The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[IndyDave1776]

Socialist Joe Biden against Socialism

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...minance-tests-the-strength-of-democratic-left

Haven't we heard that somewhere before?

 

[BugI02]

"Democrat"?

It's like when they call anyone to the right of them "fascists"... it's wholly inaccurate.

Calling every Democrat a Socialist just doesn't fit... and dealing with a socialist should be a bit different than dealing with an everyday liberal.

It's the whole thing about considering all wrong-thinkers to be the worst thing you can think of, so you're justified in treating them like an enemy combatant or something.

All Socialists are Left, but not all Left are Socialists. We all should know that to be true, otherwise we aren't being serious.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...l-77-dems-back-socialism-but-most-voters-dont
2020 poll: 77 percent of Democrats back socialism, but most voters don’t

While 77 percent of Democrats believe that the country would be “better off” if it were more socialist, overall a majority of voters don’t, by a margin of 51 percent to 45 percent, according to the latest Public Opinion Strategies survey.

The partisan gap on this question is more like a chasm. Democrats agree with the notion that the country would be better off if our political and economic systems were more socialist by a whopping 77 percent to 19 percent margin, while Republicans (14 percent to 83 percent) and Independents (37 percent to 56 percent) strongly disagree.

I am cognizant of the many caveats here; such as exactly how the question was worded, how sampling was done and MoE - some of that is addressed in the article. I did not pull up the actual poll because it was not readily available, the link in the article only went to the front end. But, my God! Over 3/4 of Democrats think we'd be better off if we were more socialist!!! No conceivable MoE can sugar coat that, and i feel perfectly comfortable disputing your assertion 'Calling every Democrat a Socialist just doesn't fit..." I think it absolutely does fit and is a useful generalization

And, in summation, I think you are also naive in thinking that I am not justified in treating them like an enemy combatant. The naivete IMO centers around the failure to conclude that we absolutely are in an existential fight for the soul of what makes America America. The whole kumbaya, 'why can't we all just get along' rhetoric clouds the idea that they would like the federal government to have the power to broadly tell you how and what to think about a number of issues and have the power to enforce it

The way to change my (or anyone else's mind) about gays or illegals or the beta males is through discourse not constrained and watered down by speech police, safe spaces and mob shaming. And it requires one side of the debate to realize that they may not be able to change my mind, now or ever; and to accept that limitation rather than move to compel their version of right think

 

[BugI02]

And these tend to just be Democrat policy points.

[I can't help but see this in the same light as past mistaken apologies for other ideologues - In the same vein as such errors as 'Arafat doesn't really want to kill all the Jews' or 'Rouhani is just saying that to appease hard liners, he doesn't mean it'. I think it is past time to take these people at their word, and if they don't wish to be viewed in such light they should make sure their ideals match their rhetoric. I think they absolutely will be willing to implement a socialist system. They will of course attempt to carve out exceptions for themselves as that is common to all socialist systems since the Bolsheviks. There is always a Nomenklatura, there is always cui bono]

If we want to have a conversation about "Does the Democrat party now only represent Socialist policies"... then we can have it... but I know it's not accurate. At least, not right now.

Even hard leftists like Pelosi seem to want nothing to do with the insanity that Cortez/Sanders represents. Clinton, Pelosi, etc... they like their money. They don't want Socialism. They may softball it here and there... but when it comes down to it, they want nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't call Clinton a socialist, I wouldn't call Trump a fascist... because they just aren't accurate terms. People use extreme labels like "Nazi" where it doesn't apply because it works at villianizing people they hate. "Nazi" is such a lazy one, anyway... it's just the middle school "worst thing ever", so it gets over-applied where it doesn't fit at all.

The media does this all the time... and I hate to see when "we" do it, too. It's not helping anything.

Neither is it hurting anything. To eschew an effective strategy that is being used against us is just a form of surrender. IMO it is just another manifestation of the erroneous idea that if we are only Pollyannaish enough, then the other side will finally recognize our essential goodness and be moved to fairly compromise. See: Pelosi's statement that civility can only be allowed to return to politics when democrats retake power; neck meet boot

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Bill de Blasio to announce presidential bid Thursday

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Bill de Blasio to announce presidential bid Thursday

Maybe they should just make a list of people that aren't running for the Dem presidential candidacy. Probably be shorter.

 

[KLB]

It should be funny when the debates start and the complaining begins over who gets onstage and who doesn't.

