Establishment Dems are getting themselves into era-defining trouble

[Professor Emeritus]

Superdelegates have never shifted a democratic election / changed the votes / casted the deciding vote.

Low voter turnout on the other hand
.
Because my point has and always remains that voter apathy causes voters more harm than anything else. We can criticize money disadvantages, the DNC supporting people in primaries, but we can go through a variety of state and local elections and see that voter apathy there without any of mechanisms you're citing in place.

Ironically, these national elections have higher turnout.


If you don't want politicians to "stack the deck" vote in politicians who won't.

It's a logical fallacy to continue diverting to a completely unrelated issue without once addressing the CAUSE of that issue. Why is there apathy among non-establishment voters? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE ELECTION IS RIGGED.

If none of this shady shyt the establishment does matters, then why do it? Why bribe the vendors? Why pump all the money into the coffers of the incumbent? Why pressure other party members to endorse the incumbent? Why manipulate election rules to favor the incumbent? Why have superdelegates at all?

You keep blaming the victims of the rigging as if their apathy isn't a direct result of party bullshyt.

I dont see it either. I live in Charlotte. I've lived in SF and I spend a lot of time in Seattle.

I work in tech. For a liberal company. And even my coworkers consider AOC to be waaaaay out to the left.

Continuing to prove that you didn't even read the OP or are purposely actively ignoring it.

You know how stupid it is to suggest that some personal anecdote of yours outweighs cited statistical evidence? AOC is near-median for a Democrat in their late 20s/early 30s and is on the same side as the clear majority of Democrats in their early 20s and younger. She has not said anything particularly further left than Bernie, who was already getting half the vote in Democratic primaries back in 2016 before the Overton Window had even begun to shift yet and with massive structural disadvantages. The Bernie who did BETTER in the heartland (winning Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and Idaho) than he did on the coasts.

"Someone has to pay for this shyt. "

As if anyone who has lived through the Bush tax cuts, Iraq War, Medicare Part D, Stimulus Bill, Trump tax cuts, and every damn year of the Farm Bill and Defense Budget is going to honestly roll with that line of attack for a second.

 

[King Static X]

@Call Me James

So you're perfectly fine with the Democratic establishment?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

That shift won’t come up if old nikkas is broke

there will always be a class of folks making $$$, and as we've seen, the % of the population raking in the dough can be extremely small, yet they have an outsized influence on politics and policy.

 

[Pressure]

@Call Me James

So you're perfectly fine with the Democratic establishment?

No, but I don't vote for all of them.

And I'd have no qualms if people further to the left became the establishment.

But blaming the failures of the progressive left as a result of the democratic establishment while ignoring the movements of the right in a similar system is always going to make me start with a chuckle.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

there will always be a class of folks making $$$, and as we've seen, the % of the population raking in the dough can be extremely small, yet they have an outsized influence on politics and policy.

Bruh if the gap is bigger that’s going to affect things

 

[Pressure]

It's a logical fallacy to continue diverting to a completely unrelated issue without once addressing the CAUSE of that issue. Why is there apathy among non-establishment voters? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE ELECTION IS RIGGED.

10% voter turnout suggests there is voter apathy among the entire electorate - - not just dems.

If none of this shady shyt the establishment does matters, then why do it? Why bribe the vendors? Why pump all the money into the coffers of the incumbent? Why pressure other party members to endorse the incumbent? Why manipulate election rules to favor the incumbent? Why have superdelegates at all?

I dont find pumping money into people you support as shady.

I thought superdelegates were dumb, but they haven't shifted an election so I'm not going to give them more attention than they deserve.


And people pressure people to support other people because that is literally hoe every democratic election works.

As if anyone who has lived through the Bush tax cuts, Iraq War, Medicare Part D, Stimulus Bill, Trump tax cuts, and every damn year of the Farm Bill and Defense Budget is going to honestly roll with that line of attack for a second.

And people complain about the absurd costs of each of these. Even yourself

People complain about the cost of Obamacare right now.

You're living in a fantasy land of you don't think the costs of programs plays a part in people's support.

