Who is your third choice for the Democratic nomination?

Biden

I will vote for the nominee regardless of who it is. We have got to end this hell.

Bloomberg.

Bloomberg

I suppose in retrospect this isn’t a very interesting question, but I asked it nonetheless.

I’m with @Hawaii_Jake I will vote for literally anybody—even Bernie or Biden—over Trump. I don’t like Biden because he never took responsibility for the way he treated Anita Hill. I don’t like Bloomberg because I think he is totally out of touch with non gazillionaires (I’m not a fan of the soda tax). But I’d certainly vote for him.

I’m not a huge fan of Warren’s policies, but she’s super smart, and I’m somewhat voting identity this year—Two of my top three choices are women and I think it’s time to break that glass barrier. (That said, Bloomberg is Jewish and that’s another barrier, but so is Bernie).

Sanders

Warren.

@hmmmmmm I would have thought your first choice is Sanders.

^ It is.

@hmmmmmm Got it. Bernie or bust?

^ Very much so.

Fair enough, thanks for answering!

Tom Steyer.

I took the NY Times questionnaire. The first three candidates that have policy congruent with me are Warren, Sanders, and Steyer.

My brother was a paralegal doing work for Steyer back in the 90’s, found him brilliant and dedicated.

I haven’t thought that far ahead. :P

I think any of them would be at least a decent president. I don’t have apocalyptic apprehensions about any of them (but then I don’t have them about Trump either). I guess at this point it’s Gabbard, Buttigieg, Sanders in that order. Warren and Biden just underwhelm me spectacularly, but I’d probably vote for them over Trump.

Sanders

@zenvolo that’s good to know. As you know he had been painting our airwaves here in California

It would be 3rd party. If it’s not Bernie, then Trump will win anyways. Given that, my vote will do more good trying to prop up an alternative to the neoliberal dumpster fire that the Democratic Party has devolved into.

Just to be crystal clear, this isn’t a sour-grapes position for me, and I certainly don’t make that decision lightly. I fully understand the nightmare that 8 years of Trump would entail. It’s a calculated vote based on trying to maximize the long-term outcome for the country. I take the warnings from climate scientists very seriously. If the Democratic Party is going to shut down The Green New Deal to prop up fauxgressives, or corporatists who only pay lip-service and half-measures to fight climate change, then the only rational course is to fight like hell to make a 3rd party viable. I see it as an existential threat. We need to treat this like we did the Nazi threat. I only see one candidate in the Democratic Primary willing to approach climate change on that level.

@gorillapaws I hope you’re right, but I fear you are wrong. 4 years ago you said more or less the same thing. How will you (it’s a general handwaving to “you” on my left) react if as I fear Bernie loses in a landslide? It’s why I asked my other (now modded) socialism question. “Socialism” is such a feared word for people that Trump will use it over and over again and attempt to crush him. Don’t underestimate the stupidity of the populace.

@Caravanfan – I think the problem is that the data just doesn’t back up your fears. Yes, the pundits, corporate media, and corporate Democrats are attempting (yet again) to make this point. But there are a few problems with it.

1. Obama – He was our first “socialist” “Muslim” president. This happened many years ago before “socialist” had lost some of its horror. “But he isn’t really a socialist!” Of course not. He’s the epitome of modern neoliberalism.

But neither is Bernie. He’s a former actual leftist who identified as Democratic Socialist in the past and had much better positions. He understands, however, that one of the reasons he’s the most popular senator and leading the primary is because people correctly see him as authentic, and he pushes back. He still self-identifies as “Democratic Socialist” and continually pushes centrist (popular) positions. He’s an old-school New Deal style Social Democrat, but is not afraid of being labeled “socialist”.

This is part of the beauty of what he’s been able to do. He not only can bring people who have been taught to fear the word “socialism” in due to supporting a re-alignment of the Democratic party towards working class issues – he’s been successful at taking away one of the best propaganda tools the capitalist class has had in decades (red scare).

2. Yes, it’s going to be tough – however, the fight is not going to be with Trump. The Democratic party has been masks-off and is completely willing to lose if Bernie is the nominee, because then nothing will fundamentally change for them. They will still have their party and donor base of the rich. And if Bernie were to lose, the narrative would be that “we tried” to run a left candidate, “and look what happened”.

Note that this self-reflection has never occurred the other direction. Despite all of the polling showing that Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump in 2016, the corporate media, DNC, and Clinton machine decided to take the chance with running a riskier candidate (Clinton). They sold it as the “safe” choice, and spent months lecturing people not to fall into the “purity” trap. In other words, don’t vote for the policies and positions that you support. Rather, just vote the Republican-lite candidate.

We know what happened. Just like we know what happened with Gore and Kerry. At no point did the Democratic party re-evaluate their position – because they don’t need to. The population is held hostage to a two-corporate-party system that sells us on “lesser of two evils”. They’ll offer you a bland “moderate” or Republican-lite and sell it by vote-shaming or saying “would you rather the alternative?”

