The Democratic Presidential Debates

mickeyrat said:

@benjs , thought I read you were seeking or have gained US citizenship? Do I have that right?

I ask because I find you to be intelligent, thoughtful, critically thinking, and a host of other positive attributes. You are the kind of voter in general I personally welcome, no matter your politics....

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

@benjs , thought I read you were seeking or have gained US citizenship? Do I have that right?

I ask because I find you to be intelligent, thoughtful, critically thinking, and a host of other positive attributes. You are the kind of voter in general I personally welcome, no matter your politics....

Thanks Mickeyrat, appreciate it! I'm a dual citizen automatically as my dad hadn't revoked his US citizenship when I was born in Canada, I just don't have any legal US ID of any form. No SS number, haven't filed taxes there, no passport, etc.

That said, great thing about the internet is it doesn't really matter where I am. One of my goals for this year is to toughen up and post content on Medium - mostly politics, analytics, data science, programming - pretty much anything but sports. Hopefully I can come up with some stuff that resonates with others! 

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

For some in this thread:

https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1219815785369042944

I'd still love to see your answer to my comment about how Sanders gets a single bill passed in his presidency. It's not more than basic math/stats: if Republicans overwhelmingly vote along party lines, and even Democrats are splintered between their center identity and their left identity when it comes to supporting a bill, how does a Democrat win a majority today on the House or Senate floor with what's seen by the masses (not some dude called Spiritual_Chaos) as a radical shift to the left? 

I thought we had each other on ignore?

Fair. I'll submit my question into the ether in that case, and see if anyone else cares enough about Sanders to answer my question. 

For anyone able to answer, I'd love to hear any Sanders supporters' opinions about how Sanders gets a single bill passed in his presidency. It's not more than basic math/stats: if Republicans overwhelmingly vote along party lines, and even Democrats are splintered between their center identity and their left identity when it comes to supporting a bill, how does a Democrat win a majority today on the House or Senate floor with what's seen by the masses (not some dude called Spiritual_Chaos) as a radical shift to the left? 

I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'll answer your question in the abstract:

I vote for the candidate with the platform I agree with and go from there. If that person is elected, they can claim a mandate on certain issues and that's your best chance of getting some momentum. Look at all the people who have fallen in line with Trump. I don't think Congress is made up of dug-in ideologues.

But, again, I'm voting for the person that best reflects my views and will let them deal with how to accomplish their agenda.

Makes sense. I believe in voting for the person who's most likely to move the marker towards a nation aligned with my views (or who can educate me most on why my views should be aligned with theirs), but to each their own!

To your point, though, if someone is a Sanders supporter does Trump or Biden move that marker in any appreciable way? 

I think Biden would make marginal shifts in that direction. For a year now he's been publicly scrutinized for his record and has had to look into the camera sheepishly during debates as he was called out for positions and behaviours that today, wouldn't be tolerated.
I think Trump moves the marker, just probably not in the direction most would see as compatible with Sanders'.

Edit: To add, I would take a proposal for marginal change that's plausible to come into fruition, over a bold, brave proposal for massive change that has a low probability of succeeding. 

I definitely see your point. The way I've always looked at it is a buffer of say 30 points to allow for pragmatism. If I agree with a 3rd party candidate 90%, but a major party candidate 60% then yeah I'll take the dive.

But I still think you're underestimating the shift Congress would take if Sanders were elected. Sure, Republicans would dig in, but I think a ton of Democrats would lurch left. It's why I vote for the candidate I like without trying to divine what a couple hundred other legislators may or may not do.

I'm not too sure that enough Democrats would lurch left (but I definitely think you're right many will). I think many would 'get with the times' because that's what politicians do, but I still feel that a material Democratic voter base is looking for them to remain fairly centered instead of pivoting left, and that enough Congresspersons would have their own careers at risk if they don't stay center.

I also think that both the center Democrat position and the left Democrat position are both being weakened by the presence of candidates within the opposite lane. The harm of attacking a candidate's position through this drawn out and sometimes petty primary, is that if the positions are generic enough, it could make that vision look less attractive itself. 

On the pragmatism buffer, I hear where you're coming from, but from a purely statistical perspective, if I don't believe a candidate is statistically likely to execute on their vision, no matter how much I believe in that vision doesn't change that likelihood of attainability. If I wasn't such a stats nerd, maybe that wouldn't be the case though!

On your first 2 paragraphs, I agree with the overall premise. I think by and large we're a centrist country that wobbles a little left or right at times. But if Bernie Sanders won the primary and got elected President, we'd need to take a harder look at that. (I still don't see it happening. I feel like he has a ceiling and benefits from a crowded field.)

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

For some in this thread:

https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1219815785369042944

I'd still love to see your answer to my comment about how Sanders gets a single bill passed in his presidency. It's not more than basic math/stats: if Republicans overwhelmingly vote along party lines, and even Democrats are splintered between their center identity and their left identity when it comes to supporting a bill, how does a Democrat win a majority today on the House or Senate floor with what's seen by the masses (not some dude called Spiritual_Chaos) as a radical shift to the left? 

I thought we had each other on ignore?

Fair. I'll submit my question into the ether in that case, and see if anyone else cares enough about Sanders to answer my question. 

