2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[King Kreole]

It's a difference in worldview. Warren is more natural and comfortable talking about racial justice because she's a deeply intersectional thinker. You can see it in her plans and the way she communicates them. Bernie isn't as comfortable talking about these issues because he's an old-school labor-liberal who believes in a class-first worldview.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Warren continues to shut her opponents down. Now the far left can’t say she is corrupted by money. Straight up letting the people support her and save her energy because trump is so unpopular

 

[A.R.$]

I’m going to keep it real with you, the ADOS reparations vote is not a game changer anywhere in 2019 so you’re frustrations are you and 100,000 people on the internet. Bernie was just the only one real enough to be like these nikkas ain’t passing that. It took them 12 years to support Medicare for all and most recipients would be white.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, it is not only about reparations. It is the way he speak on Black issues as a whole. If you think the way he speak on these issues don’t make a difference then you are highly mistaken. His uncomfortably talking about Black issues is one of the main reasons he lost in 2016.

BTW passing a bill that commission a study of reparations is far from radical and can be done politically. The implementation of the recommendations is the difficult/ politically risky part. And like I said before Bernie didn’t even mention the bill when asked about reparations.

My main problem is the hypocrisy that Bernie and a lot of his supporters are showing. As has been pointed out Bernie has, and still supports policies that don’t have majority support. That is the very reason many of his supporters say they like him. But when it come to a specific Black issue that is when people choose to point out polling numbers.

 

[storyteller]

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, it is not only about reparations. It is the way he speak on Black issues as a whole. If you think the way he speak on these issues don’t make a difference then you are highly mistaken. His uncomfortably talking about Black issues is one of the main reasons he lost in 2016.

BTW passing a bill that commission a study of reparations is far from radical and can be done politically. The implementation of the recommendations is the difficult/ politically risky part. And like I said before Bernie didn’t even mention the bill when asked about reparations.

My mind problem is the hypocrisy that Bernie and a lot of his supporters are showing. As has been pointed out Bernie has, and still supports policies that don’t have majority support. That is the very reason many of his supporters say they like him. But when it come to a specific Black issue that is when people choose to point out polling numbers.

I'm not with the polling arguments myself, but has Bernie offered that up? I think he mentioned potential costs which was used to say "he can afford all these other things but not reparations?" and that was a fair critique, but also one that I think is worth contextualizing, as in my guess is he thinks 10 20 30 would have a bigger impact on the racial wealth gap than a one-time cash payment. But I think that also comes down to the question "what is the main goal of reparations?" How can we look at reparations as successful? I generally think of it as a way to close the racial wealth gap, so I look at 10 20 30 as part of the same discussion.

 

[Uno]

Tulcels are the most annoying people on the internet and there is like 50 of them, amazing they can be this annoying. I get that they want to fukk her but just admit it and instead of pretending she is some liberal democrat instead of a republican who endorsed Bernie.

 

[A.R.$]

Bernie agrees with HR 40, but that's a House bill. Sanders co-sponsored a mirror version that Booker put forward in the Senate (Warren too). The thing is, when Bernie asked "what do they mean?" by reparations, he was alluding to the types of questions you raise (otherwise, why would he co-sponsor legislation that every other candidate is using to claim their support for reparations?).



This is why I call it a rhetorical own goal. Bernie supports exactly what the rest of them do in the reparations discussion but got hit with gotcha's and didn't respond well. But let's be honest, do you seriously believe that if a commission came up with cash payments as the best solution that Bernie would say "nah, I'm good?" I'd equate that to the semi-paranoid takes on Warren's rhetoric with M4A. If you know the candidate, you've heard enough to trust that they'll follow through with what's pragmatic. Matter of fact, I'd trust Bernie to be willing to apply bold solutions if they come out of that study moreso than MOST of the more "practical" candidates who are concerned with spending.

