Politics: 2020 Dem POTUS candidate catch all discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I really just don't see the DNP getting their crap together. They need an authentic left leaning candidate like Bernie who won't be 80 by or around the time they enter the White House. But left-leaning sensibilities skipped two generations (boomers and gen x) so Bernie from the silent generation has basically handed off the torch to millennials like AOC. There is an abject lack of Democrats who are in that sweet spot for presidential electability who aren't at their core in whole or part basically an extension of the Clintonite era DNP. The 2016 election was repudiation of that type of democrat and if they aren't going to accept that we might as well all go get brownshirts and get ready for our own fascist state. Because the next GOP president will have figured out the way to leverage the media like this idiot but actually know how to run a government like a good fascist.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,538
39,629
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I really just don't see the DNP getting their crap together. They need an authentic left leaning candidate like Bernie who won't be 80 by or around the time they enter the White House. But left-leaning sensibilities skipped two generations (boomers and gen x) so Bernie from the silent generation has basically handed off the torch to millennials like AOC. There is an abject lack of Democrats who are in that sweet spot for presidential electability who aren't at their core in whole or part basically an extension of the Clintonite era DNP. The 2016 election was repudiation of that type of democrat and if they aren't going to accept that we might as well all go get brownshirts and get ready for our own fascist state. Because the next GOP president will have figured out the way to leverage the media like this idiot but actually know how to run a government like a good fascist.
I don't think recent history shows that a genuinely left-leaning candidate can win. The weight of the voting population is in the center. That center didn't vote last time in sufficient numbers to prevent Trump's minority win, for a variety of reasons...
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
35,588
21,217
187
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
I think Joe Biden would be a fantastic candidate - especially compared to those who have declared thus far.

Pair him up with a female VP candidate and boom.......

 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,195
3,329
187
At this point, who would you support? I do not believe Warren, Gillibrand, Castro, Booker or Sanders are viable candidates.
At this point? I have no idea - Harris will win the nomination, and I’ll hold my nose and close my eyes and pray and vote for her.
But I am anti- corporatist, period, first and foremost. The influence of “big money” must be removed from politics IMO. (Notice the word “big”.)
I’m all for publicly funded campaigns; it can be done, despite the naysayers. I’m not “ for” anyone who opposes that idea. I would be forced to accept them if their positions on other ideas I strongly believe in are the same as mine (and legitimate), but I’ll turn on them if/as soon as I find out otherwise (why I’m not a Democrat).
If they’re all going to lie, I’ll stick with Bernie; disagree with his ideas all you want, but he’s consistent and not a profligate liar.
IMO the jury is out on all the others; a few might be honest but are too “any way the wind blows” for me, so I’ll withhold judgement for now.
Let me say I’m not locked in to a Dem candidate in the general; I honestly don’t think Trump can run again, so it kinda depends on who the Republicans nominate. But the history of my life indicates it will be someone I couldn’t vote for; I’m just waiting to see what happens after the Valentine’s Day Massacre (I’m hoping).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,195
3,329
187
I don't think recent history shows that a genuinely left-leaning candidate can win. The weight of the voting population is in the center. That center didn't vote last time in sufficient numbers to prevent Trump's minority win, for a variety of reasons...
Certainly not because Hillary was “left-leaning”...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I don't think recent history shows that a genuinely left-leaning candidate can win. The weight of the voting population is in the center. That center didn't vote last time in sufficient numbers to prevent Trump's minority win, for a variety of reasons...
We also tend to forget that the standard non-voter and how they might vote. I tend to think they'd vote a bit left of center if they were given an agenda worth being mobilized for them. At this juncture I think the DNP only exists so the American version of the petit bourgeois can feel secure in their small wealth/holdings while not voting actually for naked fascism.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,538
39,629
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
We also tend to forget that the standard non-voter and how they might vote. I tend to think they'd vote a bit left of center if they were given an agenda worth being mobilized for them. At this juncture I think the DNP only exists so the American version of the petit bourgeois can feel secure in their small wealth/holdings while not voting actually form naked fascism.
I don't agree with you. I think that, if the Democrats move too far left, it will insure a semi-permanent alt-right domination of the presidency. There's just too much evidence that most Americans tend to be centrist, barring something like a Great Depression, which does force voters left. It's the reason we've had divided government so often. I think to believe that most voters are really left of center is a pipe dream...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
I don't agree with you. I think that, if the Democrats move too far left, it will insure a semi-permanent alt-right domination of the presidency. There's just too much evidence that most Americans tend to be centrist, barring something like a Great Depression, which does force voters left. It's the reason we've had divided government so often. I think to believe that most voters are really left of center is a pipe dream...
Not sure I could have said it better.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
I don't agree with you. I think that, if the Democrats move too far left, it will insure a semi-permanent alt-right domination of the presidency. There's just too much evidence that most Americans tend to be centrist, barring something like a Great Depression, which does force voters left. It's the reason we've had divided government so often. I think to believe that most voters are really left of center is a pipe dream...
I agree with this, although I apparently am not smart enough to figure out who the Democrats can offer up to get the moderates to the polls while appeasing the progressive left faction to not splinter the party. Hillary was a flawed candidate who was generally disliked by most American voters and would likely have lost to Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or any other reasonable Republican candidate. I am beginning to think the Democrats may have a much more difficult time beating Trump in 2020 than I had originally thought.
 
