have moved far away from that voluntarily.

So which is it? Even if communism was farther to the left than "ideal" socialism, it would make more sense that successful politicians in Russia would be closer to that ideal socialism than  to American capitalism.

[Anselm]

Well, I have a soft spot in my heart for conspiracy theories and this sudden news about Russia helping Bernie right as he is doing so well seems like a recycled script, a desperate attempt to steal his momentum.   I have lots of disagreements with Bernie but "socialism" has been abused too much to be used in meaningful discussions.  As a congressman he was not that far to the left, favoring gun rights and tight borders policies.  Democratic Socialism means that you get the government services that you vote for such as parks, fire protection, police, schools, etc.  I have not seen any evidence that he wants the older definition of socialism which would mean state ownership of the means of production.   His supporters point to Scandinavia where in some ways they have a freer economy than ours.  Anyhow, I like to see him shake things up a bit.

[mamselle]

A.k.a. fiddling while Rome burns.

This is not the year for shaking things up to that extent.

I'm back to my Jennifer-one-note question: is he electable, over and above the Trumpets?

M.

[mahagonny]

I agree that "we" don't yet have a nominee. Biden and Bloomberg still (or maybe for Bloomberg, will ) have an (admittedly narrowing) path.  Of the rest, I don't see much of a path, though I suppose Warren or Klobuchar could make something of both 1 or 2 wins on ST and good showings elsewhere, but that's really a narrow path indeed (especially since they aren't favored in delegate rich states).  I see less hope for Buttigieg, and not much for Steyer after next weekend. Everyone else (is there anyone else but Tulsi?) is out, obviously. Still, 6 or even 7 candidates getting delegates is unusual and interesting.

Why don't you see any hope for Buttigieg or Steyer?  I'm amused every time I read "Mayo Pete" and think, yes, Midwesterners want someone with minimal drama who is running for the office of commander in chief/diplomat in chief.  Mayo Pete is currently a strong second in actual delegates--the only metric that matters in June for an uncontested convention.

My family caught an interview with Steyer recently and thought he had some very good things to say.  Indeed, we were starting to root against the interviewer who was clearly pressuring Steyer to drop out before getting to the states in which Steyer is polling at real numbers, like South Carolina.

Personally, I'm hoping for either someone I like to pull ahead or to have a contested Democratic convention to let the adults (not at all the same as physical age) sort out someone who will be a good leader for the country instead of someone who doesn't have a majority even among the Democrats.

I really, really want to be able to vote for the person I want to win in November instead of having to vote for Trump because the Democrats can't get it together and pick someone who is actually worse than Trump by the available information in the areas I care about including national defense and global security.  Someone who is proud of voting against funding our military has no business being commander in chief.

Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

[Hegemony]

Basically most people are using "socialism" in Sanders' case to refer to Medicare for All.  The attitude of the vast majority of Americans is that everything government-financed that we have already (police services, fire services, roads and highways, bridges, parks, street lights, free K-12, courts, jails, drivers' licenses, passports, laws, army, etc etc) is not socialism, but that if we add anything to that, it will mean a) totalitarianism and b) everyone will get terminally lazy because they don't have to pay at point of service and the moral fabric of the country will disintegrate.

My insurance company already effectively keeps me from consulting the doctor I want, by making him "out of network," and I already have to wait many months for a specialist appointment, which was especially challenging when I damaged my knee and couldn't walk, but apparently we're okay with having an ineffective brutal system as long as it is a private, for-profit ineffective brutal system.

[mamselle]

I may not be supporting him politically, but I am very sorry to hear of the news commentator who invoked Hitler's breaching of the Maginot line as an analogy for the Super Tuesday win of a candidate who lost most of his family in the Holocaust.

Whether by accident or intention, that kind of cruelty is uncalled for.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Well, I have a soft spot in my heart for conspiracy theories and this sudden news about Russia helping Bernie right as he is doing so well seems like a recycled script, a desperate attempt to steal his momentum.   I have lots of disagreements with Bernie but "socialism" has been abused too much to be used in meaningful discussions.  As a congressman he was not that far to the left, favoring gun rights and tight borders policies.  Democratic Socialism means that you get the government services that you vote for such as parks, fire protection, police, schools, etc.  I have not seen any evidence that he wants the older definition of socialism which would mean state ownership of the means of production.   His supporters point to Scandinavia where in some ways they have a freer economy than ours.  Anyhow, I like to see him shake things up a bit.

Where is Inigo Montoya when you need him?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[polly_mer]

Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

Thus, education and infrastructure matter and are governmental functions, but only to the extent resources in those areas are being used effectively instead of checkboxes that are just jobs for those who either are willing to rip off their fellow citizens or were failed themselves to the extent they don't know they are ripping people off.  I'd much rather have free-for-those-who-can-benefit-from-it education and eliminate the need for student loans all together than to piddle around with even more bureaucracy on who gets what forgiven once and who is needy enough to be given money.  Nope, first we figure out who will benefit from education and then we allocate the resources to do it.  One high favorite of mine is flat out closing institutions that aren't providing education to anyone and then redistribute those resources to where they could be effective.

