• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

I've seen what Biden can get done in the Senate. What a disaster.
 
TownieDeac said:
Oh man, that you're a Chait fan makes so much sense.

Remember when he championed the Iraq war for 15 years and argued Democrats should support Trump because he'd be easiest to beat and said Trump would never win Michigan? He has made mid six figures for a couple decades now being wrong about everything, I see why you like him.

Also I'm talking about On Fire, her latest book, not this one.
Click to expand...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/03/iraq-what-i-got-wrong-and-what-i-still-believe.html

Chait actually had a good self-reflective about Iraq.

Klein is utterly clueless and naive about so many of her prescribed solutions, and like tilt indicated, completely brushes aside the fact that governments that have most closely mimicked her Marxist revoluation sentiments have actually seen worse emissions problems than the capitalist/corporate driven economy she hates so much.
 
Of course, you (Townie) missed the entire and obvious point. With added power of their bases, Warren and Bernie will be very powerful in a Dem Senate with a Dem POTUS. They could wield that power to get more done than if they won the presidency as the horrific campaigns against them would make turning the Senate less likely.

With Moscow Mitch in charge of the Senate, Bernie or Warren won't get anything they want done. This is reality and you know it.
 
TownieDeac said:
Was with you up until here. I left DSA a few years ago. But I think you're making a lot of assumptions. Clinton and Obama had the kinds of approaches tilt is talking about as president. Welfare reform, financial deregulation, and Obamacare were all technocratic, market friendly solutions popular with the party because of where the profits went. I think there'd be marginal differences between a Biden and Buttigieg presidency. But Sanders and Warren are actively campaigning on financial regulation and cleaning up the gaps on market-driven inequality. I frankly don't trust a Biden or Buttigieg presidency to do enough to force the issue on climate. There has been a tendency in the party since the 80s to not upset the apple cart that is share prices.
Click to expand...

Fair points, but Presidents don't just write policy in a vacuum. Any policy out of a Sanders or Biden administration would be approved by almost every Dem in Congress.

As far as fundraising, this addresses some of the points I've made about the barrier to entry in fundraising and Sanders and Warren's advantages. She makes a clear argument about how the purity tests have made it harder for new candidates to break through.

 
TownieDeac said:
Ok so the only component I see missing from this analysis is that I think this model still contributes to growing inequality. So long as tax breaks subsidize markets to change, we're privatizing profits and socializing losses. There has to be a jobs, housing, immigration and social welfare guarantee on top of this or else we're just saving the planet for the few rich enough to live on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think we pretty much agree again.

I do think the left in general has underestimated how much access to markets has contributed to a massive decrease in global poverty, and I think looking *only* at inequality measures, rather than incorporating some measure of living standards is a mistake. But I also think that extreme inequality in and of itself is bad, and there is no question that markets leave some people behind. I'm fully on board with policies to end homelessness, streamline and increase our inflow of immigrants and refugees, and something like a no strings child allowance to combat poverty, to name a few. I just wonder about the wisdom of combining these types of programs with a climate program.
 
ChrisL68 said:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/03/iraq-what-i-got-wrong-and-what-i-still-believe.html

Chait actually had a good self-reflective about Iraq.

Klein is utterly clueless and naive about so many of her prescribed solutions, and like tilt indicated, completely brushes aside the fact that governments that have most closely mimicked her Marxist revoluation sentiments have actually seen worse emissions problems than the capitalist/corporate driven economy she hates so much.
Click to expand...

Chait managed to make himself the victim in a reflection on Iraq that didn't mention a million dead Iraqi civilians.
 
tiltdeac said:
Yeah I think we pretty much agree again.

I do think the left in general has underestimated how much access to markets has contributed to a massive decrease in global poverty, and I think looking *only* at inequality measures, rather than incorporating some measure of living standards is a mistake. But I also think that extreme inequality in and of itself is bad, and there is no question that markets leave some people behind. I'm fully on board with policies to end homelessness, streamline and increase our inflow of immigrants and refugees, and something like a no strings child allowance to combat poverty, to name a few. I just wonder about the wisdom of combining these types of programs with a climate program.
Click to expand...

Hence why I stand to the right of Bernie and Labour on trade, but I'm right there with them on labor. We should free up labor markets, but we've gotta have environmental and labor standard protections or else we're just making iPhones cheaper (and Apple exec salaries higher) at the expense of slave labor in China and unspeakable mining conditions for previous metals in Africa. If a big component of a climate program is infrastructure, why would you not want labor protections for those jobs? The Green Housing plan Ilhan put out is a great example of combining climate plans with social welfare plans.

I also think the way markets have contributed to lower poverty has been through industrialization in previously nonindustrial countries. We've seen the world post-industrialization and what it means for wages and labor conditions.

Finally, climate justice has a strong racial/ethnic equity component; the areas that have been most harshly affected to date by climate change are already experiencing genocide, war, famine, and closed borders. We can't decouple climate legislation from free movement of people either.
 
