If Biden doesn't run, who do you think should be the Democratic nominee?

Oprah.

Kamila Harris

Too soon to tell who will emerge.

Nina Turner. We’re long overdue for some integrity and intensity on the left in this country. Marianne Williamson would be another I’d support (though I don’t agree with her affinity for naturalistic bullshit). I’ll be voting Green again if we get another corporatist like Kamala, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, etc. That’s an extremely risky bet to try to keep running the 90’s era playbook of “let’s compromise with Republicans and maybe THIS time it will work…” after 25 years of it NOT working.

People are desperate for change and doing nothing—maintaining the current rate of decline as the clock runs out on the environment, and the share of wealth of the middle class in American continues to be siphoned to billionaires, is a great way to get Trump 2.0 or worse.

This is where the different shades of left come out. Gorilla and I agree on most issues but our nominee choice is reflected in our own shade. He’s a Nina Turner fan. I’m an Amy Klobuchar fan. But I’m a centrist free trading capitalist corporatist and Gorilla, decidedly, is not. :-)

(Just to head you guys off at the pass, I don’t have the time to debate my politics right now as I have to start a D&D game). If Nina Turner were to be the nominee I will gladly support her.

I certainly wouldn’t vote for Klobuchar (or Biden or Harris) in any scenario. But I’m also not a Democrat, and voted Democrat for the last time in the primaries for Bernie. It was the last chance the left had of infiltrating the right-wing corporate Democratic party, and it failed. After 2016 and 2020, even my liberal Democratic friends are done, and get it now.

(As someone who will not vote for a Democrat, if you guys want anyone left of center to vote Democrat, I’d suggest someone like Nina Turner. That is not going to happen, however. They successfully stopped the Sanders movement multiple times. It’s over.)

The party is descending into the dragon’s lair and are about to take on the dragon.

@Caravanfan: “The party is descending into the dragon’s lair…”

The “party” is but one party with two wings that are dependent on each other. They are the same people with the same core beliefs and values. The “issues” that they differ on are exaggerated and used to pretend that there are two distinct parties. There just isn’t. It’s all owned by the same dragon.

EDIT: saw that “party” meant D&D and not political party. Ooops. Still stands though. :)

Ellen Degeneres. She will have the time seeing this is her last season for her show.

@Caravanfan It’s also an example of how I can vehemently disagree with your position but have immense respect for you and your opinions. (I hope you have an awesome game—what kind of dragon is it?)

There are a ton of shades on the left, you’re right about that. Moving from most extreme left to right:
1. Tankies (i.e. your authoritarian communists)

2. Marxists (pushing for a post-Capitalist, economy with co-ops as exemplified by Mondragon Corporation and a more decentralized, libertarian-style government).

3. Happy middle of democratic socialism like the Scandinavian model. Still capitalist, but supports co-ops, labor, and a robust social-safety net. They make large, universal investments in education and healthcare to maximize productivity, wellbeing, equality of opportunity, and general happiness of the population. There is still a huge difference between the richest and the poorest, but with high social mobility scores, the idea of “making it if you try” is way more realistic than in America. This ought to be the metric America optimizes for IMO. I’m probably most closely aligned with this shade of left.

4. “Classic blue-collar Democrat” I’d say this is the pre-Bill Clinton, pro-union, capitalist, who leans protectionist. This is the iron smelter in PA who used to be a rock-solid blue vote. They may be gun owners, they despise elitism and wine caves, are weary of corporate mergers and the aggregation of power, are keenly aware of the diminishing strength of unions in the nation, and have been evaporating from the party since NAFTA.

5. Neo-liberal, pro-corporate, globalists who believe the free market will produce the best outcomes. They pursue balanced budgets, and austerity. They are mostly concerned with social issues on the left. such as LGBTQ+, racial social equality (less so with the economic racial equality), women’s rights, etc.

6. Ex-Republicans who want the Democratic Party to become a more polite version of 90’s-era Republican policy with a smattering of support for social issues on the left.

Black dragon. Breaths acid
I’m #5 in your list. Although I don’t believe in balanced budget and austerity.

Update. Dragon killed one character but the character got saved.

Doesn’t Klobuchar have the problem of not taking police brutality against Black people seriously enough in her previous held position?

@hat You won’t vote for a Democrat, then who are you voting for? You don’t want to participate in the primaries? You aren’t going to vote when the final candidates are chosen? You think Nina Turner would win? The Independents will vote for her?

@JLeslie We’ve been through this for the past two election cycles. @hat will probably vote Green. Please don’t give him crap about it, he holds to his principles.

No crap from me. Just interested in people’s opinions.

Game update, they slew the dragon!

Clinton.

Donald Trump.

Proven winner. Used to be a Democrat, and could switch back again. Good anti-war credentials (dodged the draft).

People voted for trump because he was the guy on TV. He was on Home Alone back in the day.

I barely recognize any of the names in this thread, because I work and avoid cable and live my life, so that means some others won’t either.

