Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I was wondering if folks like Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey (sp?) Abrams might fit that bill. I was actually assuming that the latter would be a good contender for Vice President if Sanders were to win the primary (which I don't consider likely).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThere are really only two or so candidates that I feel confident calling Social Democrats so I’m curious as to who you are referring to.
The hypothetical one, whenever they come along, which I meant to make clear but just forgot cause I'm an idiot.
AOC seems like she'd fit the bill whenever he's ready to run.
![]()
Look, man, I didn't come up with the name, someone else did.
Also I can't help but find that comment a little bit disingenuous since every single person on the planet categorizes themselves in one way or another.
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Feb 19th 2019 at 11:57:37 AM
i'm tired, my friendWell, that was a lot of catching up...
>On Bernie: he's done his good in pushing forward some new ideas which have caught on, refreshingly. However, that's largely where his usefulness ends. Now, he's a Soc Dem with an unfortunate trend of saying mildly racist shit. Warren may be pro-Capitalist, but a lot of her more radical policies are starting to look as radical as Sanders. And when she screws up she apologizes. Not exactly something I can say about Sanders, for instance.
And he is, regardless of rhetoric, a Soc Dem. As much as I'd love a full Dem Soc who incorporates the views of racial and gender minorities (and hopefully is one themself) to come out of nowhere and win the Presidency, that doesn't seem likely for the foreseeable future. And thus, on the list of Soc Dems, the one who can apologize for screwing up is going to get my attention more than the one who doesn't.
>On Social Categorization: We all do this in this thread, and all of us (including you and me) have done it in various points. I don't see how it is a terribly ironic thing? We tend to go after eachother more based on political view then out of any sort of bigotry (though that occasionally does too rear its ugly head).
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 19th 2019 at 12:24:28 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerBernie is not a Social Democrat. You have to be a Democrat to be a Social Democrat. It's right there in the name.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Jacobin is reporting on Twitter that the West Virginia strike worked and the Republican-led House is killing the pro-privatization measure.
Edited by golgothasArisen on Feb 19th 2019 at 11:50:39 AM
"If you spend all your heart / On something that has died / You are not alive and that can't be a life"Looking at this from an outside perspective, Sanders' trade and overall foreign policy stances range from iffy to non-existent or overly vague. We don't need a second isolationist POTUS who is going to piss away what's left of American soft power coming in directly after Trump.
For that, and Sanders' social stances, I see Warren as by far the more appealing progressive choice.
That said, it is possible that, with so many horses in the race, that Warren and Sanders could split the progressive wing of the party unless one drops out after the first few contests.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.On Bernie: Well, if what everyone here says checks out, then Bernie is someone who was once a viable POTUS choice but has since outstayed his welcome, for the left has left him behind.
I'd have to read more myself to make an informed opinion, though.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, whether you meant it as a joke or not.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Bernie isn’t as sharp as Warren, he’s never been good at coalition building, and he’s very weak on foreign policy.
But regardless of all that- he’s too damn old. He should be running around stirring up local campaigns and raising money for AOC type candidates, not on the grueling primary campaign trail. Coast on the 2016 cult of personality; be a kingmaker; don’t sink resources into a primary fight in a crowded field.
That's an important thing to note, Sanders is a notoriously bad team player who says a lot but despite a long Congressional career, doesn't get much shit done. Warren and others know how the game is played.
We've all seen how Trump's ignorance of the system and pigheaded unilateralism hobbles his agenda, don't think for a moment that doesn't apply to a progressive candidate as well.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.From an outside perspective: The main problem with Sanders is his role in the 2016 election, where the story of him being the "rightful" candidate was heavily pushed by Russian Trolls, and his age. Which put him in the odd position that he practically disqualifies himself by running. If he had put his support behind another (younger) candidate I would have said "Too bad he never had a chance, he just has shown real leadership there by standing back and putting the good of the country over his own ego". But by running he risks to bring in-fighting into the Democratic party, especially since he spends more time attacking other democrats than Trump.
Early polling at this juncture is completely worthless, to use it to declare each candidate's odds is a terrible idea. Biden and Sanders have the advantage because of name recognition, once the base actually starts to learn about the other candidates then we'll see how the odds play out.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 19th 2019 at 1:17:17 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAs I mentioned before, I think Stacey Abrams is much more likely to be Bernie's VP. Reasoning:
- VP candidates are often chosen in order to balance some weakness of the presidential candidate. Barack Obama in 2008 was inexperienced and there were questions about whether a black man was electable, so he was paired with Joe Biden, an experienced old white man. Donald Trump in 2016 was inexperienced and his lifestyle was bothering the Christian right, so he was paired with the more experienced Mike Pence who has some cred with the Christian right. If memory serves, there were questions about Mitt Romney's policy especially on abortion, and for McCain about whether he was conservative enough, so they were paired with Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin.
- We all know what Bernie's key weaknesses are. One, he's an old white man. Two, his record on race issues is dodgy. Three, his voting record nonwithstanding there are questions about his loyalty to the Democrats. However, having been a congresscritter since 1990 (?) there won't be experience questions.
- Hence Stacey Abrams. She is much younger and black. She's made a name of herself with a race for Georgia Governor that was emphasizing an important race issue, voter suppression - Tulsi Gabbard has little to offer there and getting endorsed by the KKK bigwig David Duke is questionable
. Her (Abrams') resumé might be a little thin (minority leader in the Georgia parliament) but Sanders doesn't need a lot of balancing there. And Abrams' a Democrat - Gabbard too, but she did lambast Obama's ISIS policy back in 2015 and was recently considered for a post in Trump's cabinet
.

It's funny how we talk about rejecting prejudice and social categorism, yet Democrats insist on categorizing themselves so they can tell at a glance which clique they want to be members of and/or talk shit about. Does nobody see this irony?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"