|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On March 08 2020 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 04:01 Danglars wrote:
The current debate I'm having with others around my parts goes something like "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out of the race ahead of Super Tuesday and endorse Biden, making it more of a heads up Sanders vs Biden fight, is that fair? And, is it good for the party?"
(Neglecting for a moment Warren and Bloomberg's impact)
I was a little surprised at some of the arguments on both sides. Like the "maybe not fair, but good for party" side going with they'd totally be fine with DNC doing it to a pro-life candidate (the party has an interest in a pro-choice candidate representing them), or a pro-Iraq-war/foreign interventions candidate. Anyways, it was interesting.
I fully expect all candidates to engage in conversations with all other candidates and the DNC during a primary. I don't even consider that to be subterfuge or devious behavior, and I consider uniting to defeat a common enemy a pretty natural and obvious strategy. That's literally what happens anyway once the primary ends and the general election starts (i.e., "We all fought for our own favorite candidates, but now let's stop the in-fighting and coalesce behind our one "champion" so that they may defeat the other one"). If two or more candidates are diluting their supporters' votes, I would consider it stupid *not* to chat and convince all but one to drop out, in support for the one who's left. I don't consider this unethical at all, and I certainly would be wary of a double standard against the moderates (since I see a lot of Sanders supporters yelling at Warren to get out of Sanders's way and support him, yet cry foul when the moderates do exactly that for each other). And I say this as a Sanders supporter rooting for him to beat the moderates.
I agree with you on the candidates and DNC party regulars. The question was more about if it's fair and if it's wise for the DNC itself to initiate the pressure on center candidates to get the disfavored ones to drop out. It goes back to whether or not the DNC as a private organization is intended to organize an orderly sorting of candidates for Democratic voters to decide and candidate campaigns to persuade, or rather it also serves to let party regulars decide the ideological direction the party should go in, and "tip the scales" or apply pressure to see that the party moves that way.
I've reversed my opinion like twice on it already. Democrats (distributed across the country) draft and vote at convention on what the party platform should be (leaning towards the DNC organizing where its members want it to go). The DNC party hierarchy has a vested interest in seeing Democrats be elected and win majorities in House and Senate as well as the Presidency (leaning towards the DNC having a responsibility to overcome member desires with the necessity to win independents in tough states/congressional districts, and influence the results towards the center). But a party too out of touch with it's members can be said to not represent their interests, or devalue pushing the country in one direction by policies that will eventually gain popularity (leaning towards DNC simply organizing it's members). And on and on. I'm well aware Sanders stands for more of the revolution from within, DNC biases stand aside ... and Biden more for trending in moderate direction to help downticket fights. I think the Sanders wing of the party will come back with a vengeance in 2024 if not 2022 midterms should Biden win the nomination but lose to Trump in the general.
|
The progressives would do best to form their own party behind sanders. Better then staying a minority inside the democratic party and never getting there. The democrats will survive and rebound eventually and then maybe the progressives can get into a position where they can bargain and start getting some of their points through.
|
They would, in a system that is not FPTP.
In FPTP, that only means republicans win everything forever. Which is one of the many reasons that FPTP is shit.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 08 2020 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2020 04:01 Danglars wrote:
The current debate I'm having with others around my parts goes something like "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out of the race ahead of Super Tuesday and endorse Biden, making it more of a heads up Sanders vs Biden fight, is that fair? And, is it good for the party?"
(Neglecting for a moment Warren and Bloomberg's impact)
I was a little surprised at some of the arguments on both sides. Like the "maybe not fair, but good for party" side going with they'd totally be fine with DNC doing it to a pro-life candidate (the party has an interest in a pro-choice candidate representing them), or a pro-Iraq-war/foreign interventions candidate. Anyways, it was interesting.