There's a reason why people get outraged over a hotel tax to build a stadium.

You know how stupid it is to suggest that some personal anecdote of yours outweighs cited statistical evidence? AOC is near-median for a Democrat in their late 20s/early 30s and is on the same side as the clear majority of Democrats in their early 20s and younger. She has not said anything particularly further left than Bernie, who was already getting half the vote in Democratic primaries back in 2016 before the Overton Window had even begun to shift yet and with massive structural disadvantages.

Bernie sanders is further left than the majority of the democratic party.

The fact that he or AOC votes party line doesn't negate that. Imagine making the as rgument that Joe Manchin isn't further to the right because he votes party line most of the time.

 

[Pressure]

By the way, Bernie Sanders lost to Clinton by more votes than Clinton lost to Trump

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Bruh if the gap is bigger that’s going to affect things

look at the how the wealth gap has widened substantially in the last 50 years yet we haven't pumped the brakes, a democratic president bailed corporations out

the top 10/5/1% will always exert more influence, our whole "democracy" was structured that way from the outset....this is when it was basically nothing but white people who counted, the aristocrats set that shyt up to keep the masses from ever having the power they should. that's not changing. in dirt poor countries it's the status quo and in wealthy nations it's the status quo

 

[Pressure]

Vote.
If you're not going to vote then revolt.

 

[HellRell804]

Footage from 2020 DNC

But if the progressives so strongly believe in their message and how it relates to the country, they should be willing to stand alone as a 3rd party.

But I feel like that would expose the power of corporate controlled media and the so called "progressives" desire to maintain and wield that power.

 

[Pressure]

More educated and well off voters tend to determine the candidates.

Of course, there is a relationship between education and income, so it is not surprising to find out that primary voters in both parties are not only better educated, but wealthier than the average of their respective districts. Figure 5 breaks out primary voters by their family’s income. Primary voters are richer than those who don’t vote in either political parties, with very few differences. Over half the primary voters in both political parties earn more than $75,000 per year—median family income in 2018 in America is, according to the latest census data, $60,309 per year.2 As Figure 6 indicates, the differences are most stark at the extremes. Republican primary voters are 12 percent more likely to earn over $150,000 per year than the voting-age population in their districts; Democratic primary voters are 6 percent more likely to earn over $150,000 than the voting-age average in their districts.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Bernie sanders is further left than the majority of the democratic party.

The fact that he or AOC votes party line doesn't negate that. Imagine making the as argument that Joe Manchin isn't further to the right because he votes party line most of the time.

Please, do NOT say one more piece of stupid shyt that exposes you as not having read the article. PLEASE. Anyone who read the article can see that you completely misread what I said and don't even know what my comment based on. You're really driving my opinion of you into a hole in this conversation.

Let me quote for you because you don't seem to want to read it:

"Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is often described as a radical, but the data show that her views are close to the median for her generation."

"It is therefore unsurprising that large majorities of young voters support economic policies that Ocasio-Cortez describes as “socialist.” According to a Harvard poll, 66 percent of Gen Z supports single-payer health care. Sixty-three percent supports making public colleges and universities tuition-free. The same share supports Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to create a federal jobs guarantee. Millennial support for these policies is lower, but only slightly."

They also point out that Generation X is moving towards the left, becoming MORE liberal as they age, counter to what some have suggested here.

10% voter turnout suggests there is voter apathy among the entire electorate - - not just dems.

And for the exact same reason - non-establishment Republicans think the system is rigged too, you know.

I dont find pumping money into people you support as shady.

You just trying to talk in circles? My point was that the establishment tries to rig the winner rather than letting the people decide on a level playing field. You appear to agree, you just believe rigging is okay.

I thought superdelegates were dumb, but they haven't shifted an election so I'm not going to give them more attention than they deserve.

But you're admitting the establishment was trying to rig the election in their favor and make it that much more difficult for non-establishment candidates to succeed. Good.