PhDeac said:
Fair points, but Presidents don't just write policy in a vacuum. Any policy out of a Sanders or Biden administration would be approved by almost every Dem in Congress.

As far as fundraising, this addresses some of the points I've made about the barrier to entry in fundraising and Sanders and Warren's advantages. She makes a clear argument about how the purity tests have made it harder for new candidates to break through.

Click to expand...

Why do you always identify Sanders and Warren, but never Biden? They all have similar advantages and Biden is closest to Buttigieg ideologically.
 
I'd also like to know more about the systemic racism of fundraising if you have anything I can read.
 
I can only imagine the giggles over at the RNC as they watch Dems wring their hands over whether their fundraising is “pure” enough.
 
Les Grossman said:
I can only imagine the giggles over at the RNC as they watch Dems wring their hands over whether their fundraising is “pure” enough.
Click to expand...

While not attacking Trump after Russia's government TV station said he was a Russian agent. After all, it's not nice to use such things to win elections.
 
You know what else isn't "standing up to Trump"? Giving him his defense bill.

Also, it's centrists that keep bandying about this terminology about purity tests. What they refer to, of course, is ethical standards.
 
TownieDeac said:
Was with you up until here. I left DSA a few years ago. But I think you're making a lot of assumptions. Clinton and Obama had the kinds of approaches tilt is talking about as president. Welfare reform, financial deregulation, and Obamacare were all technocratic, market friendly solutions popular with the party because of where the profits went. I think there'd be marginal differences between a Biden and Buttigieg presidency. But Sanders and Warren are actively campaigning on financial regulation and cleaning up the gaps on market-driven inequality. I frankly don't trust a Biden or Buttigieg presidency to do enough to force the issue on climate. There has been a tendency in the party since the 80s to not upset the apple cart that is share prices.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking about slightly different things. I think the reason the policy differences would be on the margins is because the makeup of the 2021-2023 Congress, even if the dems manage to take over the senate and hold the house, is still going to be averse to any of the big-ticket things pushed by the President. Dems had a sort-of vetoproof majority from 2009-2011 and still weren't able to push through much in the way of progressive legislation. The current oompa-loompa in the White House had majorities in both houses of Congress and accomplished nothing outside of a tax cut.

If you want to argue that the executive actions taken by President Warren/Sanders would be drastically different than those taken by President Biden/Buttigieg, that's fine. I just don't think of those types of steps as anything but on the margins.
 
Strickland33 said:
Why do you always identify Sanders and Warren, but never Biden? They all have similar advantages and Biden is closest to Buttigieg ideologically.
Click to expand...

A few reasons with respect to this discussion:

Biden supporters aren’t making the purity arguments.

Biden shares the name recognition advantage but he hasn’t done fundraising for himself since the 2008 primaries. Bernie has donor lists from 2016 and 2018 and Warren has lists from 2018. Both have cash in hand from their 2018 Senate campaigns. I know you scoff at that but it makes them 1%ers in fundraising and gives them a huge advantage that it’s difficult for new candidates to overcome. And we’ve seen that even Biden has had trouble fundraising.

TownieDeac said:
I'd also like to know more about the systemic racism of fundraising if you have anything I can read.
Click to expand...

It basically comes down to what she said. Think of the inherent racism in any type of fundraising. People tend to reach out to friends and family first. Then their broader work and friend networks and people their friends know.

Les Grossman said:
I can only imagine the giggles over at the RNC as they watch Dems wring their hands over whether their fundraising is “pure” enough.
Click to expand...

Seriously. We need to beat them at their rigged game and then change the rules instead of losing with purity.
 
PhDeac said:
A few reasons with respect to this discussion:

Biden supporters aren’t making the purity arguments.

Biden shares the name recognition advantage but he hasn’t done fundraising for himself since the 2008 primaries. Bernie has donor lists from 2016 and 2018 and Warren has lists from 2018. Both have cash in hand from their 2018 Senate campaigns. I know you scoff at that but it makes them 1%ers in fundraising and gives them a huge advantage that it’s difficult for new candidates to overcome. And we’ve seen that even Biden has had trouble fundraising.



It basically comes down to what she said. Think of the inherent racism in any type of fundraising. People tend to reach out to friends and family first. Then their broader work and friend networks and people their friends know.



Seriously. We need to beat them at their rigged game and then change the rules instead of losing with purity.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between openly deceiving people and discussions about purity. If Buttigieg had just been honest from the start, then I doubt anybody would care. He represented himself as a progressive who wouldn't take money from special interests, lobbyists, etc. and here we are.
 
Strickland33 said:
There's a difference between openly deceiving people and discussions about purity. If Buttigieg had just been honest from the start, then I doubt anybody would care. He represented himself as a progressive who wouldn't take money from special interests, lobbyists, etc. and here we are.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top