I fully expect all candidates to engage in conversations with all other candidates and the DNC during a primary. I don't even consider that to be subterfuge or devious behavior, and I consider uniting to defeat a common enemy a pretty natural and obvious strategy. That's literally what happens anyway once the primary ends and the general election starts (i.e., "We all fought for our own favorite candidates, but now let's stop the in-fighting and coalesce behind our one "champion" so that they may defeat the other one"). If two or more candidates are diluting their supporters' votes, I would consider it stupid *not* to chat and convince all but one to drop out, in support for the one who's left. I don't consider this unethical at all, and I certainly would be wary of a double standard against the moderates (since I see a lot of Sanders supporters yelling at Warren to get out of Sanders's way and support him, yet cry foul when the moderates do exactly that for each other). And I say this as a Sanders supporter rooting for him to beat the moderates. I agree with you on the candidates and DNC party regulars. The question was more about if it's fair and if it's wise for the DNC itself to initiate the pressure on center candidates to get the disfavored ones to drop out. It goes back to whether or not the DNC as a private organization is intended to organize an orderly sorting of candidates for Democratic voters to decide and candidate campaigns to persuade, or rather it also serves to let party regulars decide the ideological direction the party should go in, and "tip the scales" or apply pressure to see that the party moves that way. I've reversed my opinion like twice on it already. Democrats (distributed across the country) draft and vote at convention on what the party platform should be (leaning towards the DNC organizing where its members want it to go). The DNC party hierarchy has a vested interest in seeing Democrats be elected and win majorities in House and Senate as well as the Presidency (leaning towards the DNC having a responsibility to overcome member desires with the necessity to win independents in tough states/congressional districts, and influence the results towards the center). But a party too out of touch with it's members can be said to not represent their interests, or devalue pushing the country in one direction by policies that will eventually gain popularity (leaning towards DNC simply organizing it's members). And on and on. I'm well aware Sanders stands for more of the revolution from within, DNC biases stand aside ... and Biden more for trending in moderate direction to help downticket fights. I think the Sanders wing of the party will come back with a vengeance in 2024 if not 2022 midterms should Biden win the nomination but lose to Trump in the general.
It's not really clear who or what "the DNC" is tho.
Of course there's a light string of national officer that can have some influence, but outside of that it's not clear what is the party. Is Obama calling people to push Biden endorsement the DNC working for Biden? Is it the big time donors who help the party and candidate staying afloat? Is it the numbers of strategist and analyst that circle around the party and lend their services to different races? Is it the slew of states and national elected representative that have pass half their life in office? Is it the top representative like governors and leader at the chamber? There's very little actual hierarchy in the party and it's not because you are "at the top" that you have very much power, Gabbard is an ex vice-chairman of the party after all but she never was the no2 of the party.
All of these individuals are by themselves pretty independent of one another and they all have their own interest to look after. Biden didn't convince "the party" to coagulate around him but some limited number of key figure who where enough to convince his opponent that he was the safest bet. For example both Pelosi and Schumer while being some of the most important figure of the DNC and having both some of the most interest and responsibility about getting numerous win across the country didn't endorse any candidate, probably because they didn't think it was in their interest/the interest of the party to do so and I'm sure Biden went after them.
I don't think the DNC in the limited sense, as in the administrative structure, did much of the work around getting the other centrist candidate to drop out this time around, it certainly helped Clinton last time, but this time until proven otherwise nothing really shady happen.
Now to know if intervention from powerful figure help or hurt the chance of having someone running on the banner democrat win their election in the long term, that's another story, and I don't really knows. There's certainly a dissolution of the little bit of good faith toward the democratic party that seems to dissipate with these kind of intervention.
|
On March 08 2020 06:21 Simberto wrote:
They would, in a system that is not FPTP.
In FPTP, that only means republicans win everything forever. Which is one of the many reasons that FPTP is shit.
Yes,they wont get the president. I am thinking more locally like the house,they have to start somewhere and see where it might go.
Maybe they could get some seats in the house,they would do well in california at least i asume.
|
Canada5565 Posts
|
|
|
On March 08 2020 06:21 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 05:48 Danglars wrote:On March 08 2020 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2020 04:01 Danglars wrote:
The current debate I'm having with others around my parts goes something like "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out of the race ahead of Super Tuesday and endorse Biden, making it more of a heads up Sanders vs Biden fight, is that fair? And, is it good for the party?"
(Neglecting for a moment Warren and Bloomberg's impact)
I was a little surprised at some of the arguments on both sides. Like the "maybe not fair, but good for party" side going with they'd totally be fine with DNC doing it to a pro-life candidate (the party has an interest in a pro-choice candidate representing them), or a pro-Iraq-war/foreign interventions candidate. Anyways, it was interesting.