All the social stuff is not the president's job and anyone who is running for president to change social aspects is running for the wrong job.  I don't care about unionizing qua unionizing; I care a lot about fooling around with a different bureaucracy answering to no one that still doesn't fix the underlying problems.

[mahagonny]

Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.

Very seldom a change in presidents really fixes anything. Usually it's about tradeoffs. Unions are not chosen because they fix things. They get chosen because anything about having a union that doesn't make perfect sense still makes more sense than not having one at all. When you talk about why you wouldn't vote for Sanders you acknowledge that. But you sound like you expect some voters to assess in terms of 'fix' versus 'doesn't fix.'
Perhaps most of us do that. Attribution error?
I also doubt the war drums tactic of Trump's tweeting bothers everyone equally, among those who are looking for someone else to get behind. For me, there is no option other than to take offense at his tactics, style, personality.

[marshwiggle]

Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.

Very seldom a change in presidents really fixes anything. Usually it's about tradeoffs. Unions are not chosen because they fix things. They get chosen because anything about having a union that doesn't make perfect sense still makes more sense than not having one at all.

This is the "Hummer" strategy. Some people buy the biggest vehicle possible so they will be safe in an accident. An alternative is the "motorcycle" strategy. A small, highly maneuverable vehicle will be able to avoid many accidents that the Hummer can't.

You may not agree with the motorcycle strategy, but it is a valid choice for some people. Highly competent, adaptable employees may not want a union since they feel they can negotiate better on their own. For them, a union does not make more sense than no union.

For me, there is no option other than to take offense at his tactics, style, personality.

I think this is even true for many who voted for him. In any election, many (most?) people aren't voting for someone great; they're voting for the "least bad" choice available.

[mahagonny]

Besides, Trump sticks it to worker's rights and the NLRB. Stand by your guy.

Trump is not my guy.  Remember, I'm a registered Libertarian who thinks government should do what needs to be done at that collective level.  Trump does not fall into that category.

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.

Very seldom a change in presidents really fixes anything. Usually it's about tradeoffs. Unions are not chosen because they fix things. They get chosen because anything about having a union that doesn't make perfect sense still makes more sense than not having one at all.

This is the "Hummer" strategy. Some people buy the biggest vehicle possible so they will be safe in an accident. An alternative is the "motorcycle" strategy. A small, highly maneuverable vehicle will be able to avoid many accidents that the Hummer can't.

You may not agree with the motorcycle strategy, but it is a valid choice for some people. Highly competent, adaptable employees may not want a union since they feel they can negotiate better on their own. For them, a union does not make more sense than no union.

We had a guy a bit like that in our department. He could have thought that way since he was a bigger name than most of us. But he was strongly pro-union because he thought all of us were pitching in. He probably also knew that his teaching effectiveness was not a result of more teaching talent. More a result of his being more celebrated in the field.

[ciao_yall]

Re: Russian meddling.

Less concerned that some actor is making troll bots to get the pubic all riled up about something. Domestic, foreign, whatever. Trolls are trolls, propaganda is propaganda.

More concerned if Americans are actually falling for it because they lack the critical thinking skills to adjust.

Remember when Gore-Lieberman were running? All of a sudden the "Left Behind" series became very popular. It starts with a Jewish POTUS which, in turn, leads to the Rapture and the Apocalypse.

One would think the Super-Christians would think this is a good thing, but maybe they wanted a few more years of earthly life before being Raptured?

Always wondered about that connection.

[ciao_yall]

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

• The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
• Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
• Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
• Free public education and affordable higher education were made available to you.
• Social Security so your grandparents didn't consume resources that your parents needed to support you.
• Medicare so that you aren't going broke keeping up with your own parents' health needs.
• Never mind all that radical stuff like votes for all citizens, not just white male property owners; environmental protection; blah blah blah.

[marshwiggle]

Sanders is even less my guy since I, personally, will be much worse off under most of the things he proposes while his proposed solutions won't fix the underlying problems for my fellow citizens.  The democratic Socialist countries are not appealing to me, in large part because I am living the American Dream in having started from a very modest beginning (lowest decile) and now being in the professional class (second highest decile and still climbing) with free time for my family and hobbies that includes reading lots of books and partaking of the local performing arts offerings.

You realize, of course, that it's all the stuff people call SOCIALIST that allowed you to move across social boundaries and enjoy the life you live, correct?

• The WPA probably built the electric, telephone and sewer systems in your region so you could have light bulbs and flush toilets at home.
• Labor unions so your grandparents and parents could have weekends and living wages and job security.
• Your family might even have relied on food stamps and Medicaid at some point to keep you fed and healthy.
• Free public education and affordable higher education were made available to you.
• Social Security so your grandparents didn't consume resources that your parents needed to support you.
• Medicare so that you aren't going broke keeping up with your own parents' health needs.
• Never mind all that radical stuff like votes for all citizens, not just white male property owners; environmental protection; blah blah blah.

Only a fraction of countries with those sorts of programs would call themselves socialist; most would call themselves social democratic. Why use the term that was and is preferred by the oppressive totalitarian countries and tell people "We don't really mean it that way" instead of using the term used by the non-totalitarian countries?????