Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Can We PLLLLEEEEAAASSSSEEE Get Some More Dems To Drop Out?
#11
Dennis S wrote:
I think we need all the extras so they can tee off on the traitorous bastard.

Not a bad idea for the DNC to troll Trump and announce: "The Democratic Party has decided to cancel all primaries and simply nominate the Top 10 candidates en masse so that all 10 are on the ballot as one vote.

If our bloc of 10 wins the presidency, they will all inhabit the White House and of course, share the title of Co-President."

Ya gotta admit he'd love the extra attention ... to his demise.
Reply
#12
I think we are fine.

This Pres nomination vetting process is also vetting potential VPs.
Reply
#13
Kevin Drum today opined that the Democratic nomination race as already realistically distilled down to two people - Warren and Biden. I have been thinking that was the case for a while, so it's nice to see a fairly level headed guy like Drum also share that view.

I think Warren is corralling the biggest chunk of Democrats in favor of the government flexing its muscle to take on the Second Gilded Agers and provide significantly more services for middle and lower income folks. And very vigorously address inequalities (too great of disparities) in all spheres of life. That's where my heart is.

I think Biden has a lock on the vast bulk of Democrats that are more moderate. There are a lot of such Democrats and, much as I might prefer otherwise, he may very well have a better chance than Warren the socialist at beating Trump. Beating Trump is the most important thing and Biden is still fairly liberal. So my head wants to say Biden is the way to go.

I really hope that Warren can find a way to present her plans as aspirational but that she is also practical enough to work to get things actually passed into law that further those aspirational goals even if only incompletely. With enough of a nod toward pragmatics of actually getting laws passed, I think she could put together a winning coalition. Well, she also needs to convince more brown-skinned people that she authentically understands their priorities and embraces policies that can bring those priorities to fruition.

I am assuming that there are more moderate Democrats than not moderate, though, in saying those things. That could be wrong. I don't have any empirical evidence to back up that assumption.
Reply
#14
I see Biden as an "easy" choice ... ya sorta know what you're getting going in. Status-quo-ish in most ways. Treading water if you ask me.

Still not sure about Warren insofar as her zillions of plans need some flesh on them. And every other week some opinion writer is calling her a hypocrite ... I take that to mean she'd actually compromise or be pragmatic enough to deal with the inevitable Republican Congressional obstruction. Not sure the "socialist" moniker really applies to her as much as many people want it to.

Either one should be strong fighters against Trump's insults. I hope.
Reply
#15
Bernie's the Socialist. Liz is a Capitalist at heart and by training, she wants to reform a system that's become monopolistic and out of balance.

Bernie want's to blow it up and start over. Neither will get what they want since the radical right will have control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future. Obamacare wouldn't have survived challenge at SCOTUS as it's currently constituted. Given another 18 months of Trump/McConnell appointees and the Appellate system will be locked up for decades.
Reply
#16
I’ll be the minority voice here and say I’m enjoying learning about all of these candidates- all 24. Our country is a better place with their voices. Just not all can be President.
Reply
#17
When I said "Warren the socialist", I was thinking of what Trump and the Republicans would be saying about her not whether or not the appellation is justified*.


*What makes someone a socialist anyway? If you approve of Social Security and Medicare are you a socialist? To my way of thinking, we are only arguing about how much socialism to have, not whether or not we should have socialism. But that won't stop the Republicans from hammering Warren on it.
Reply
#18
None of them are socialists, because they ALL believe in, and support a private sector driven economy. That alone, despite all of the government safeguards they push, means they cannot be accurately labeled "socialist." But the Republican party has been successful in getting people to parrot it.
Reply
#19
deckeda wrote:
None of them are socialists, because they ALL believe in, and support a private sector driven economy. That alone, despite all of the government safeguards they push, means they cannot be accurately labeled "socialist." But the Republican party has been successful in getting people to parrot it.

Agree. The current GOP would label Ronald Reagan a 'socialist' for most of his major policy changes made during his Presidency.
Reply
#20
To me, "Socialist" means centrally planned economy.

No Dems anywhere near that.

Not that that matters to any Republicans.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)