I fully expect all candidates to engage in conversations with all other candidates and the DNC during a primary. I don't even consider that to be subterfuge or devious behavior, and I consider uniting to defeat a common enemy a pretty natural and obvious strategy. That's literally what happens anyway once the primary ends and the general election starts (i.e., "We all fought for our own favorite candidates, but now let's stop the in-fighting and coalesce behind our one "champion" so that they may defeat the other one"). If two or more candidates are diluting their supporters' votes, I would consider it stupid *not* to chat and convince all but one to drop out, in support for the one who's left. I don't consider this unethical at all, and I certainly would be wary of a double standard against the moderates (since I see a lot of Sanders supporters yelling at Warren to get out of Sanders's way and support him, yet cry foul when the moderates do exactly that for each other). And I say this as a Sanders supporter rooting for him to beat the moderates. I agree with you on the candidates and DNC party regulars. The question was more about if it's fair and if it's wise for the DNC itself to initiate the pressure on center candidates to get the disfavored ones to drop out. It goes back to whether or not the DNC as a private organization is intended to organize an orderly sorting of candidates for Democratic voters to decide and candidate campaigns to persuade, or rather it also serves to let party regulars decide the ideological direction the party should go in, and "tip the scales" or apply pressure to see that the party moves that way. I've reversed my opinion like twice on it already. Democrats (distributed across the country) draft and vote at convention on what the party platform should be (leaning towards the DNC organizing where its members want it to go). The DNC party hierarchy has a vested interest in seeing Democrats be elected and win majorities in House and Senate as well as the Presidency (leaning towards the DNC having a responsibility to overcome member desires with the necessity to win independents in tough states/congressional districts, and influence the results towards the center). But a party too out of touch with it's members can be said to not represent their interests, or devalue pushing the country in one direction by policies that will eventually gain popularity (leaning towards DNC simply organizing it's members). And on and on. I'm well aware Sanders stands for more of the revolution from within, DNC biases stand aside ... and Biden more for trending in moderate direction to help downticket fights. I think the Sanders wing of the party will come back with a vengeance in 2024 if not 2022 midterms should Biden win the nomination but lose to Trump in the general. It's not really clear who or what "the DNC" is tho.
The people that own democrats.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee
They run the Democratic National Convention. The party platform and presidential candidate are made there, particularly in the case of a contested convention.
Their current president is Tom Perez. Previous chairs include Debbie Wasserman Schultz (maybe you remember her being forced to resign because leaked emails showed she actively biased the party apparatus against Sanders and in favor of Clinton) and Howard Dean.
They are accused by Sanders fans in my neck of the woods of being charged with running a primary system, where Democratic primary voters/caucuses (& "superdelegates") select Presidential candidates, and organizing official debates, while intentionally favoring the moderate wing of the party.
That's who I'm referring to.
Of course there's a light string of national officer that can have some influence, but outside of that it's not clear what is the party. Is Obama calling people to push Biden endorsement the DNC working for Biden? Is it the big time donors who help the party and candidate staying afloat? Is it the numbers of strategist and analyst that circle around the party and lend their services to different races? Is it the slew of states and national elected representative that have pass half their life in office? Is it the top representative like governors and leader at the chamber? There's very little actual hierarchy in the party and it's not because you are "at the top" that you have very much power, Gabbard is an ex vice-chairman of the party after all but she never was the no2 of the party.
All of these individuals are by themselves pretty independent of one another and they all have their own interest to look after. Biden didn't convince "the party" to coagulate around him but some limited number of key figure who where enough to convince his opponent that he was the safest bet. For example both Pelosi and Schumer while being some of the most important figure of the DNC and having both some of the most interest and responsibility about getting numerous win across the country didn't endorse any candidate, probably because they didn't think it was in their interest/the interest of the party to do so and I'm sure Biden went after them.
I don't think the DNC in the limited sense, as in the administrative structure, did much of the work around getting the other centrist candidate to drop out this time around, it certainly helped Clinton last time, but this time until proven otherwise nothing really shady happen.
Now to know if intervention from powerful figure help or hurt the chance of having someone running on the banner democrat win their election in the long term, that's another story, and I don't really knows. There's certainly a dissolution of the little bit of good faith toward the democratic party that seems to dissipate with these kind of intervention.
I'm not focusing at this time on the influence of past presidents and current donors. Bernie bros have not made them the subject of their scorn on this topic, however much they liked or disliked their influence (maybe it's baked into the system, and for what it's worth, both Biden and Sanders have pledged to fight the influence of corporations and special interests, however successful that sell is). I think the case of corrupt Wasserman Schultz, chief of the DNC, just one presidential election ago does make it proper to focus in on the ethics, fairness, and prudence of the organization.