 

[jamil]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...l-77-dems-back-socialism-but-most-voters-dont
2020 poll: 77 percent of Democrats back socialism, but most voters don’t

I am cognizant of the many caveats here; such as exactly how the question was worded, how sampling was done and MoE - some of that is addressed in the article. I did not pull up the actual poll because it was not readily available, the link in the article only went to the front end. But, my God! Over 3/4 of Democrats think we'd be better off if we were more socialist!!! No conceivable MoE can sugar coat that, and i feel perfectly comfortable disputing your assertion 'Calling every Democrat a Socialist just doesn't fit..." I think it absolutely does fit and is a useful generalization

And, in summation, I think you are also naive in thinking that I am not justified in treating them like an enemy combatant. The naivete IMO centers around the failure to conclude that we absolutely are in an existential fight for the soul of what makes America America. The whole kumbaya, 'why can't we all just get along' rhetoric clouds the idea that they would like the federal government to have the power to broadly tell you how and what to think about a number of issues and have the power to enforce it

The way to change my (or anyone else's mind) about gays or illegals or the beta males is through discourse not constrained and watered down by speech police, safe spaces and mob shaming. And it requires one side of the debate to realize that they may not be able to change my mind, now or ever; and to accept that limitation rather than move to compel their version of right think

Oh, how soon we give up! Took 5 minutes, because I clicked through a few interesting headlines before resuming the search for the report.

https://pos.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/National-POS-poll-Socialism.pdf

Here's how the question was worded:

The country would be better off if our political and economic systems were more socialist, including taxing the wealthy to pay for social programs, nationalizing health care so that it’s government-run and redistributing wealth.”
​

My observations about your response. It's true enough the Democrats lean much farther towards socialism than they have in the past. But calling them socialist lacks the resolution to accurately place them along the spectrum. It IS a spectrum, after all, because while they're saying they want the rich taxed more, and they want free healthcare, that's not the same thing as saying they want full government control of the means of production, which socialism is. How do you differentiate between the real socialists and the ones who just think it's a nifty idea to tax the rich more, and have more of a social safety net? Probably saying they're socialistic would be more accurate, because that implies a spectrum. An undeniable spectrum, because the right is at least a little socialistic. Remember, 14% of Republicans answered yes to the same question. And 37% of independents.

From the report:

• While a majority of voters disagree with this notion (51%), fully 45% of voters agree that:“The country would be better off if our political and economic systems were more socialist, including taxing the wealthy to pay for social programs, nationalizing health care so that it’s government-run and redistributing wealth.”
• The partisan gap on this question is more like a chasm. Democrats agree with the notion that the country would be better off if our political and economic systems were more socialist by a whopping 77%-19% margin, while Republicans (14%-83%) and Independents (37%-56%) strongly disagree.
• Potential Democratic primary voters are even stronger in their agreement with this statement. “Strong” Democrats (representing 22% of the electorate) agree with the statement by 80%-17%, with a majority (54%) strongly agreeing.
• Voter intensity is on the “disagree” side –23% of voters strongly agree with this statement while 41% strongly disagree.
• There is a wide generational divide on this question, with younger voters (under age 45) agreeing with the statement by a 53%-40% margin, and older voters disagreeing by 60%-38%.

So I'd describe Democrats as a whole as at least superficially more socialistic. It's worth making that distinction, socialistic rather than socialist, because of why people might lean on the left end of that spectrum, and what their motivation is. Maybe you saw the poll posted on INGO, I think in the AOC thread, which said that the more people learn about AOC and her policies, the less they like her. The media presented her as the hero of the downtrodden. But then the more people hear about her advocated policies, the less popular she becomes.

So the predominate reason why has most to do with who has the influence. Media, Hollywood, even education from kindergarten through post graduate, pushes an uncritical view of socialism and an overly critical view of capitalism and free markets. It's in the school, it's in entertainment, it's in the news, magazines, and is becoming predominant in every medium of influence. If people never hear the legitimate case against socialism, their basic assumption would naturally be that socialism, at least being more socialistic, is better. It's not surprising that the polls show the younger people are, the more they lean socialistic. Older people were taught the case against socialism. Younger people aren't exposed to criticism of socialism unless they have parents who actively teach them, or go to a conservative school.

Anecdotally this bears out. It's been my experience in just about every political conversation with someone who has a more socialistic view of things, but isn't a full on ideologue, once you lay out the case against it, people are skeptical at first, but at least walk away agreeing with some parts of the case against it. People never hear the "steelman" argument against socialism, they just hear the "strawman" argument, which the media and hollywood are eager to prop up, and then heroically tear down, saving the people from the evil capitalists, over and over. But then when you present a point of view which people haven't heard before, they respond to that.

If you just take a binary view of it, and say 100% are the enemy, you'll only play the part of the straw man the influence peddlers easily knock down in the minds of people who've never heard the case against socialism. That said, since it is a spectrum, there is a portion of these who are full on ideologue socialists. I call them the enemy. You can't change their thinking by presenting the case against.

