Well the evidence is quite clear, Clinton lost, Sanders would have had some chance of winning, so had an infinitely better chance with hindsight. Those who chose Clinton have to own their bad call.
Current Affairs Joe Biden POTUS #46
- Thread starter Ruairi77
- Start date
- Status
Well the evidence is quite clear, Clinton lost, Sanders would have had some chance of winning, so had an infinitely better chance with hindsight. Those who chose Clinton have to own their bad call.
Do you think most Americans, in 1931 supported the socialisty type programs implemented by FDR. People's consciosness is a complex thing.
Most Americans support healthcare reforms don't they?
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
Which would all be fine, if Bernie (were he to be running in the GE) got to define the terms himself*.
The GOP is trying (and so far mostly failing) to paint Biden and Harris as Socialists, because they know it's a label that hurts. Can you imagine what they'd do to Bernie.
* = maybe a bad example since Bernie calls himself a socialist
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
She's talked about errors in the campaign (Wisconsin being the one that springs to mind) and had discussed the difficulties in running against Trump and his rather unique ability to set the agenda.
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
That's Monday morning quarterbacking though, surely you can see that?
I agree, I just think labeling him a segregationist after the years of work he's done since, is unfair.
I didn't vote for him and I'm still not a huge fan, but he 100% has my vote.
The reason I got in to this was to debunk the idea that any democrats would publicly support Trump if Sanders was the nominee.
You could use that same weird argument though for any eligible US citizen not just Sanders
I think in 1931, most democrats supported the socialist programs of FDR, that's how he rose through the party to become the nominee and then President.
Most Americans do support healthcare reforms. Thats why, in the last 10 years we've gone from optional private insurance and nothing else, to mandatory private insurance with govt subsidies for the poor, to every democratic candidate proposing universal healthcare or a public option.
The party does seem to move with the conscience of it's members, albeit slowly.
sdk
Player Valuation: £35m
I'm not trying to justify Biden's actions of the 1970s or 1990s but to understand them, and to do so within applicable historical context(s). If it's not good for the left to seek historically grounded understandings, then the left you envision isn't my own. Biden's "calculation" was that you have to work with the opposition to accomplish basic legislative tasks. I'd say the political practices of the earlier time informed the current culture, for both good and ill. What you're doing here is applying our current cultural outlook to the political practices of an earlier time.
Do you try to understand why your opponents think the way they do or do you fear that any such understanding might stain your moral character?
There's very little doubt that the GOP would have a lot more success at running an anti-Bernie campaign, than an anti-Biden campaign.
The trade off, would be that the economic offer, and credibility behind the economic offer Bernie offers might connect more to potentially swing-Trumpvoting white working class people. Also many of the core younger voters may increase turn outunder Bernie.
I think the second part of the Bernie offer is largely irrelevant, due to the unpopularity of Trump meaning those people will hold their nose and vote Democrat anyway. I think I've said before, Biden is currently operating in quite a sweet spot, and Trump is making quite a few mistakes which is strengthening him.
Well I did acknowledge it was hindsight. But it's also a statement of reality now. It's unquestionable that Clinton was a bad pick. You can make a case I suppose at the time it wasn't- though it's dubious, but we now know it was a terrible decision to select her. A lot of people won't accept it though, even with the benefit of hindsight.
I didn't label him a segregationist, I said he supported aspects of segregation. I also stated privately people would support Trump, as opposed to publicly.
Of course, but the choice was between Sanders V Clinton. They chose the wrong person, for ideological reasons.
Most of America supported FDR too. Yet we are told a socialist or left leaning politician can win. Clearly consciousness is quite a malleable thing and can be shaped be inspiring leaders.
That is one of the criteria that parties and voters choose a candidate though.
Whilst I can agree that Clinton had multiple weaknesses that lead to her losing the electoral college I still don’t find it particularly persuasive that Sanders would have done significantly better.
He would have likely done better with white working class voters/younger voters but done worse with suburban, older and African Americans.
- Status