I framed the question with regards to "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to..." precisely because cases can be made that they didn't, or it didn't matter because of the relative strength of donors-Pelosi/Schumer-strategists. All those are fair points for related questions, but don't address my question.
|
On March 08 2020 06:37 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 06:21 Simberto wrote:
They would, in a system that is not FPTP.
In FPTP, that only means republicans win everything forever. Which is one of the many reasons that FPTP is shit. Yes,they wont get the president. I am thinking more locally like the house,they have to start somewhere and see where it might go. Maybe they could get some seats in the house,they would do well in california at least i asume. For sake of easy counting lets assume the Democratic vote splits evenly between progressives and the rest. Looking at the 2018 Californian House election and halving the vote % because of progressives splitting off Republicans would win 18 out of 46 seats currently held by Democrats.
That is why splitting off in a FPTP system is almost always a terrible idea.
|
On March 08 2020 06:37 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 06:21 Simberto wrote:
They would, in a system that is not FPTP.
In FPTP, that only means republicans win everything forever. Which is one of the many reasons that FPTP is shit. Yes,they wont get the president. I am thinking more locally like the house,they have to start somewhere and see where it might go. Maybe they could get some seats in the house,they would do well in california at least i asume.
The strategy of Sanders taking over the party from within, and subgroups like AOC in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) operating within the Democratic party, appear more promising. I say that only if they're able to successfully lobby with money or public statements to demand to be appointed to various Congressional committees and party steering committees (eg standing committee on platform...)
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 08 2020 07:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 06:21 Nakajin wrote:On March 08 2020 05:48 Danglars wrote:On March 08 2020 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 08 2020 04:01 Danglars wrote:
The current debate I'm having with others around my parts goes something like "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out of the race ahead of Super Tuesday and endorse Biden, making it more of a heads up Sanders vs Biden fight, is that fair? And, is it good for the party?"
(Neglecting for a moment Warren and Bloomberg's impact)
I was a little surprised at some of the arguments on both sides. Like the "maybe not fair, but good for party" side going with they'd totally be fine with DNC doing it to a pro-life candidate (the party has an interest in a pro-choice candidate representing them), or a pro-Iraq-war/foreign interventions candidate. Anyways, it was interesting.
I fully expect all candidates to engage in conversations with all other candidates and the DNC during a primary. I don't even consider that to be subterfuge or devious behavior, and I consider uniting to defeat a common enemy a pretty natural and obvious strategy. That's literally what happens anyway once the primary ends and the general election starts (i.e., "We all fought for our own favorite candidates, but now let's stop the in-fighting and coalesce behind our one "champion" so that they may defeat the other one"). If two or more candidates are diluting their supporters' votes, I would consider it stupid *not* to chat and convince all but one to drop out, in support for the one who's left. I don't consider this unethical at all, and I certainly would be wary of a double standard against the moderates (since I see a lot of Sanders supporters yelling at Warren to get out of Sanders's way and support him, yet cry foul when the moderates do exactly that for each other). And I say this as a Sanders supporter rooting for him to beat the moderates. I agree with you on the candidates and DNC party regulars. The question was more about if it's fair and if it's wise for the DNC itself to initiate the pressure on center candidates to get the disfavored ones to drop out. It goes back to whether or not the DNC as a private organization is intended to organize an orderly sorting of candidates for Democratic voters to decide and candidate campaigns to persuade, or rather it also serves to let party regulars decide the ideological direction the party should go in, and "tip the scales" or apply pressure to see that the party moves that way. I've reversed my opinion like twice on it already. Democrats (distributed across the country) draft and vote at convention on what the party platform should be (leaning towards the DNC organizing where its members want it to go). The DNC party hierarchy has a vested interest in seeing Democrats be elected and win majorities in House and Senate as well as the Presidency (leaning towards the DNC having a responsibility to overcome member desires with the necessity to win independents in tough states/congressional districts, and influence the results towards the center). But a party too out of touch with it's members can be said to not represent their interests, or devalue pushing the country in one direction by policies that will eventually gain popularity (leaning towards DNC simply organizing it's members). And on and on. I'm well aware Sanders stands for more of the revolution from within, DNC biases stand aside ... and Biden more for trending in moderate direction to help downticket fights. I think the Sanders wing of the party will come back with a vengeance in 2024 if not 2022 midterms should Biden win the nomination but lose to Trump in the general. It's not really clear who or what "the DNC" is tho. The people that own democrats.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_CommitteeThey run the Democratic National Convention. The party platform and presidential candidate are made there, particularly in the case of a contested convention. Their current president is Tom Perez. Previous chairs include Debbie Wasserman Schultz (maybe you remember her being forced to resign because leaked emails showed she actively biased the party apparatus against Sanders and in favor of Clinton) and Howard Dean. They are accused by Sanders fans in my neck of the woods of being charged with running a primary system, where Democratic primary voters/caucuses (& "superdelegates") select Presidential candidates, and organizing official debates, while intentionally favoring the moderate wing of the party. That's who I'm referring to. Show nested quote +Of course there's a light string of national officer that can have some influence, but outside of that it's not clear what is the party. Is Obama calling people to push Biden endorsement the DNC working for Biden? Is it the big time donors who help the party and candidate staying afloat? Is it the numbers of strategist and analyst that circle around the party and lend their services to different races? Is it the slew of states and national elected representative that have pass half their life in office? Is it the top representative like governors and leader at the chamber? There's very little actual hierarchy in the party and it's not because you are "at the top" that you have very much power, Gabbard is an ex vice-chairman of the party after all but she never was the no2 of the party.
All of these individuals are by themselves pretty independent of one another and they all have their own interest to look after. Biden didn't convince "the party" to coagulate around him but some limited number of key figure who where enough to convince his opponent that he was the safest bet. For example both Pelosi and Schumer while being some of the most important figure of the DNC and having both some of the most interest and responsibility about getting numerous win across the country didn't endorse any candidate, probably because they didn't think it was in their interest/the interest of the party to do so and I'm sure Biden went after them.
I don't think the DNC in the limited sense, as in the administrative structure, did much of the work around getting the other centrist candidate to drop out this time around, it certainly helped Clinton last time, but this time until proven otherwise nothing really shady happen.
Now to know if intervention from powerful figure help or hurt the chance of having someone running on the banner democrat win their election in the long term, that's another story, and I don't really knows. There's certainly a dissolution of the little bit of good faith toward the democratic party that seems to dissipate with these kind of intervention. I'm not focusing at this time on the influence of past presidents and current donors. Bernie bros have not made them the subject of their scorn on this topic, however much they liked or disliked their influence (maybe it's baked into the system, and for what it's worth, both Biden and Sanders have pledged to fight the influence of corporations and special interests, however successful that sell is). I think the case of corrupt Wasserman Schultz, chief of the DNC, just one presidential election ago does make it proper to focus in on the ethics, fairness, and prudence of the organization. I framed the question with regards to "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to..." precisely because cases can be made that they didn't, or it didn't matter because of the relative strength of donors-Pelosi/Schumer-strategists. All those are fair points for related questions, but don't address my question.
Oh ok, I get you, I red it to fast sry
|
I wouldn't term the 1988 win as "reliably Republican". It was Bush's smallest margin of victory by %.
In 1976, Carter lost the state by 140,000 votes out of 7.9 million votes cast. Not really a reliable Republican win.
The 1980 and 1984 wins by Reagan were based on Reagan's previous track record as a California governor just as much as it was based on him being a Republican. Reagan was a Democrat who changed to Republican. Had some Republican without Reagan's previous track record with Californians ran ...its hard to say whether or not that Republican candidate wins.
So I don't think the Republicans dominated California the way your comment indicates.
I would say that for 16 years... 8 as governor.. and 8 as Prez... Ronald Reagan dominated California. He was both democrat and republican.
Reagan raised taxes and signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" in his first term as Governor in 1967. To Californians he seemed just as much Democrat as Republican.
|
Canada8989 Posts
The theory about the democratic party winning through demographic revolved around the idea that the mostly white Rust Belt and north east states were democratic lands, Trump might be an anomaly be he could also be the start of a trend if the Democrats can't take those back maybe it's spread through place like Maine, New Hampshire and maybe (but probably not) places like Massachusetts and Delaware. And all of the sudden the two party structure is well in places.
|
On March 08 2020 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 06:37 pmh wrote:On March 08 2020 06:21 Simberto wrote:
They would, in a system that is not FPTP.
In FPTP, that only means republicans win everything forever. Which is one of the many reasons that FPTP is shit. Yes,they wont get the president. I am thinking more locally like the house,they have to start somewhere and see where it might go. Maybe they could get some seats in the house,they would do well in california at least i asume. For sake of easy counting lets assume the Democratic vote splits evenly between progressives and the rest. Looking at the 2018 Californian House election and halving the vote % because of progressives splitting off Republicans would win 18 out of 46 seats currently held by Democrats. That is why splitting off in a FPTP system is almost always a terrible idea.