And you DON'T know that they haven't shifted an election. Every SuperDelegate who declared can make a difference in perception. The constant superdelegate counts the media was force-feeding us definitely made an impression (remember how the media kept trying to show Hillary in the lead even though she was NEVER in the actual voted delegate lead at any point in the election?). Even the very existence of superdelegates makes an impression, can discourage certain candidates from entering if they know they can't compete for those endorsements. Just look at how many more candidates are entering now that the superdelegate power has been diminished. You don't know how much all of that tilted races long before it even got to the final vote.

And people pressure people to support other people because that is literally hoe every democratic election works.

But you admit that the establishment is using party power and pressure to get that support for their chosen one. Good, as long as you're admitting it's rigged.

And people complain about the absurd costs of each of these. Even yourself

People complain about the cost of Obamacare right now.

You're living in a fantasy land of you don't think the costs of programs plays a part in people's support.

There's a reason why people get outraged over a hotel tax to build a stadium.

I complain because I think there are better things to spend the money on. And so do those other people, apparently. To say, "Where will the money come from?" is bullshyt when every candidate is spending money with no regard. The real question is, "do we spend the money on her policies or on their policies?" And I'd rather spend the money on health care, education, and the environment than spend it on military, agribusiness, pharmaceutical companies, bankers, and rich people's tax cuts.

But if the progressives so strongly believe in their message and how it relates to the country, they should be willing to stand alone as a 3rd party.

But I feel like that would expose the power of corporate controlled media and the so called "progressives" desire to maintain and wield that power.

Or maybe they're just aware of the obvious fact that they can win a 2-way race but not a 3-way race with the left vote split.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I've been telling y'all that the party has been ripe for a split that will empower a third party in this country.

The proof was in how easy it was for a little known Senator from VT to completely change the party platform without even making it to the general election. That is a clear sign that the party is slowly losing the majority.

There will be no 3rd party.

UNLESS you change how votes are counted via ranked choice voting OR changing to a parliament.

Otherwise, Duverger's law - Wikipedia will kick in and two parties will always result.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Latinos about to hit y’all with that surprise conservatism but oh well.

 

[Pressure]

Please, do NOT say one more piece of stupid shyt that exposes you as not having read the article. PLEASE. Anyone who read the article can see that you completely misread what I said and don't even know what my comment based on. You're really driving my opinion

Please, do NOT say one more piece of stupid shyt that exposes you as not having read the article. PLEASE. Anyone who read the article can see that you completely misread what I said and don't even know what my comment based on. You're really driving my opinion of you into a hole in this conversation.

Let me quote for you because you don't seem to want to read it:

"Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is often described as a radical, but the data show that her views are close to the median for her generation."

"It is therefore unsurprising that large majorities of young voters support economic policies that Ocasio-Cortez describes as “socialist.” According to a Harvard poll, 66 percent of Gen Z supports single-payer health care. Sixty-three percent supports making public colleges and universities tuition-free. The same share supports Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to create a federal jobs guarantee. Millennial support for these policies is lower, but only slightly."

They also point out that Generation X is moving towards the left, becoming MORE liberal as they age, counter to what some have suggested here.

Get out your feelings and actually pay attention to what has been said and you see I've addressed this position early one.

• Yes AOC is the norm with voters in her age blocc that make up around of possible 31% of voters
  • ~12 percent of actual dem voters in 2014
  • ~21 percent of actual dem voters in 2018
• The majority of active voters identify themself to the Right of AOC/Bernie
  • For example baby boomers and millenials both make up ~31% of the voting population,
  • In 2014 and 2016 baby boomers outperformed them over 2:1
  • In 2018 they outperformed them by just under double

If we agree with the premise of the article and easily searchable data on trends by voting age across the liberal/conservative spectrum it's clear that we can directly link the type of candidates presented and winning are directly linked to the voter turnout, not some evil scheme by the establishment to subvert the will of the people.

So back to my original point, the democratic establishment won't have an era defining crisis right now because the makeup is highly reflective of the types of people participating in elections.

Additionally, the country as a whole identifies with a conservative slant which is why a guy like Biden is polling over Bernie and why Clinton beat Bernie in 2016.

These are the numbers. :Ifyouinsist: