Progressives (Liberals)

So which is it? I have an issue with just one single Bernie follower, or I have an issue with all Bernie followers? At least you admit that Bernie lied, that’s progress.

Yes, demoralization on the left will be disastrous if Trump wins again no matter who the Dem candidate might be.

But you were arguing that Sanders has "re-invented" and "made the Dem party better". "Better" must surely include making it stronger and that's not the case because his candidacy is built in great part on the notion that the party itself is or has been the enemy of citizens with leftist ideals and goals. If that was not the framing of his candidacy, the "Bernie Bros" would have no platform to continue their attacks on Dem party organizations/personnel and on all other candidates.

And it is that oppositional stance to the party which bad actors are pushing as a means to foment dissatisfaction, discord and anger on the left. And those bad actors are doing so not merely to influence this election but also to work serious damage on the Dem coalition. That's why the Sanders' movement is unique and why it is dangerous as it has evolved.

Kevin Sheekey TEXT MIKE TO 80510
@ksheekey
·
8h
Mike delivered the line of the night to Senator Sanders: 'What a wonderful country we have. The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses.’

Ok, I know that thousands of pictures were taken and 99% do not look like this, but I love this one.

I think Sanders has made the Democratic party better, he's refocused it on topics like inequality and representation of the working class. I don't think he should be President, but I can acknowledge the good he has done.

No one can "become stronger" if one rejects accountability and denies any responsibility in one's own problems. The Democrats are not above critique. They are responsible for their own problems and should accept accountability here, to a far greater degree than they do. They need to do some self-criticism and soul searching.

In an effort to occupy the political center, the Dems have drifted away from looking after the concerns and problems of the American working class. Busy as they were to cultivate their links to donors, they forgot about the average Joe. Sanders kicked that anthill in the 2016 primaries already. Faced with that clear diagnostic, the Dems could have done one of two things: 1) deny deny deny and keep business as usual; 2) reconnect to the base and reconstruct a real people's party.

They chose #1.

Now they are paying the price of their inaction: in a striking development, neither of the two candidates currently trending in the Democrat primaries (Sanders and Bloomberg) is a bona fide member of the Democrat Party. This means that currently, close to a majority of Dem-leaning voters are voting or considering to vote for a non-Democrat or another in a Democrat primary process. And mind you, this is a fact, not an opinion from some aloof NYT or WAPO pundit.

This fact points to a failure of the Democrat party to capture and respond to their voters preoccupations.

Listen to the message, rather than shoot the disheveled messenger.

Lee Fang
@lhfang
·
10h
Bloomberg has been through a lot but Bernie telling him on live television that he individually didn’t earn that $60 billion, maybe his workers played a deserving part, must have been a first in his life.

Ryan Grim
@ryangrim
·
11h
How is the South Bend mayor more composed and less nervous than the New York City mayor?

What is the sense of letting these candidates (one of which will be on the ballot in November) rip each other apart on TV? As someone mentioned in the NYT this morning, we know that the Trump campaign is studying all the tapes and getting some great ugly photos and spectacular nasty put-downs which they will gleefully use in the campaign. I don't care what these people think of each other. Let each one make the case for their* qualifications and their* vision for the country. This could be done with a team of moderators asking questions and clarifying responses. I honestly don't see the point in treating this like a WWF extravaganza.

*apologies for using the plural possessive — it really grates on me but I find it slightly preferable to using "he/she". In the future I hope either all the candidates are women or all of them are men so this problem won't arise.

As can I. A strong refocus on Dems' traditional working class/middle class needs was overdue. But that's only one consequence of his candidacy and in this he's little different from Warren. Yet Warren's candidacy is without the often severely oppositional stance with the party.

Because all these positions sound good when the candidate talks them up. Someone has to rebut them for the average voter who doesn't have the time or skill to cut through all the subterfuge. Attacking each other's positions is completely fair game.

Yep, I was a bit taken back when the daggers were out so aggressively from the start. I think it was evident the other contestants greatly resent Bloomberg skating in and gaining ground like he has. At least that what it seemed like. Also I saw a genuine dislike for Mike from Warren, Bernie and Joe.