And also, why does 10 20 30 get such a raw deal? I feel like it's a perfect compliment (one that is immediately actionable) to HR 40 (one that will take time to reach conclusions and require additional action afterward). 10 20 30 is what Obama applied to his Recovery Act which had a visible positive impact (the biggest flaw to that plan imo was that they should have put more money into it...that's something Bernie more than any other candidate would be likely to do). If I'm not mistaken Booker's Baby Bonds plan also applies the 10 20 30 principle and that's specifically meant to address the racial wealth gap (with very optimistic projections). So Bernie supports the same exact study on reparations that everyone else does and wants to apply Clyburn's 10 20 30 principle to legislation which in practice has an impact on the racial wealth gap in potentially dramatic fashion. That means you've got direct action to address the racial wealth gap AND the same reparations study everyone else is talking about. Pairing the two seems like the best approach to me from a pragmatic perspective. While the study takes time reaching conclusions and the solutions may or may not be taken up depending on the make-up of our legislative and executive branches; you can take direct action to address racial wealth gaps via policies that reflect the 10 20 30 concept. I legitimately think more candidates should be talking about 10 20 30 in addition to supporting a reparations study.





Again, I think this is applying the absolute worst reading of Bernie's responses and assuming Bernie will be immovable in light of (hypothetical) information that says the best approach to tackling inequality would be cash payments. I'm confident we could pressure Warren AND Bernie on the issue, as a matter of fact...I don't think that we would have to in light of the results of the study. I also don't think the study should the be-all, end-all of the racial wealth gap discussion when other policy ideas are out there that could have big positive impacts. Warren's housing plan, Bernie's GND, Booker's Baby Bonds...those aren't reparations, but their impacts would be truly positive plus all three bill authors are also signed on to the Senate's version of HR 40 (Booker's the author).

It is a lot to reply to but i’m going to keep it brief (well, probably not lol).

First,
I know he has publicly stated that he supports HR40 and co-sponsored the bill in the senate, after being criticized. My point is that if you state in explicit terms that I do not support monetary payments as a form of reparations, then you are not truly in support of the bill. This is because the committee role is to answer the questions I originally brought up, and to make a recommendation on what the best way to implement reparations. The recommendations could be non monetary, or it could involve a monetary payout. If you don’t support monetary payouts without seeing the committee recommendations, that means you are not in full support of the bill. Also, you are already steering the committee in a particular direction which defeats the purpose . It also calls into question the committee’s credibility if the recommendations are non monetary.

Second,
I never said i’m against the 10,20,30 plan. I actually support it. However, it is not reparations for Black people, and it is disingenuous to bring that up when you are asked a direct question about reparations for Black people.

 

[No1]

There's a difference between refusing to personally hold big-money fundraising events in the general and refusing to accept corporate/big-money contributions in the general. The former is consistent with her original principle, while the latter, which is what anti-Warren people have been attempting to criticize her for, would in fact be unilateral disarmament. This isn't a reversal to me, it's just her further clarifying her point. She's targeting the real mechanism of political corruption, which is access.

Family, I was pro-Warren before you ever were. The spinning that some of you dudes do at the lightest jab is crazy. Imagine if Obama got treated like that. He would have been destroyed in the general. She just straight up said that she would only participate in party fundraising events that are open to the press. Now how many big money donors are going to be with that?

And @King Kreole this reparations point that you and @A.R.$ are kicking is dense. Bernie’s appeal was that he was on the moral side of issues and was willing to advocate to push the Overton window. My point was that reparations was a much less developed concept and was only seriously considered like this year. Democrats have been fighting for Medicare For All for 60 years. You chose a shytty example. You should’ve used his LGBT support back when it wasn’t popular and you’d have a point. You chose a bad example. The point is, there is extensive literature on everything Bernie supports but we only began to reconsider reparations in the mainstream after Coates.

 

[storyteller]

It is a lot to reply to but i’m going to keep it brief (well, probably not lol).

First,
I know he has publicly stated that he supports HR40 and co-sponsored the bill in the senate, after being criticized. My point is that if you state in explicit terms that I do not support monetary payments as a form of reparations, then you are not truly in support of the bill. This is because the committee role is to answer the questions I originally brought up, and to make a recommendation on what the best way to implement reparations. The recommendations could be non monetary, or it could involve a monetary payout. If you don’t support monetary payouts without seeing the committee recommendations, that means you are not in full support of the bill. Also, you are already steering the committee in a particular direction which defeats the purpose . It also calls into question the committee’s credibility if the recommendations are non monetary.