Last edited:

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I don't agree with you. I think that, if the Democrats move too far left, it will insure a semi-permanent alt-right domination of the presidency. There's just too much evidence that most Americans tend to be centrist, barring something like a Great Depression, which does force voters left. It's the reason we've had divided government so often. I think to believe that most voters are really left of center is a pipe dream...
If this is true than this country is screwed because the only way to avoid the ruin my future children or more likely my grandchildren will inherit is by a repudiation of some of the essential aspects of American-style capitalism.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
If this is true than this country is screwed because the only way to avoid the ruin my future children or more likely my grandchildren will inherit is by a repudiation of some of the essential aspects of American-style capitalism.
The irony is that American capitalism helped make this the most prosperous nation on Earth. Even distributed unevenly, the mean wage is far more than most who have ever lived have known. Even the vast majority of our poor have higher living standards than most through history.

Plainly put, no other system has created so much broad-based improvement in the standard of living in the history of mankind.

Compare and contrast with any all out socialist system, save for the hybrid known as China with Hong Kong, whose capitalist prosperity has buoyed China's economy since it reverted back. Every other who did not have that advantage has caused abject poverty - but equal abject poverty (unless you were a leader in the party).

I don't know if you're looking for central control of the economy, but that would be a disaster.

That said, some "socialist" policies that provide for the general welfare are and could be a wise investment to one degree or another.

The problem in America is that people are against anything that doesn't benefit themselves and for anything that does except when they are again anything.

Either way, you'd need someone with intelligence and charisma to rally people behind even the most basic socialist ideas. Obama was the closest there has been to that (since at least Clinton and probably all the way back to FDR) and even he failed at convincing people to support his crowning achievement. Lying tends to alienate people (if you like it you can keep it). And before racism (a very real problem) is brought up, racism didn't make him lie. He'd have been better off telling people "Sure, your insurance is bound to change either way but we will make it better - and better with time".

But I digress...so I'll just say that I'm not sure just exactly what you think of capitalism vs socialism as far as central control of the economy goes so if you aren't for central control then my point may be irrelevant.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
The current economic model is precipitously chewing up the habitability of the world that can support billions of us in the name of short term returns and quarter-to-quarter growth. The invisible hand will not fix this one. The "invisible hand" will shield those with the wealth to weather climate change and just let a genocide by apathy happen around them. Hell, one could argue this is a lived experience outside of our privileged global position.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,538
39,629
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
If this is true than this country is screwed because the only way to avoid the ruin my future children or more likely my grandchildren will inherit is by a repudiation of some of the essential aspects of American-style capitalism.
Barring something like, as I said the Great Depression, that repudiation will never happen. IDK any economist of reputation who believes it will...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
The current economic model is precipitously chewing up the habitability of the world that can support billions of us in the name of short term returns and quarter-to-quarter growth. The invisible hand will not fix this one. The "invisible hand" will shield those with the wealth to weather climate change and just let a genocide by apathy happen around them. Hell, one could argue this is a lived experience outside of our privileged global position.
Let's not conflate corporatism and capitalism. These are two related, but different animals. And I frankly don't know a better or more sustainable system to replace them. The best we can hope for is enough regulation to keep naked greed in check and enough awareness and respect (even if only by consumer pressure) for social responsibilities to keep behaviors in line with such sentiments.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,195
3,329
187
Let's not conflate corporatism and capitalism. These are two related, but different animals. And I frankly don't know a better or more sustainable system to replace them. The best we can hope for is enough regulation to keep naked greed in check and enough awareness and respect (even if only by consumer pressure) for social responsibilities to keep behaviors in line with such sentiments.
Corporatism is unregulated capitalism. Unregulated capitalism will never survive - look where we are now.
A good read and one whose conclusions I agree with wholeheartedly.

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061928017/can-capitalism-survive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,596
2,241
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Corporatism is unregulated capitalism.
Um, corporatism is the partnership between business, labor, and the state to organize the economy. It limits competition to the benefit of those who rig the system. True capitalism has competition as one of its pillars. We should want more capitalism and not be fooled by the impostors.
 

UAH

All-American
Nov 27, 2017
3,595
4,130
187
Let's not conflate corporatism and capitalism. These are two related, but different animals. And I frankly don't know a better or more sustainable system to replace them. The best we can hope for is enough regulation to keep naked greed in check and enough awareness and respect (even if only by consumer pressure) for social responsibilities to keep behaviors in line with such sentiments.
I feel a need to comment on your assertions in regard to capitalism being the primary engine supporting the rise of the standard of living in the US. We could discuss the drivers of US prosperity for weeks but can likely agree that the excesses of unconstrained capitalism causes it to self-destruct. It would be difficult to argue against its boom and bust characteristics.

The main point I feel needs to be made is the role of countervailing power in preventing Capitalism's worst traits from its self destructive nature. I think of Eugene Debs who led organizing of railroad workers near the turn of the century, the hay market riots that ultimately led to organizing the agricultural equipment industry, the UMW who fought pitched battles across the entire US, including Alabama, to organize mines and improve working conditions and the UAW which became the most progressive labor organization in the world. As an aside the Lech Wałęsa led Solidarity movement in Poland took its name from the UAW motto in the US after he met with the UAW in Detroit.

Labor's political influence led to the Wagner Act and Occupational Health and Safety Act and supported the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

This leads me to believe that the perpetual struggle between labor and capitalism has been a significant benefit to our economy and is the engine that has generated the middle class prosperity in US.

We could likely agree that there has been no balance of power in this modern global economy and it is leading us to a major destruct cycle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.