I loved when Andrew Yang brought up UBI (Universal Basic Income), but then I thought of all the dumb people back in my home town that are just gonna see “Asian man giving away money”.

But if we keep seeing their faces more, hopefully they’ll continue to make an impact so people will recognize them down the road later on.

Daffy Duck

I’d like to see someone who’s not on their last legs in their late 70’s.

Josh Hawley. During last night’s commission hearing, we all saw just how well he can run.

I like Klobuchar. She has humility, humanity and a great record of getting bills passed.
Harris is hard watch—wooden and so guarded/rehearsed in her responses.

The Bern. First the Bern Last the Bern Always the Bern. Or else take a bow to more MAGA crap. Possibly Beto O’Rourke for VP. Of course that’s Bernie’s call.

@hat Just saw your comment about “party” and I laughed out loud.
Honestly, Gorilla, you and me are not that far apart. I’m totally good with universal health care, free education and strong unions, and I agree that wealth inequity is a huge problem in places. We see it in the Bay Area where houses are unaffordable if you’re not upper middle class.

@hat I wonder how large the left of center who won’t vote for the Democratic nominee is? Compared to an Independent who will vote for a Democrat depending on who is running.

@JLeslie I anticipate there will be a large number of people not voting for the Democratic nominee this time around. Certainly if it’s Biden or Harris (Or Klobichar whom I like for that matter) the Democrats will be crushed like a bug. As much as I really dislike populism, I think that a populist candidate will be the Democrat’s only hope. Otherwise nobody will show up and a Trumpist will win again.

@JLeslie “I wonder how large the left of center who won’t vote for the Democratic nominee is? Compared to an Independent who will vote for a Democrat depending on who is running.”

This chart may help. It’s from an article The Moderate Middle Is A Myth. The idea of a single axis between left and right with the independents inhabiting the space between the R and the D is just an inaccurate mental model for the US electorate. There are many people who identify as independent, moderate, and undecided who are absolutely not in between the R & D on a linear axis. For example, I voted for Howie Hawkins in 2020. I would describe myself as “independent,” “moderate” (on a Political Compass I’m moderately left of center and libertarian leaning), and “undecided” (until Biden chose Harris as his VP). I suspect you wouldn’t characterize someone writing in a Green Party vote as a “moderate independent.”

There are many dimensions to politics and the electorate is not as polar left/right on a simplistic axis as you may (or the media would have you) believe. Remember that Bernie actually appealed to a lot of Republican voters despite being much further left than Clinton.

I do think you’re asking the right questions. How important is pandering to a tiny sliver of the electorate that dangles between the imaginary R & D line, vs. inspiring and mobilizing the dejected left that’s been punched in the face for decades and has lost all hope and faith in the Democratic Party? Is it even possible to bring them back at this point after repeatedly fucking them over?

@Caravanfan “As much as I really dislike populism, I think that a populist candidate will be the Democrat’s only hope. ”

Like I said in a different thread, you’ve got to provide a healthy political channel for populism or it has the potential to manifest in extremely dangerous ways.

As to your point about inequality, my big fear is how politically destabilizing the concentration of wealth is. It’s getting to the point where billionaires can nullify the electorate’s collective voice and history has shown where that can lead. For example, the bipartisan bill to import prescription drugs from abroad, was extremely popular, would have benefitted public health immensely, and never left the framework of free-market Capitalism was killed by Cory Booker and 12 other Democrats along with the GOP (of course).

@gorillapaws You and I agree here. What Cory Booker and company did was anti-free market.

@gorillapaws I do not consider you independent, moderate, or undecided.

I don’t know how the talking heads on TV categorize people (what definition are they using) and someone’s voting card often has nothing to do with how I would categorize someone. I know a lot of people call themselves independent, but really lean one way or the other, because people define independent in many ways. States with closed primaries you can’t trust voter registration, you have to assume a number of independents pick a party to be able to vote. There are all sorts of reasons for the percentage of error in predicting elections.

People like you, and I guess @hat, I don’t know him as well, will not vote for the Democrat or Republican unless they fit your criteria perfectly. Someone like me, I am a moderate Democrat, I vote more on social issues than anything else. I think civil rights are the most important thing in America, having equality, freedom, safety, and then on fiscal I am moderate I would say, I used to say conservative. I pretty much always vote Democrat, because things like abortion have always been extremely important in my voting, also gay marriage, religious freedom, healthcare, health in general, etc. When a candidate seems fiscally completely out of line with me it bothers me to vote for them, I don’t in the primaries, but luckily most Democrats do care about fiscal stability.

I have Republican friends who have moved to voting Democrat, because the Republicans have moved so far right. Maybe they identify as Independent now, I don’t know. That would be an interesting question. I wonder how they identify now. The Republicans moving so far right has meant they have lost some people. Those people might move back to voting Republican if the Republicans put in reasonable candidates, or they might not vote at all if the Democrats put in a very extreme left candidate.

@JLeslie: “People like you, and I guess @hat, I don’t know him as well, will not vote for the Democrat or Republican unless they fit your criteria perfectly.”