I want to make sure we're thinking about the same answers which would be from the View and the Charlemagne interview. This is the Bernie response from the View:

"I think that right now our job is to address the crises facing the American people in our communities," Sanders replied. "And I think there are better ways to do that than just writing out a check."

I want to visit the premise that this is strictly "I do not support monetary payments as a form of reparations" and say that it's a bit flawed. "I believe there are better ways to address the disempowerment and lack of resources for impoverished communities than monetary payments" is a more accurate frame on this one. I realize this might feel pedantic but why I think it's important is because a concept like Baby Bonds has already been studied and deserves to be in the debate about what constitutes reparations and there are others. But personally, I see Baby Bonds as the easiest case to lay out so here's a study that suggests you could dramatically reduce racial wealth gaps this way...

Center on Poverty and Social Policy

So basically, I'm just tryna seed this idea that it's a bigger conversation than "yay or nay" on reparations. Bernie sponsoring an HR 40 Senate version acknowledges as much.

Second,
I never said i’m against the 10,20,30 plan. I actually support it. However, it is not reparations for Black people, and it is disingenuous to bring that up when you are asked a direct question about reparations for Black people.

I think...emphasis on think because I'm basing it on these two specific instances which are the most cited in the reparations discussion...I think that people conflate Bernie's answers on "what will you do to address the African American community" with Bernie's answers on "do you support reparations." To illustrate that, I've time stamped the Charlemagne discussion. You're still not gonna like the answer on reparations, hell, I don't like it and have said it frustrates me. But the idea that he's being disingenuous or not being upfront is plain wrong. They ask him how he'll help African Americans and he speaks on HBCUs, redlining and black owned businesses as well as fighting institutional racism. When asked about Reparations, he asks for clarification. When he's asked about cash transfers directly, he doesn't dodge it at all. He just doesn't give an answer that either of us like. But I think his rhetoric throughout that discussion is strong right up until that point and what he's talking about in terms of helping African Americans by expanding on 10 20 30 isn't disingenuous or dodging reparations, that wasn't the question he was responding to.



And I just wanna revisit my premises here. I'm frustrated with Bernie's response on reparations because I don't think any of the candidates disagrees with him. He's just too real about it when he says "I think I have better solutions to empower you than a cash payout" whereas everyone else goes "we're gonna look into it...that's it." I think both answers are inadequate. Warren fills in some of the blanks with her housing and environmental bills; Bernie fills them in with 10 20 30 as a guiding line for his bills as well as universal healthcare. But the only real difference from Bernie and the others is that he's openly saying "I think there are better solutions."

I legitimately think this has been spun more negatively than it should be in light of the actual case he's built around 10 20 30. It's pretty clear to me that he wants to help and empower African Americans. It's a strategic difference at most and the disingenuous bit to me is when people like Castro voiced support for reparations but really meant a bill to explore options. Bernie supports the same thing as those guys, point blank. None of them besides Williamson has actually said cash payments are the solution...actually, where's Yang on reparations? I don't know his stance.

 

[88m3]

Warren is such a great role model

 

[NY's #1 Draft Pick]

For the first time in this election, someone other than Biden is leading in the RCP avg of polls. E. Warren just edged ahead yesterday.

Ni
Biden boyz 2020

 

[King Kreole]

Family, I was pro-Warren before you ever were.

I've been Team Liz from time. But it doesn't matter to me who has been pro-Warren for longer, I know you're a good poster. Wasn't trying to impugn your credentials or anything, I was just posting my thoughts on this new story.

The spinning that some of you dudes do at the lightest jab is crazy. Imagine if Obama got treated like that. He would have been destroyed in the general. She just straight up said that she would only participate in party fundraising events that are open to the press. Now how many big money donors are going to be with that?

I don't think it's spinning, I think this is a very important topic and talking through the nuances is critical. Campaign financing is a multi-pronged beast. Her restrictions on personal access will still allow big money donors to contribute to the Democratic Party and their efforts. Her personal, presidential campaign is what would be isolated from big money access, she's not demanding down-ballot Democrats also abide by her pledge. As per her campaign statement, she'll continue to attend events to raise money for the Democratic National Committee, state and local parties, and Democratic candidates. What she's putting the clamps down on in the type of personal access that ensured big money interests asymmetrical influence on the candidate and their platform. That strikes me as a good balance between electoral reform purity and political suicide facing the Republican war chest.