But you're right, that stuff should be contained, not that last night's debate was any worse than the 2016 republican free-for-all.

Like Trump's success proves that Republican voters are merely responding to a prior failure of the GOP to address their concerns?

I would be very pleased if rationalism played such a role in modern American elections.

I agree. It could be done in the setting I proposed — all the candidates could be asked about specific policies of the others and actually have the time to give a considered response instead of trying to land a right hook and finish with snappy uppercut. The moderators could ask follow-ups and point out problems with logic or consistency.

There's no need for them to personally attack each other.

I agree, I personally was turned off of all the screaming and hollering, not to mention hand waving. At one point he looked red in the face, better watch out Bernie.

Through it all, Bloomberg looked bored and disdainful. I don't know how that will play out.

Biden held his own, is that enough? Who knows. I don't know about any of it.

I believe Oliver has provided us with a very apt, compact and accurate statement of the current situation facing the Democrat Party.

I also believe there are some lessons here for Republicans as well. Recall the first two years of Trump's current term with an uncooperative Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a not-particularly-supportive Speaker Ryan leading the House. The fact is that Trump is not much better a refection of traditional Republican values and policies than is Bernie or Mike of Democrats. Both parties have strayed from their previous platforms in their selection of presidential candidates; the Republicans in 2016 with Trump; and very likely the Democrats in 2020 with Sanders or Bloomberg.

Is this a misguided departure from valued lasting positions or merely a somewhat unruly adaptation to a changing situation in the country? I believe there are elements of both in it for both parties, and only the future will tell us their relative measures … and that truth may take a fairly long time to reveal itself.

Competition is the main driving force in human affairs, whether economic, political social or in the case of conflicts, military. Attempts to evade the adverse effects of such competition or rule it out generally fail as soon as the stakes are high enough. History provides ample confirmation of this.

Competition among candidates in a political contest follows the same rule: one would wish that the selection among many contending candidates for a party's Presidential nomination could be done with civil decorum and without injury to any of them. However when the stakes are high competition rules. That was as evident in the Republican primary in 2016 as it is in the Democrat Primary now.

It appears to me that, in the case of both parties, changing external circumstances have created new challenges for each, and the process for resolving them has been unruly for both of them. As in Gloria Gaynor's song, both will likely survive in a system that favors two principal political parties.

I think we can count on Trump and right wing media to now launch renewed attacks on Warren. Not merely because she apparently performed very well last night but more particularly because she performed so well against Bloomberg. That is maybe Trump's greatest weakness come the debates and in the election.

I continue to believe that if Warren were to win the nomination, she has the very real capacity to motivate women voters more than any other candidate. And I believe that this is the Dem's greatest hope for the future - more women voting, more women activists and more women office holders.

I personally would welcome a Warren nomination as Democrat candidate. However the process for getting there right now appears to be both unlikely and to involve very destructive conflicts among various factions in the party. Taking Bernie out at this stage appears to be a very difficult and disruptive challenge. It could work if the goal is to field a more moderate and likely winning candidate - but even there with some difficulty and risk. However knocking off Bernie to select a female political clone appears to me to be a political impossibility now. Finally I don't think Democrats would be pleased with the result of the final election, if they select her.

Roger Stone's sentencing now underway. Stone's lawyers are of course arguing (as has Trump and most other right wing voices) that the sentence, which falls within federal sentencing guidelines, is much too harsh. But I'll remind that Barr, in his confirmation hearings, stated that these guidelines should be followed (I posted the transcript portion several days ago). I gather this man of great legal integrity now finds that prior statement non-operational now.

Edit: All moot of course as Trump will pardon him. Why?

1) because he's a sociopath
2) because he has to, as a function of his personality, always demonstrate that he can bully anyone at any time to get what he wants - allies are protected regardless and critics are punish regardless. Trump does a variation on the old Christian cliche - "What would Stalin do?"
3) just imagine how much Stone has on Trump.

Trump was the lone "outsider" in the 2016 republican primaries, and he won. That may say something about voter's dissatisfaction with 'politics as usual' from the republicans. Now in the 2020 democrat primaries there are not one but two outsiders on the winning track. And you think it means nothing, huh?