Democrat US Presidential Nominations

Ban-jani said:
Yeah I mean presidential.

I love the United States and the principles in which it’s democracy was founded.

It’s far superior to our House of Lords and the history with the monarchy.

Some of the people, like in Britain, have used the freedom of choice to make poor decisions, that’s all.
Click to expand...

And the GOP has rigged the system to give more influence to those that can be easily influenced and will likely make poor decisions.
 
SWP's back said:
No it isn’t. It’s attack ad after attack ad and the candidate with the biggest financial backers invariably win.

It’s an appalling system.
Click to expand...

Most post was mainly into the principles in which it was founded, as opposed to the abuse of the system now.

The country was founded upon something greater than the systems in this country.
 
CityInWashingtonState said:
The worst possible outcome is that
1) a socialist emerges as the Democratic nominee - I'm massively anti-Trump, but, I, like many Americans, would think twice before voting for a socialist;
2) a left-leaning candidate runs as a independent - siphoning off votes from whoever is the Democratic nominee.

It's close enough as to whether a Democrat will win or lose the 2020 election - Trump will solidify his base once more going into the presidential vote. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are already in favor of Trump.

So - as a rabid anti-Trumper, I fervently hope that a sympathetic/liked/reasonable - dare I say charismatic? - centrist Democrat runs and that any independent is right-leaning.
Click to expand...

From the outside, looking in, I think you're wrong as I've said before (we're not having a fight here).

I think that having watched the correlation between our countries, it seems that messaging gets over BETTER in the US than the UK.

In the extremely short time that AOC has had a platform, she's turned politics on its head. It's interesting that Sanders has said almost as much before and rippled out waves, but AOC has turned out tidal waves. You have to ask WHY this has happened.

I think AOC's decision to knuckle up has paid huge dividends as the DEMs have been too nice before.

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

I think it's helped that Progressive voices have helped people take the political Red Pill when it comes to capitalism and how their hard work in making someone else's fortune barely pays their bills. That point is crucial and is a point that Kamala Harris championed in her town hall meeting. This is someone in the top echelon of the Dem party espousing such 'leftist' views.

Remember I said a while back centrists are stealing from Progressives as they have popular viewpoints. Of course medicare-for-all was virtually nonexistent outside of Sanders original championing! Now it's a staple diet for them.

The DEMs have actually realised how out of touch they are, hence the sudden amount of senators pledging a change of whom they represent.

They cannot serve two masters; the voters that vote them in to make a real difference to their lives or the Big Corp that pay them their fortunes.

SWP's back said:
What’s your definition of socialist? Because they way Americans say the word makes me think you equate it with communist.
Click to expand...

Something I, too, have, mentioned before and it holds true, this brainwashing.
 
Bigga said:
From the outside, looking in, I think you're wrong as I've said before (we're not having a fight here).

I think that having watched the correlation between our countries, it seems that messaging gets over BETTER in the US than the UK.

In the extremely short time that AOC has had a platform, she's turned politics on its head. It's interesting that Sanders has said almost as much before and rippled out waves, but AOC has turned out tidal waves. You have to ask WHY this has happened.

I think AOC's decision to knuckle up has paid huge dividends as the DEMs have been too nice before.

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

I think it's helped that Progressive voices have helped people take the political Red Pill when it comes to capitalism and how their hard work in making someone else's fortune barely pays their bills. That point is crucial and is a point that Kamala Harris championed in her town hall meeting. This is someone in the top echelon of the Dem party espousing such 'leftist' views.

Remember I said a while back centrists are stealing from Progressives as they have popular viewpoints. Of course medicare-for-all was virtually nonexistent outside of Sanders original championing! Now it's a staple diet for them.

The DEMs have actually realised how out of touch they are, hence the sudden amount of senators pledging a change of whom they represent.

They cannot serve two masters; the voters that vote them in to make a real difference to their lives or the Big Corp that pay them their fortunes.



Something I, too, have, mentioned before and it holds true, this brainwashing.
Click to expand...
Having not lived in the States, you don't have full, personal context.

And there's an echo chamber going on here - if I'm not mistaken - viewpoints supporting your beliefs are given high credence - opposing viewpoints are devalued.

You need to separate what you would like to happen - from what will actually most likely happen. These things are absolutely not the same - and are likely diametrically opposite when you assess US politics.