From this perspective, the real problem is the Democratic party. It’s why the left is always battling with liberals. We see them as the firewall that keeps real progress and working class concerns from entering public discourse and policy. It’s unsustainable, and quite unpopular. Only 27% of voters identify as Democrat. The largest group is “Independent”.

3. The polls clearly show that Sanders has the independent vote. If the Democrats presumably want to beat Trump and feel that he’s really the worst thing to ever happen to the country, are you proposing that Democrats still won’t vote for Bernie? Bernie’s not going to get too many Republican votes, but Democrats and independents should sufficient, as the data shows. Additionally, if Bernie is successful at motivating some of the nearly-50% of the non-voters to get out to vote, it will be easy.

This is a different strategy than the never-Bernie corporate class is proposing. Recall Schumer’s “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat”. They bet on continually losing the blue-collar workers to Republicans in order to pick up Republicans. This didn’t happen, won’t happen, and shouldn’t happen. Why does the Democratic party exist if not to be an opposition party?

@hmmmmmm You make @Caravanfan’s point with your #1 Obama was not a socialist nor Muslim, but that’s mantra that played in many circles. I’d say the Muslim thing was only among a smaller group of religious right, but the socialist scare was much broader across many conservatives and especially it affects Hispanics from certain countries.

The difference will be, Bernie actually uses the word socialist, so even Democrats and independents who called bullshit on Obama being a socialist can’t walk away from the label with Bernie.

^ I suggest you reread what I wrote. And look up who won in 2008 and 2012.

Additionally, you might want to check out which candidate has the largest latinx support.

Thanks, Tom. That helps me understand your point of view and where you will be coming from if Bernie loses. (I hope he doesn’t). I promise not to bring it up again.

@hmmmmmm In which states does he have Latin support? I basically am part of the Latin American community across a few states, even though I personally am not Latin American.

Anyway, I hope you’re right.

Just curious, where do you live and what race or ethnicity are you? Are you just looking at polls?

Wow. My response, which answered the question, was moderated. I am guessing it offended the moderators position.

Once again, my 3rd choice is Biden.

@filmfann Thanks! I was wondering what was moderated and why? It was not a controversial question.

Here is my problem with Biden or Sanders. Warren is a few years younger, but not much.

@Caravanfan “…4 years ago you said more or less the same thing…”

I was right 4 years ago. Back then, I correctly predicted that Clinton would fail in the rust belt and that the delegate math would make it impossible for her to win. Everyone told me I was crazy. I also made the calculation that a 3rd party vote was better for the long term health of the planet than a vote for Clinton, even if that meant enduring 4 years of Trump, because that meant a better chance at a Green New Deal candidate being elected sooner. Given Bernie’s massive polling lead (and barring any fuckery from the party), it seems like I was also right in this calculation too.

I understand that some people fear that the “socialism” label will be viewed by many as being completely radioactive and disqualifying, thereby guaranteeing Trump the victory. I think @hmmmmmm did a great job rebutting this point. I would just reiterate a few of his points. First, the Republicans will use that label against any Democratic nominee, no matter how accurate it is. The candidate will deny it and all of a sudden they’re already on defense and playing into the hands of Trump’s narrative and framing. They will look apologetic, weak and dishonest (like they’re trying to hide something). On the other hand, by rebranding “Democratic Socialism” Bernie has the opportunity to define the boundaries of the narrative. Instead of appearing evasive, he can use that as an opportunity to pitch his popular (even with Republicans) agenda. He can turn an attack of “you’re a socialist” into “Here’s why that’s a good thing.” That’s a massive advantage against Trump.

The other major advantage of being attacked on socialism is Bernie can reverse the attack (as he did in the Nevada Debate): “Trump is ALSO a socialist—but he’s a socialist for the billionaires.” He can also bring up all of the good socialist things that Americans already love like Social Security, public libraries, fire departments, free K-12 education etc.

I think there’s an inherent misunderstanding in the analysis from the moderates that are advocating that a moderate has a better chance of winning. It’s this idea that independents/undecided voters (who are the largest plurality of the electorate) are up-for-grabs in-between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Independent voters aren’t in the center. INACURATE framing:
Democrat <—> Independent <—> Republican

Reality:
Independent <—> Democrat <—> Independent <—> Republican <—> Independent

Under the false model, pushing to the center is the obvious strategy. But it’s bogus. Here’s a great article from FiveThirtyEight breaking down the demographics on this subject, and I think it’s really important for those pushing for the “moderate middle compromise” to understand. The Moderate Middle is a Myth

”Moderate, independent and undecided voters are not the same, and none of these groups are reliably centrist. They are ideologically diverse…”

Only 2.4% of the electorate are “moderate”, “Independent”, and “undecided.” Furthermore, even that group is evenly mixed on the issues.

