Mojo Hand

Yeah, they said that about Obama in exactly those circumstances in 2008 and he won easily. And Dems ran the most moderate candidate in modern times against Trump in 2016 and lost. Dems were begging to run against Trump too, how did that work out?

I'm not asking you to apologize for anything, let alone validate my beliefs. You continue to make up things about me that just aren't true. Trying being honest in a discussion. I'll put a fine point on it: you claimed that not only is your viewpoint correct, but those of us who disagree actually agree with you but are too scared or stubborn to admit it. That second part is false, and betrays your own ignorance. That's the issue I'm bringing to your attention. As to the second point, no, this isn't about refusing to represent the will of the people. It's about what the will of the people really is. You think it is what polls say about certain publicized policies at this current moment in time. I say that current polls are the product of years of messaging from the political class and shouldn't be taken as some pure measure of reality. I say that different messaging from Dems can move the will of the people, just as messaging from the GOP and Trump have moved a big chunk of the country from what polls used to say they wanted. And I say that the question for Dems should be, what is the best policy to address the underlying concerns of voters, not what voters currently think is the best policy to address those concerns. Voters can be persuaded on policy. On health care, the underlying concern of voters is comprehensive coverage at less cost. Either single payer does that best or it doesn't, regardless of how a particular bill is currently polling, in large part based on misinformation and ignorance and fear. And if single payer does that best, Dems should push it hard and confidently and lead the voters in that direction. Dems have followed your approach for years, and it's led to the golden age of GOP success. They get more extreme to the right while constantly winning, and the few times that Dems get power, they enact former Republican policies. And then get blamed for it not working. It's time for Dems to lead again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the moderators who focused on reparations? Not much you can do when they don't ask about Mueller's testimony or impeachment or virtually any foreign policy, but have an extended segment on reparations. As far as why Dems support it at all, this is no longer a party that can take POC for granted (not that it ever should have). And reparations are a substantial issue for an important chunk of the party.

No, I'm not upset that you're not validating my opinion or supporting my policies. It seems to be literally impossible for you to step outside of your own preconceptions and consider that a different viewpoint exists outside of your current understanding. You keep incorrectly telling me and others what we think, over and over again. I'll say it as clearly as I can. I don't give a shit that you support moderate positions and candidates, or that you are justifying it based on current polling. It doesn't upset me, and it doesn't scare me. I'm happy to discuss our policy differences. But I do not think that your approach —moderation to maximize appeal based on current polling — is a winning strategy. I think it is a losing and self-defeating strategy. This is my sincere opinion, and it's a reasonable one, even if you can't understand why. I don't secretly agree with you. I'm not suppressing my real opinion. Call me stupid if you want; I don't really care about your opinion. But don't tell me that I don't really think what I think.

I brought up Abrams because there was a question about why nobody is discussing VP options outside of the field. And she's among a handful of VP options outside the field that have been prominently discussed. She's also much more than a "2018 loser." Maybe I missed it, but did someone say Biden has to, over even should, pick Abrams over Harris?

Your "hard evidence" is much softer than you think, and your take on what's in the heads of the people who disagree with you is way off, bordering on delusional. No, I don't disagree with the polls on MFA. What I disagree with is letting those polls dictate policy. Chasing polls and current perceptions is a recipe for disaster. It's led to 30 years of Dem fail, while the GOP has gotten everything it wants by ignoring all of the polls showing that their policies are hated by the public. The only ones who are showing themselves to be scared are those, like you, who refuse to stand for anything other than what they think people want based on current polling. But polls can be moved, and votes can be gained even contrary to policy polling, as Republicans have proven election after election. You need to take a step back and work in some humility. Regardless of which of us is right or wrong on the best strategy, you're dead wrong on what is in the minds of the lefties who disagree with you. Until you grapple with the fact that there is a sincere and reasonable difference of opinion, you're going to continue pointlessly arguing against a foil that doesn't exist.

It's not really because they can't defend Trump. It's because they can't handle being powerless in the minority, and they don't see that changing any time soon.

I'm not burying my head. I just disagree with you. And clearly you're the one who needs to pretend that everyone else thinks the same way as you to get through the day.