This is my perspective - not as an outsider trying to grasp what's going on - but as a US Citizen who has a fairly good idea about what's actually transpiring.
===
I'm 90% certain that a Socialist - running against Trump in 2020 would lose the election - probably by double digits.

Here's why:

1) Popular vote does not decide who wins presidential elections in the States, rather it's an electoral college system;
2) The electoral college - due to gerrymandering - favors conservative candidates - like Trump;
3) Older people vote much more frequently than younger people. Among older voters socialism is conflated with communism - many folks over 50 would never vote for a socialist regardless of their opinions about Trump - some subset of these putative anti-Trump voters will absolutely vote for Trump if the alternative is socialism;
4) America is very, very, very pro capitalism, at least among voters over the age of 40 (i.e., those most likely to vote) - the antithesis of which - is socialism;
5) The Democratic platform is pro-woman's rights - in favor of abortion except when past a certain stage of pregnancy where it seems that abortion is tantamount to killing a reasoning being (a highly-charged, controversial subject). But many US citizens are 100% opposed to abortion on any grounds whatsoever. A Democrat will never receive any vote from those with these beliefs - among which you can count devout Baptists, Evangelicals, Mormon's, Catholics, etc.

With due respect - there's virtually no chance that a socialist running against Trump in 2020 stands more than a snowball's chance in hell of becoming our next president. Unfortunately, a socialist stands a very good chance of becoming the Democratic nominee for our highest office.
 
Last edited:
The amount of people throwing their hats into the ring I might have to change the title to which Democrat isn't running for President.
 
CityInWashingtonState said:
Having not lived in the States, you don't have full, personal context.

And there's an echo chamber going on here - if I'm not mistaken - viewpoints supporting your beliefs are given high credence - opposing viewpoints are devalued.

You need to separate what you would like to happen - from what will actually most likely happen. These things are absolutely not the same - and are likely diametrically opposite when you assess US politics.

This is my perspective - not as an outsider trying to grasp what's going on - but as a US Citizen who has a fairly good idea about what's actually transpiring.
===
I'm 90% certain that a Socialist - running against Trump in 2020 would lose the election - probably by double digits.

Here's why:

1) Popular vote does not decide who wins presidential elections in the States, rather it's an electoral college system;
2) The electoral college - due to gerrymandering - favors conservative candidates - like Trump;
3) Older people vote much more frequently than younger people. Among older voters socialism is conflated with communism - many folks over 50 would never vote for a socialist regardless of their opinions about Trump - some subset of these putative anti-Trump voters will absolutely vote for Trump if the alternative is socialism;
4) America is very, very, very pro capitalism, at least among voters over the age of 40 (i.e., those most likely to vote) - the antithesis of which - is socialism.

With due respect - there's virtually no chance that a socialist running against Trump in 2020 stands more than a snowball's chance in hell of becoming our next president. Unfortunately, a socialist stands a very good chance of becoming the Democratic nominee for our highest office.
Click to expand...

Myself and SWP's Back have already noted the strange attachment to communism any 'socialist' angle takes, so that part of the conversation is a given.

What I, myself, notices is that the older gen are in deep support of the 'socialist' offering of medicare, the police, army, firefighters etc. and what I don't see, very well, is the support argument of how their taxes pay for this. This is almost an auto acceptance over there, that doesn't need thinking about. This is GOV 'handout' that they 'hate so much'!!

I'm unsure why this is shaky ground to traverse for DEMs! Progressives have no qualm in this explanation as this is just an expansion on the system already to to draw in better taxes from those that shirk that responsibility. That message could be louder from the DEMs and is starting.

I think the Red States are just digging their heels in even if #45's policies are hurting them in the long run as they think #45 will turn it around, this year.

I think there will be a new economy pathway in the next two years, not dependant on US-China tradings, but finding alternatives. I'm not sure how it will happen, but the world's economy is pretty unstable as countries are starting to wake up some(this is part of why I don't think BREXIT is in a bad position, actually).

Anyway, the point is that the DEMs are leaning left as the pull of the people is leading them that way AND REPs are in fear of that direction.

You may well be right at the groundswell position, but seeing a the pic from afar gives me a more general sense of things that you may not appreciate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.