I can’t go over this yet again. We’ve been through this for so many years, yet you still don’t understand. The reason you think that someone on the left wouldn’t vote Democrat unless they “fit their criteria perfectly” is that you were sold this idea by a propaganda machine that made sure to make anyone left-of-center seem irrational and dangerous. And by “left-of-center”, I mean anyone who goes against the Rep/Dem party.

Just a reminder – the wing of the party that does the most offense against the left is the Democratic party. The Democratic party is a radical right-wing party that exists to serve capital. The other wing of this corporate party (Republican) because its protected by the Democratic wing. To repeat – if you dislike the Republican party, you necessarily have to dislike the Democratic party. There is no way around that without some serious delusion.

And as we’ve gone over a million times here – Clinton was not just some “imperfect” candidate that people left of center refused to vote for out of bourgeois principle. Clinton is literally what we have all been fighting against for decades. Whether it was her ultra-imperial right-wing militaristic views, her anti-worker efforts in supporting the free trade investors rights agreements (NAFTA, TPP, etc), her fight against free public college, her fight against single-payer (yes, against), her support for DOMA, her overall support of an economic system that is anti-Democratic and incompatible with the survival of the planet, and her successful efforts to keep the Democratic party as a vile anti-worker, anti-left, anti-environment arm of global capital – voting for her meant literally voting for literally every single thing I am opposed to.

And yes – when Sanders finally decided to make a run at changing the Democratic party, those of us who are excluded finally decided there could be a small chance at actually changing something, so we dove in. The fact that the Democratic party machine crushed the uprising wasn’t too shocking. But the continued delusion from many Democrats is certainly disappointing. They chose Trump over Sanders. That is what the election was. Period. They fought against someone who could beat (statistically and objectively) in order to maintain control of their right-wing corporate Democratic party. They fought against me so my friends and family would be unable to have health care. The Democratic party is my enemy. You need to understand this.

So, when you suddenly discovered that there are people out there who are not right-wing maniacs like yourself, you were stumped. Your diet of corporate news had inoculated you against an opposing ideology. I don’t blame you, but you’re old enough and I suspect you have the time do some actual research. Please don’t regurgitate the “perfection” argument to anyone who isn’t as fucking privileged as you. Please don’t vote-shame someone who doesn’t vote. If you want to affect change and you believe in your wing of the Party, shame them. Shame them for not giving people a reason to vote for them. At some point, all of the punching down appears to be nothing but misanthropy.

@JLeslie “I do not consider you independent, moderate, or undecided.”

And yet I did. The point is, these labels are nebulous and can be interpreted differently by the people using them.

@JLeslie “People like you, and I guess @hat, I don’t know him as well, will not vote for the Democrat or Republican unless they fit your criteria perfectly.”

That’s not an accurate assessment. It’s one of those focus-grouped lines concocted in a political think tank funded by money from Wall Street executives and regurgitated by the media. It’s a form of propaganda.

So let me be clear: I don’t expect “perfection” or “purity” from the candidates I vote for. I do demand integrity, and that’s not a particularly high bar. I want to have confidence that the person I’m voting for will try in good faith to do what they say they’re going to do and that those things are—broadly speaking—generally policies I agree with. I disagreed with Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein on many issues for example.

A political campaign is essentially a public job interview, and as a hiring manager with a very small say in the decision, the main concern I have is whether they’re going to do the job they say they are. So let’s say I’m hiring someone who’s only job is to push a button when the time comes. The most important criteria when making that hiring decision is whether they’re actually going to push the button when it’s time. If the job applicant is getting lots of checks from other people paying them to NOT push the button, that makes it very hard to have any confidence that they’ll do their job.

The Democratic Party is infested with politicians who campaign on pushing the button, and who won’t do it when the donor rings up the phone and tells them not to. It’s been Manchin and Sinema in the news lately, but I imagine dozens more would join them if they got the phone call (like Booker with the drug bill). That’s why who they take money from is the first thing I look at when evaluating a candidate. It’s not about being “pure” or some misguided idealism, it’s about not wanting saboteurs in your own party. It’s impossible to win a war when the majority of your soldiers are willing to sabotage their own army if they get the call.

Exactly so. @gorillapaws and @hat vote based upon issues regardless of candidate. They’re principled that way.

I’m more squishy. I’ll hold my nose and vote for an inferior candidate as a vote against the other guy I like worse.

Personally, I respect both of them for sticking to their guns (even though in the past I haven’t agreed with them).

@hat I’m not trying to change your mind. I understand your stance.

@gorillapaws I’m surprised you considered yourself any of those labels. I completely agree with you that the jargon can be defined, used, and interpreted in so many different ways that assuming anything is a mistake.

I also wholeheartedly agree about the money problem.

If I take your example, I’m hiring someone to push a button, and that’s the most important part of the job, but they also do some things I don’t like, but get the crucial part done, the button. I’ll hire them in the absence of no one better, because hiring someone who won’t push the button would be even worse. Hiring someone who will break the button even worse. That’s my analogy.