Operative words here are "my campaign":


Warren swears off high-dollar fundraisers in potential general election

That broad statement worried some Democrats, as the party’s presidential nominee is traditionally a big fundraiser for other candidates and Democratic committees. But in a Wednesday statement, Orthman clarified that Warren's pledge would only apply to her presidential campaign, not to raising money for the Democratic Party or other candidates.

I think this is the optimal position to take.

And @King Kreole this reparations point that you and @A.R.$ are kicking is dense. Bernie’s appeal was that he was on the moral side of issues and was willing to advocate to push the Overton window. My point was that reparations was a much less developed concept and was only seriously considered like this year. Democrats have been fighting for Medicare For All for 60 years. You chose a shytty example. You should’ve used his LGBT support back when it wasn’t popular and you’d have a point. You chose a bad example. The point is, there is extensive literature on everything Bernie supports but we only began to reconsider reparations in the mainstream after Coates.

Reparations isn't a novel concept. It's actually a discussion older than M4A. You're correct that it hadn't hit mainstream discourse until recently, but you're contradictory when you tout his rectitude and moral consistency in one breath then bring up the lack of mainstream support for reparations in the next breath. Pointing to his long-time support for LGBT issues is only bolstering my argument. He supported it while it was an unpopular and undeveloped opinion, so why is reparations different. The only way this makes sense is if he had never heard of the concept of reparations before or was woefully ignorant of the powerful systemic oppression that black people have been burdened under in this country, which would strain credulity given his much touted connection to the Civil Rights movement.

I don't believe Bernie is anti-Black or a crypto-racist or any such nonsense. I just believe he's an old white man with a class-first worldview and reparations doesn't fit cleanly into that worldview.

 

[dtownreppin214]

For the first time in this election, someone other than Biden is leading in the RCP avg of polls. E. Warren just edged ahead yesterday.

Slow and steady.

 

[A.R.$]

I want to make sure we're thinking about the same answers which would be from the View and the Charlemagne interview. This is the Bernie response from the View:



I want to visit the premise that this is strictly "I do not support monetary payments as a form of reparations" and say that it's a bit flawed. "I believe there are better ways to address the disempowerment and lack of resources for impoverished communities than monetary payments" is a more accurate frame on this one. I realize this might feel pedantic but why I think it's important is because a concept like Baby Bonds has already been studied and deserves to be in the debate about what constitutes reparations and there are others. But personally, I see Baby Bonds as the easiest case to lay out so here's a study that suggests you could dramatically reduce racial wealth gaps this way...

Center on Poverty and Social Policy

So basically, I'm just tryna seed this idea that it's a bigger conversation than "yay or nay" on reparations. Bernie sponsoring an HR 40 Senate version acknowledges as much.



I think...emphasis on think because I'm basing it on these two specific instances which are the most cited in the reparations discussion...I think that people conflate Bernie's answers on "what will you do to address the African American community" with Bernie's answers on "do you support reparations." To illustrate that, I've time stamped the Charlemagne discussion. You're still not gonna like the answer on reparations, hell, I don't like it and have said it frustrates me. But the idea that he's being disingenuous or not being upfront is plain wrong. They ask him how he'll help African Americans and he speaks on HBCUs, redlining and black owned businesses as well as fighting institutional racism. When asked about Reparations, he asks for clarification. When he's asked about cash transfers directly, he doesn't dodge it at all. He just doesn't give an answer that either of us like. But I think his rhetoric throughout that discussion is strong right up until that point and what he's talking about in terms of helping African Americans by expanding on 10 20 30 isn't disingenuous or dodging reparations, that wasn't the question he was responding to.



And I just wanna revisit my premises here. I'm frustrated with Bernie's response on reparations because I don't think any of the candidates disagrees with him. He's just too real about it when he says "I think I have better solutions to empower you than a cash payout" whereas everyone else goes "we're gonna look into it...that's it." I think both answers are inadequate. Warren fills in some of the blanks with her housing and environmental bills; Bernie fills them in with 10 20 30 as a guiding line for his bills as well as universal healthcare. But the only real difference from Bernie and the others is that he's openly saying "I think there are better solutions."