No i dont think this will be the case,it will be the case intially when the shock hits but it will quickly balance out again. The republicans and the democrats they always balance eachoter out in the end one way or the other.
Maybe without the progressive wing inside the democrats more republicans would consider voting for the party,there is many aspects to it and i dont think the democrats are doomed forever if say 35% progressives would split off,on the contrary.
|
I knew the US media was fucked up but even I am surprised at how much they're covering for Biden. He had his first appearance in a week, it lasted seven minutes, he managed to either pre-reveal Kamala Harris's endorsement of him or misremember who endorsed him, and then called himself an Obiden Bama democrat. He did that in seven minutes. And there's probably a good reason why we see only seven minutes of him in such an important week. It's incredible.
|
It's really scary. I don't know how anyone can look at his deterioration and see a candidate with the ability to run a six month campaign.
I have been in the whoever-is-most-likely-to-win-the-general camp from day one. I am telling you, it is not this man.
|
Regarding Gabbard, is it her personally that is so unpalatable to voters, or is opposing the military industrial complex just not a viable center of a campaign? Our greatest federal expenditure is "national defense"... I would think that would be as relevant a topic as medical care or the economy in general. It barely seems to get mention though.
|
On March 08 2020 13:48 Starlightsun wrote:
Regarding Gabbard, is it her personally that is so unpalatable to voters, or is opposing the military industrial complex just not a viable center of a campaign? Our greatest federal expenditure is "national defense"... I would think that would be as relevant a topic as medical care or the economy in general. It barely seems to get mention though.
Entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) dwarves defense spending by about three to one. However, it's true that defense feels big in comparison to what other countries spend. Entitlements circa 70% of the budget, defense circa 15% in federal expenditures, period.
I think she doesn't have the network of surrogates and mainstream connections as others. Her ideology is also off both the left-wing track like Bernie, and the more moderate track like Biden. I don't think there's a large constituency for it at this moment.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 08 2020 13:48 Starlightsun wrote:
Regarding Gabbard, is it her personally that is so unpalatable to voters, or is opposing the military industrial complex just not a viable center of a campaign? Our greatest federal expenditure is "national defense"... I would think that would be as relevant a topic as medical care or the economy in general. It barely seems to get mention though.
On the why she doesn't have more support I think it's mostly because no one really cared about her before the race, for every Pete Buttigieg there's about 20 John Delaney. I mean she's not quite a nobody but she's pretty close to it. She just decided to stick around in the race longer than anyone, probably to get on tv if were honest considering she's not looking to get reelected in her district in 2020. I'm pretty sure most voters just don't really know who she is I don't think it got that much to do with her propositions. Also if we're brutally honest 30 something Hindu women from Hawaï doesn't exactly scream electability when people were looking for an alternative to Biden. I know I was only vaguely aware of her existence before 2019, and now I'm just slightly more aware of her existence. (As in now I at least know her name)
On her in particular well she positioned herself as a kind of ultimate outsider of the party, notably by being the only democrat not to vote for the impeachment of Trump (she voted "present") and she met with Bashar Al Assad in the middle of the syrian civil war when the US had declare against his regime and he was (well is) doing various war crime, which she also deny the existence. She was also considered by Trump for the UN ambassadors job and his notably closer to him than pretty much all the rest of the DNC and she's frequently on Fox News. But on top of that she has some quite "progressive" proposition, mostly with environmentalist stuff.
Overall she's a bit of a political ovni, I know her early endorsement of Sanders made her quite well known among his partisan, but I don't really know what to make of her, I don't hate her policy, in fact I quite like them, but I just don't really get what she's doing or tying to do, ex-military people do tend to make some odd ball politician.
On the anti-war it's a good question, I imagine the current climate of "minimal" US military intervention these day play a role in the fact that it has not taken a big part of the conversation. Maybe there could be a opportunity for it to be a central part of the if a more preeminent candidate embraced it.
|
On March 08 2020 15:03 Nakajin wrote:
notably by being the only democrat not to vote for the impeachment of Trump (she voted "present")
In fact, two Democrats voted "Nay" for the impeachment of Donald Trump and one did not vote, as regards article 1. Article two earned three "Nay" votes from Democrats, with one not voting. She's not as special as you think she is in that respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