The Democrats are in a battle for who controls their party. The battle is between on the one side, the ideologue socialists who want real ass socialism, government control of the means of production, and the other side, people who want more government programs, but still want mostly free markets, some of whom agree with more social programs because they haven't heard the steelman case against. I think the strategy should be to give the socialists enough rope to threaten the rest of the left and drive them out of the party and into at least independent. That kinda seems to be playing out. A lot of the classically liberal folks feel like the Left has left them, and they really don't identify with what the Left has become. I'd welcome them to join those who are wiling to talk honestly. They're not the enemy. The ideologues are.

 

[BugI02]

I find the argument that people who want socialist things are not necessarily 'real' socialists to be hair splitting, apologistic and frankly worthy of a Libertarian

How many Bolsheviks do you suppose really wanted the system they got? They just wanted their lot in life improved and didn't much care who got hurt in the process as long as it wasn't them, so they supported the putsch

Ignorance of the likely outcome does not provide absolution, "ignorantia legis neminem excusal" and it should hold true regarding the main chance of a persons actions. Don't play with fire and then expect sympathy when the house burns down

 

[BugI02]

I only have, at most, a three bit grey scale

 

[BugI02]

And looking at the link you posted, I've noticed that the pollster unironically (I assume) uses the web address 'POS' dot org. LMAO

 

[Mikey1911]

On the over/under number for SocialistDemocrat presidential candidates:

Since the Indianapolis 500 is only ten days away, perhaps an appropriate number of SD presidential candidates would be 33.

We could line line them up in pedal cars (no fossil fuel emissions) in eleven rows of three, and turn them loose hoping for a massive pileup in Turn 1.

 

[BugI02]

800 turns to the left, they should love it

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Stacey Abrams on 2020 MSNBC: "I do believe I could enter the conversation as late as the fall and still have a chance to win."

Going to be hard to do since she claims to be Governor of Georgia.

 

[jamil]

I find the argument that people who want socialist things are not necessarily 'real' socialists to be hair splitting, apologistic and frankly worthy of a Libertarian

How many Bolsheviks do you suppose really wanted the system they got? They just wanted their lot in life improved and didn't much care who got hurt in the process as long as it wasn't them, so they supported the putsch

Ignorance of the likely outcome does not provide absolution, "ignorantia legis neminem excusal" and it should hold true regarding the main chance of a persons actions. Don't play with fire and then expect sympathy when the house burns down

I wouldn't classify what I said as trying to use the not a real Scotsman argument. There's a pretty clear distinction between people who want government control of the means of production and people who want capitalism, even those capitalists who want some social programs. It doesn't mean I agree with the social programs to say that. If you think I'm apologizing for the democrats who are still capitalists, but like their entitlements, that's a big no. It just means I'm trying to say things in a way that best represents reality.

 

[jamil]

I only have, at most, a three bit grey scale

So in other words, you don't see things very clearly.

 

[jamil]

On the over/under number for SocialistDemocrat presidential candidates:

Since the Indianapolis 500 is only ten days away, perhaps an appropriate number of SD presidential candidates would be 33.

We could line line them up in pedal cars (no fossil fuel emissions) in eleven rows of three, and turn them loose hoping for a massive pileup in Turn 1.

Interesting thing about Democratic Socialism. I mean what the Democrat Socialist party says about it, not the thing that Bernie says Scandinavian countries are. So Bernie likes to say, all Democratic Socialism is about, it's just like what we have in the US, except they have more social programs. First, those Scandinavian countries aren't socialist in that their governments control the means of production. They have free markets and they are capitalist, but they have a more mixed economy with a high taxes and a lot of government programs. Still not great, but not socialist either. So what's Bernie really trying to say? The Democratic Socialists say bull**** to Bernie. They want government ownership of the means of production. The real ass Democratic Socialists only disagreement with Stalinism in that rather than a socialist dictatorship, they want a socialist democracy where the people get to vote on their socialism.

Okay. So we like to say socialism has never worked scaled at the national level. And it hasn't. Just wait until they get a load of socialist mob rule. Holy **** they have no idea what they're trying to unleash. And of course, just like other socialist societies that have been tried, no guns. So when people have had their fill of socialism, they're ****ed.

 

[jamil]

Stacey Abrams on 2020 MSNBC: "I do believe I could enter the conversation as late as the fall and still have a chance to win."

Going to be hard to do since she claims to be Governor of Georgia.

If she claims fiction is true, it doesn't matter how many fictions are true. Therefore plausible. She can be both. And skinny and attractive. All at the same time. Since we're talking about the fiction in her imagination.

 

[Mikey1911]

So in other words, you don't see things very clearly.

Quick, call Johnny Nash!
”I can see clearly now, the rain has gone . . . “

 

[BugI02]

So in other words, you don't see things very clearly.

That still leaves six shades of grey! What do you want, fifty? Pervert

 

[Mikey1911]

That still leaves six shades of grey! What do you want, fifty? Pervert

“I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.”