In many ways I consider myself a moderate. For example, I think Medicare for All is the natural progression of what the Democratic party began with the New Deal. It’s the standard in every other modern nation and supported by the majority of Americans, which makes it pretty mainstream imo. I don’t think it’s radical to say that everyone in America should have an equal opportunity to succeed, including guaranteeing a great education and the basic necessities like food and shelter so she can grow up to maximize her potential (and ultimately tax revenue to help pay it forward for the next generation of kids). I think if you work full time, your employer should be paying you a living wage, especially if your employer is a multi-billion dollar corporation that raked in record profits the previous quarter. I think most Americans would consider that a “no-brainer” position.

Bernie is by far the most electable vs. Trump. A status-quo moderate will get eviscerated. Bernie does incredibly well in the rust belt, which is where this election will be won/lost.

Regarding his health, don’t you think Bernie has enough integrity to step aside for his VP if he was facing mental heath issues? I really don’t see him as a power-hungry egomaniac, madly clutching to power as his mental faculties rapidly decline. I’m pretty certain Bernie will pick a VP that he has full confidence in to back him up.

I hope you guys are right.

Here is an interesting article on Bloomberg. It won’t make Tom and Gorilla happy, but I didn’t write it.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-memo-to-mike-bloomberg-20200222-v4fuckgwena3zlijlqlu6rod6u-story.html

^ Yeah, we know who Rick Wilson is. Not sure why I’d want to read a Republican propagandist’s thoughts on anything.

@hmmmmmm Well, I read everything from all sides of the political spectrum. I wouldn’t vote for Bloomberg as my first choice for the same reason I wouldn’t vote for Bernie or Biden.

You’d be surprised how much I read. However, what you’re proposing is to not read a “perspective”. This is a well-known propaganda technique that the corporate media use. It’s often called the inexplicable Republican best friend (Ricky is even mentioned here). Its target is the low-information voter, and is not meant to provide any insight for any “side”.

Additionally, the “sides” here are the mass of people who want healthcare, etc. The other side is the Republican party, the Democratic party, the corporate media, corporations, etc. Bernie is already the compromise. And anyone who had any illusions that the capitalism was compatible with Democracy are seeing exactly what happens when even the smallest threat to capital exists. The all-out propaganda assault from MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc is completely masks-off. And this is in the context of what would have been inconceivable a couple of years ago: a multi-billionaire buying his nomination*.

* As I’ve said before, I don’t think the goal is for Bloomberg to win the nomination, although it’s possible for him to be appointed during a contested convention. This is really just a sound financial investment on his part. He’s spending $7,000,000 per day to stop Sanders. If he can pull it off, it would be to his (tax) advantage.

Give me a perspective that I haven’t heard. If you feel that Rick has something that can be pulled from the article, summarize it for me and explain why it is worth considering. Thanks.

They’re all still too old.

@Caravanfan From the article: “The fact that about 12% of [Bernie’s] voters went for Trump in 2016 is a permanent screw-you to the establishment Democratic Party.”

What this is ignoring is that a large chunk of Bernie’s support were Republicans and independents. They were never going to vote for Clinton. The author is right that this is an economic fight. When 60% of the country earns $40k or less, my money is on the populist.

I think the biggest fear the “Blue-no-matter-who” crowd should have is Bernie winning a plurality of delegates (but not a majority) and the race becomes a brokered convention. If the candidates and party insiders decide to give the nomination to someone else, it’s going to destroy the Democratic Party; Trump will win in a landslide. I believe this is the current strategy.

I also think Bloomberg is hoping for this scenario. IMO this race for Bloomberg isn’t to defeat Trump, but to defeat Bernie at all costs (to protect his wealth). From his perspective:

1. He wins and defeats Trump: great, he’s the most powerful man in the world.
2. He wins and loses to Trump: pretty good, he saved himself Billions.
3. He wins through shenanigans with the DNC and superdelegates, destroying the party in the process and loses to Trump: great, he’s basically a Republican anyways, and still saved himself Billions.
4. Bernie wins a majority and beats Trump: Nightmare, income taxes, wealth taxes and estate taxes will eat up a huge chunk of his $60 billion net worth.

From his perspective, it’s the financial smart play to run and spend huge chunks of money trying to prevent a Sanders presidency. Winning/defeating Trump is a secondary benefit.

Given this, the polling, and the fact that a brokered convention (with all of its chaos) and high likelihood of a resulting Trump victory is a strong possibility, I would argue that “Blue-no-matter-who” Democrats‘ most rational course of action is to try to get Bernie over the 50% delegate count.

@gorillapaws As I have said mutliple times, if Bernie wins the nomination, I will support him. I voted for Amy Klobuchar as a good friend of mine has worked very closely with her but she is unlikely to win. As I have also said multiple times I am wary of electing an elderly person.

Buahahahaaaa!
@hmmmmmm Tom you’re going to love this one. Chris Matthews compared Sanders win in Nevada to the Nazi takeover of France. What a fucking idiot.

https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1231353034447507461?s=20