For anyone able to answer, I'd love to hear any Sanders supporters' opinions about how Sanders gets a single bill passed in his presidency. It's not more than basic math/stats: if Republicans overwhelmingly vote along party lines, and even Democrats are splintered between their center identity and their left identity when it comes to supporting a bill, how does a Democrat win a majority today on the House or Senate floor with what's seen by the masses (not some dude called Spiritual_Chaos) as a radical shift to the left? 

I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'll answer your question in the abstract:

I vote for the candidate with the platform I agree with and go from there. If that person is elected, they can claim a mandate on certain issues and that's your best chance of getting some momentum. Look at all the people who have fallen in line with Trump. I don't think Congress is made up of dug-in ideologues.

But, again, I'm voting for the person that best reflects my views and will let them deal with how to accomplish their agenda.

Makes sense. I believe in voting for the person who's most likely to move the marker towards a nation aligned with my views (or who can educate me most on why my views should be aligned with theirs), but to each their own!

To your point, though, if someone is a Sanders supporter does Trump or Biden move that marker in any appreciable way? 

I think Biden would make marginal shifts in that direction. For a year now he's been publicly scrutinized for his record and has had to look into the camera sheepishly during debates as he was called out for positions and behaviours that today, wouldn't be tolerated.
I think Trump moves the marker, just probably not in the direction most would see as compatible with Sanders'.

Edit: To add, I would take a proposal for marginal change that's plausible to come into fruition, over a bold, brave proposal for massive change that has a low probability of succeeding. 

I definitely see your point. The way I've always looked at it is a buffer of say 30 points to allow for pragmatism. If I agree with a 3rd party candidate 90%, but a major party candidate 60% then yeah I'll take the dive.

But I still think you're underestimating the shift Congress would take if Sanders were elected. Sure, Republicans would dig in, but I think a ton of Democrats would lurch left. It's why I vote for the candidate I like without trying to divine what a couple hundred other legislators may or may not do.

I'm not too sure that enough Democrats would lurch left (but I definitely think you're right many will). I think many would 'get with the times' because that's what politicians do, but I still feel that a material Democratic voter base is looking for them to remain fairly centered instead of pivoting left, and that enough Congresspersons would have their own careers at risk if they don't stay center.

I also think that both the center Democrat position and the left Democrat position are both being weakened by the presence of candidates within the opposite lane. The harm of attacking a candidate's position through this drawn out and sometimes petty primary, is that if the positions are generic enough, it could make that vision look less attractive itself. 

On the pragmatism buffer, I hear where you're coming from, but from a purely statistical perspective, if I don't believe a candidate is statistically likely to execute on their vision, no matter how much I believe in that vision doesn't change that likelihood of attainability. If I wasn't such a stats nerd, maybe that wouldn't be the case though!

On your first 2 paragraphs, I agree with the overall premise. I think by and large we're a centrist country that wobbles a little left or right at times. But if Bernie Sanders won the primary and got elected President, we'd need to take a harder look at that. (I still don't see it happening. I feel like he has a ceiling and benefits from a crowded field.)

I think rank and file house members would have to move left.  If Sanders was elected,  that means that's the direction the country wants.  

It takes much more than winning one election to bring the change Sanders wants

Not enough Americans have the patience required to stay loyal and repeatedly vote for systemic Sanders style change

Ledbetterman10 said:

Tulsi Gabbard suing Hillary Clinton over the "Russian Asset" remark. Nice knowing ya, Tulsi. But you dead....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-for-dollar50m-over-russian-asset-remark/ar-BBZdFbS?ocid=spartanntp

jeffbr said:

Well, everybody knew exactly who Hillary was talking about. She didn't need to explicitly state Gabbard's name. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

Put this one on my "no way!" list:  Amy Klobuchar.

" Senators from three states have introduced legislation to lift federal protections for gray wolves in Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and return responsibility for managing those populations to the states.

The bill introduced Tuesday comes from senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, John Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota."

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/01/17/gray-wolf-bill/?fbclid=IwAR05evGiqLNe6vZ1aiGq-IFSv0iKi56UBT3qSg0BDcbXdWNcaO7ayMq6ffM

NO FREAKIN' WAY!

to be fair, isn't the entire premise of how the US was formed was to give states their own power to legislate?

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

Put this one on my "no way!" list:  Amy Klobuchar.

" Senators from three states have introduced legislation to lift federal protections for gray wolves in Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and return responsibility for managing those populations to the states.

The bill introduced Tuesday comes from senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, John Barrasso and Enzi of Wyoming, and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota."

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/01/17/gray-wolf-bill/?fbclid=IwAR05evGiqLNe6vZ1aiGq-IFSv0iKi56UBT3qSg0BDcbXdWNcaO7ayMq6ffM

NO FREAKIN' WAY!

to be fair, isn't the entire premise of how the US was formed was to give states their own power to legislate?

There really isn't enough information here to draw any conclusions.  Perhaps Minnesota now has an excess of wolves and they want to control the population, but Wisconsin still has an issue.  And so the federal restriction is not working here.  Perhaps it really is a state control issue for all of them.  It's hard to say.  But generally speaking, I think there are times where culling the herd, as it were, is actual good management of a species.  So I would not personally write off Amy for this issue without knowing a lot more than was represented in this 30 word article.