I legitimately think this has been spun more negatively than it should be in light of the actual case he's built around 10 20 30. It's pretty clear to me that he wants to help and empower African Americans. It's a strategic difference at most and the disingenuous bit to me is when people like Castro voiced support for reparations but really meant a bill to explore options. Bernie supports the same thing as those guys, point blank. None of them besides Williamson has actually said cash payments are the solution...actually, where's Yang on reparations? I don't know his stance.

Go to 2:20

Please listen Jacqueline criticism.
His answer was terrible. To me it is unacceptable that he had four years, and that the answer him and his team came up with. He shouldn’t of been surprised that he was going to get asked about this. Even candidates like Beto, and Castro just say I support HR40. Instead he goes all around the block and not answer the question directly. He didn’t even mention HR40. I also think it is a deflection to point to other candidates. Other candidates just say they support HR40 and keep it pushing. It like pulling teeth with Bernie. Plus he stated he didn’t support reparations in 2016. Of course he is going to get asked more questions about this. I don’t understand how his supporters don’t see he hasn’t handle this issue well.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

"He's just too real" is a weird critique of Bernie, but okay.


Let's talk about Kamala and her utter failure. Posed to finish behind Yang, the 4cac meme candidate. I think it's entirely due to the racism of white women. They were reluctantly fukking with Kamala at first, but when the media started pushing Warren, they breathed a sigh of relief. Hillary 2.0, but without 25 years of programmed hate from the right. And the Indian thing doesn't bother them in the slightest because they're racist.

Sorry, Kamala. Female solidarity wasn't as real as you were hoping for.

 

[storyteller]

Go to 2:20

Please listen Jacqueline criticism.
His answer was terrible. To me it is unacceptable that he had four years, and that the answer him and his team came up with. He shouldn’t of been surprised that he was going to get asked about this. Even candidates like Beto, and Castro just say I support HR40. Instead he goes all around the block and not answer the question directly. He didn’t even mention HR40. I also think it is a deflection to point to other candidates. Other candidates just say they support HR40 and keep it pushing. It like pulling teeth with Bernie. Plus he stated he didn’t support reparations in 2016. Of course he is going to get asked more questions about this. I don’t understand how his supporters don’t see he hasn’t handle this issue well.

Come on now fam, I've stated repeatedly that Bernie's rhetoric on reparations is a failure. What I'm trying to do is delineate the difference between Bernie on reparations and Bernie on addressing the African American community with his actual policies. I'll point back to the 5 minutes or so of discussion about how Bernie will help African Americans before the reparations question even comes up. I don't get why everyone leads off with addressing income inequality if they're only concerned with the cash payment. Charlemagne started with economic empowerment; the town hall question linked reparations to income inequality too. It's not disingenuous to respond with a literal concept for addressing income inequality just because he's not offering a check Andrew Yang style. When people ask him specifically about the cash payout, he says "nah, I've got better ways to help" and you can disagree that they are better. But to paint him as disingenuous or bad on racial issues is unfair.

I really think this comes down to what the goal is reparations when you ask about it. If your only focus is the cash payout, then I understand attacking Bernie like he's fronting. But if you're focused on the income inequality aspect, then he is addressing your concern every time he brings up expanding 10 20 30. And just to circle back to it, I think HR 40 and Booker's mirror version is a great idea and one that every candidate should endorse but that should not be enough in an honest conversation about addressing racial wealth gaps or systemic racism. The reason I take Bernie and Warren over every other candidate regardless of how well they dodges the actual reparations concept is because they have legislation throughout their platforms to address things like systemic racism. Bernie's GnD applies that Clyburn plan and I'd argue his Justice Reform plan beats out everyone else's although tbh I haven't taken deep dives into every candidates. His Universal Programs naturally will help as well. So if we're talking reparations alone...yeah his answers kinda suck. They're the most honest of the bunch, but that comes with pissing people off unnecessarily. But if we want to focus on the actual intended outcome of reparations, shrinking the racial wealth gap, then I'll put Bernie up there with the top platforms focusing on that goal. That's my main point.