Which is one of the reasons why I think we should all take some time to get to know Lincoln Chafee
I’ve now voted in presidential primaries or caucuses in 5 states. If I were the God of elections I would replace all primaries by caucuses, and if as that God I wanted a thoughtful outcome I would replace them all by the Iowa caucus.
1 Like
[eyeroll emoji] Here, again, is the poll data from the article in the OP, not the other random poll you seem to be citing. Note how–as I said–Bernie trails Biden with all sub-polled groups other than Hispanic Americans. Note, too, that despite Hispanic Americans making up almost 2x as much of the electorate as African Americans, the poll has a suspiciously small sample size for Hispanic Americans.
Again, this is not to suggest that Biden is a better candidate, or even a good candidate. It is to suggest that Bernie has a lot of work to do if he wants to get elected.
Yeah, that article contains no actual data suggesting that Bernie actually leads heavily among all candidates. Instead, it contains a summary of a poll showing Bernie trailing Biden, who has not declared yet. I am adding emphasis so that you can check out the words from your cherry-picked source:
According to a new Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers, 27 percent say Biden is their first choice for president. That’s down slightly from the 32 percent who said the same in December, but it tops the 19 other declared and potential candidates tested. Biden has a 2-percentage-point advantage over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
1 Like
Well, if some insanity amongst the electorate ensues, and we get Handsy Joe as the nominee, it will be 4 more years of Orange Dictator, since the 2020 would basically just be a repeat of the 2016: Establishment Rightwing CorporateDem vs. “upstart” republican … same as 2016.
As Truman said, “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time”
1 Like
As I said, Bernie has a lot of work to do in convincing the electorate that he’s not a crank and that even if he wins, we won’t just get four years of President Ineffectual Clownshoes Yelling At Clouds followed by eight years of President Mike Fucking Pence.
If Bernie is the Dems’ nominee, I will absolutely vote for him, because the overriding goal is to get Trump out of office before he can do more irrevocable damage to democracy through his bad-faith efforts at self-enrichment masquerading as governance. If the primary came down to him vs. Tulsi Gabbard, I’d vote for Bernie in the primary. But those are about the only two circumstances in which I can currently see myself casting a vote for Sanders.
Consider whether you are helping or hurting his cause by making misleading arguments about his polling strength.
1 Like
The Democratic Party needs to realize that being neolib Reaganites is a losing strategy because Republucans will alwats be better at being Republucans. The future of the Oarty, if it wants to survive, is Democratic Socialism
2 Likes
Almost, but not quite…
I’ve seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn’t believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.
But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are–when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people–then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.
We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296
Great speech. (No jokes, it’s worth a full read.)
It’s undercut a little by the fact that it’s in support of Adlai Stevenson, a candidate who didn’t want to be seen as too close to the Democratic establishment, which meant he distanced himself from Truman, and lost the election for whatever reason…
3 Likes
Foul play. You’re just poisoning the meaning of socialism by proposing an alternate meaning. Bonus demerit points for the infinite recursion created by using a word to describe an idiom which uses that word.
7 Likes
Really? 40+ years of dogged work advancing the agenda of 99% isn’t good enough? And the fact that so many of the raft of “progressives” coming out of the woodwork out of nowhere are mouthing the same policies he was accused of being a “crank” for advancing in 2016? (making pretty promises and speeches about those policies is all they’ll do about them, BTW … neolibs got owners to answer to)
OK! Lets go with YA neolib! That worked so well. Look at the 2016 presidential results! Just about the only person that SprayTan could lose to was nominated by the Democrats. I mean, he might’ve lost to a zombie as well, but the zombie probably would’ve won one or two more states than Hillary did.
Check out the loss of around a thousand local and state Democratic officeholders between 2008 and 2016! It looks like the neolib playbook is something we should try again in 2020. It just works SO well!
Consider whether you are helping or hurting his cause by making misleading arguments about his polling strength.
Oh dear! I’m sure anonymous comments on an anonymous chatboard move MILLIONS of votes. Or maybe dozens. Or maybe none.
What a laugh. Sad, but a laugh.
Hate to break it to you, but “defining” socialism seems to be the biggest game currently happening on political chatboards.
Instead of telling me I’m wrong (being a critic is easy), tell me what you think it means.
Of course it doesn’t matter one bit with respect to Sanders, since he is not a socialist. He is a Democratic Socialist, which only conservatives and other know-nothings conflate with socialism.
And those who like the idea of trading there’s always Mutualism. 
2 Likes
8 Likes
Well, we did have 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama, so maybe not always a losing strategy.
1 Like
As long as you don’t mind losing nearly 1000 lesser races to the Know-Nothings, as what happened while Obama was prez.
I think you’ve wandered into “the Democrats shouldn’t have won because the only way to win is to lose” territory.
6 Likes
Obligatory as fuck:
7 Likes
Don’cha know? Telling people they’re wrong on the internet is the biggest game in town!
/s
Sigh… now I’m just being trolled. You must now admit to having misread me. I said you offered an alternate definition and in doing so are poisoning the very idea of socialism. To what end? I don’t know.
I can say your definition is wrong though, I just choose not to.
5 Likes
Why? Because I “defined” socialism with a load of caveats, and explicitly said I know it isn’t strictly accurate. I NEVER said that a post of mine defined what the singular word “socialism” meant.
What you’re claiming is akin to writing “when you mention ‘corporate welfare’ you’re poisoning the very idea of welfare!”
Which, of course, is non sensical.
“Being neolib Reaganites” does not accurately describe Obama, or AFAICT Hillary Clinton either. Can’t say about Bill Clinton, it’s been a while.
2 Likes