Yeah, how funny that a woman would get upset by sexism. Little lady needs to calm down, amirite?

Nope. You just think the world revolves around your viewpoint.

Here's an idea: instead of defending, explaining, or running away, how about using your platform to stand up to him? Fucking cowards.

Why is it that Republicans decry moral relativism applied to the present, but consistently use it to excuse abhorrent behavior in the past?

But that is literally what Warren and Bernie said last night. Warren repeatedly refused to bite on raising taxes for health care. And Bernie's response to the Medicare reimbursement rates was that other hospital costs would go way down. The tax increases are mostly to pay for the other shit. What is your non-tax response to "how will you pay for free college, student loan forgiveness, universal pre-k and childcare, etc."?

Not to nitpick, but calling black UN delegates "monkeys" is unquestionably racist, not just racially tinged. It's as racist a comment as it gets.

It is in one sense, but can he really lose his seat in Kentucky? I'm not so sure. And if his seat is secure, why not take the heat for a policy that will help the GOP win through cheating? He's been doing it for years, like with Garland, and it's resulted in the most recent GOP takeover of government. His calculation on this is, are Republicans more likely to lose the Senate if I'm an asshole but help foreign enemies swing elections to Republicans, or if I do the right thing and we have to win fairly? He's decided the former, and I'm not sure that he's wrong (other than morally).

Well, the reason is that unlike GOP candidates, Dems are constantly bombarded with "you're promising the moon, how will you pay for it?!?" So Dems have to talk funding, and as the only fiscally responsible party, that means talking about increasing taxes.

I strongly disagree. First, the fact that Trump is the president makes him a legitimate candidate. Pretending he can't win helped get us into this mess. If anything, Dems need to work harder at combating the notion that he's a guaranteed one-termer. Trump can win. It's even likely that he will win, with all the cheating he will do. Dems need to know that they have to rise up and make something happen. Second, you're arguing from the losing framework that has been behind 30 years of Dem failure. It's not about bringing in new voters from the left (although energizing the base is important). It's about persuading people who aren't ideologically fixed to jump aboard. And there are more people like that than you realize. There's a reason so many voters had Bernie and Trump as their favorites in 2016 even though they are far apart on the ideological spectrum. Many if not most people are just looking to be led towards a strong vision that will help them and their families. If the only option for a strong vision is negative, like Trump, many will gravitate towards it, and those who can't stomach it will sit out the election. If a strong positive vision emerges from the left, it will take people the other way. Most people don't really give a shit about the details of something like MFA. They just want their shit to be covered without paying more, and the polling merely shows where they think that will come from at the moment. If the Dems get strongly and confidently behind something like Bernie's vision, you'll move those polls. It's already happened to a substantial degree because of Bernie, which is why this policy discussion is even happening right now. Thinking that strong progressive ideas will scare off voters is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Following polls instead of moving polls may eke out one election and get rid of Trump. And that would be better than losing, certainly. But it won't get rid of Trumpism or the reasons why Trump won to begin with. And we'll be right back here in a few years with some asshole Trump disciple who is smart enough to get more shit actually done. If Dems focus on people who right now would rather vote for Donald fucking Trump than a candidate who is for universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, some version of free college and skills training, universal child care and pre-K, and huge government investments in green technologies, then we've already lost.

There's also a name or two that has gotten mentioned from outside the field. If Biden is the nominee, Stacey Abrams will likely be in the mix. Andrew Gillum is another name that has been mentioned generally. It's just that the field is really strong and there are 25 running against a deeply unpopular president, so there aren't as many good options who are sitting it out as there normally are.

FWIW Tribe thinks it's constitutional

It got a lot of people. It was top ten trending on Twitter because of people who thought it was real.

Reading the post-debate stories, it's insane how much the media is trying to make Delaney happen.

Dems should be talking about both.

No doubt. And a few years ago, I never would have thought either could ever win the presidency. But we live in crazy times, with Donald Trump as president and the GOP become an openly white supremacist party. The old rules no longer apply.

Obama wasn't the moderate choice vs Hillary in 2008 though.