Trump not only will be more difficult to defeat, but he is clearly consolidating power in the gov't and if he loses, I do not think he will yield power and may actually attempt to seize power and declare Democrats an enemy of the state.
I don't think that's relevant. His actual policies are moot - naturally they are going to be designed to serve his self interests. What defines a populist is how they win the election.
Trump is absolutely a populist. His goal was to appeal to segments of the population that felt there interests and concerns were not addressed. Poor and middle class whites in fly over states were a group that he actively went after and won.
All politicans do this to an extent. I care about actual actions. And his economic policies are a direct contradiction to economic populism. He's a standard GOP supply side rubber stamper with his economic policy just like the previous GOP president. Yes he panders to idiots with culture wars. But economic populism? nah. This just seems like an attempt to paint people who support Bernie and Trump bootlickers as the same ilk. Coincidentally, the ones most vocally against Sanders are trying to paint a narrative that Trump is a economic populist.
He gets it. A number of posters on this forum still do not after three years. Carville gets it. Poor and working class people do not need someone in an ivory tower preaching to them about knowing what is best for them like they are ignorant subjects that must be protected from themselves. The level of arrogance is just amazing in that way.
Concerning the economy. He has fought against tariffs and what he perceives as unfair trade. He had vowed to build a wall and deport illegals which many blue collar workers believe will raise their wages and he has made an effort to try and keep manufacturing plants in the USA.... he has also fought against environmental regulations that hinder business and hurt employment. Do I believe in what Trump’s policy decisions are (in large part no), but a lot of blue collar workers in rural areas think he is fighting for them.
Also, just to be clear Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not the same politically. What is similar is that both have factions of fanatical followers that are obnoxious.
This the key point in all of this debate. Trump won by expanding the GOP electorate and pushing it to the far right into alt right territory. That is now the new Republican base and every Republican in Congress fear its wrath. Meanwhile, you advocate Democrats should appeal to these soon-to-be-former Republicans instead of its current base, which data consistently shows shifting further to the left in the coming years. This strategy is a recipe for disaster. First, Republicans even the so-called "moderate" ones are a brazen group who fall in line with their party at the end of the day. They will not crossover in any significant numbers regardless of what they tell you in private about Trump and their dislike for him. Courting this group is a complete waste of time. Republicans will consistently vote party above all else. Secondly, this strategy unintentionally shifts Democrats further to the right because Trump has shifted the Republicans to the far right. That is not a position from which Democrats want to challenge Trump. It is a weak territory formerly occupied by what Republicans call RINOs -- Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, etc. It's an abandoned trench that will bleed Democrats votes on the left and lose the elections. The only course of action is to stay within the Democrat base and find an amicable solution. If "socialist" Sanders is not palatable then fine, DNC should work towards making Warren viable as the last resort compromise. She is the 2nd best choice after Bernie for progressives. What is unacceptable is propping up a failing Biden or going all-in on oligarch Bloomberg.
Well then show those Trump supporting blue collared workers this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americ...s-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/
It's always strange when people who would never vote for a Democratic candidate even if it was the most conservative Joe Manchin type post things about how the Democrats should pick a more right-leaning candidate. Why? So you can be more sincere when saying that at least the candidate you were never going to vote for in a state the Democrats would never win ran a reasonable campaign?
Thus why populist candidates are leading on both sides - Sanders and Trump are symbols of the fatigue with elitism - the very definition of populism. People recognize our system is dysfunctional, but instead of blaming polarization as the cause to that, they are blaming elitism and the establishment. In reality, the issue is that the population has failed to understand what i would truy take - which is to tax the rich to pay for programs for the not-rich
So much this. What moderates are asking Democrats is for them to become Republican light...just with a more favorable and tolerant social stance but I feel what people are missing is that Democrats for a while now have been generally on the right economically. If they try to take the center right now, they'll just be republicans that are more open to immigration...so they'd be Jeb Bush. I think what is happening here and now is that the younger generations are actually well left of center and it's confused a lot of people about what is radical and what isn't radical. Socialized healthcare isn't a radical idea for instance, it's extremely popular outside of the USA, and so is free and affordable education, Bernie's immigration plan is radical though, I'd admit that, but the other things are not way out there when you look at global politics. I think people know personally I think Bernie has the best shot, he just has that rabid base, and if he can perform as he did in Iowa (This is where he's supposed to be weakest, heartland states...) then I don't see why he couldn't vote for trump. I'm serious about that weed thing, he puts that on the ticket I'm like 90% sure he's going to win.
Towing the greedy, degenerate Republican line isn't progress. The fact is that Republican governance has sinister precision. They actively seek to take away people's rights to vote along racial lines. They actively seek to gerrymander districts along racial lines. Right now, they're actively suing to take away health care from millions of people and health care rights from all Americans. They're a ****ing menace to reality. Expecting Democrats and by implication, progressives, to become more like these Republican asshats leading us to the slaughter is a non-starter. Our system does such a shitty job of creating accountability that the President of the United States brags about breaking the law on a regular basis. Face the facts that we no longer live in a democracy. The majority in this country consistently advocates for policies that are considerably left from gun control to health care to education. We have a government that no longer represents the majority of Americans nor fulfills the will of the majority of Americans on hugely important issues. It's a failed experiment at this point.
Remember that Carville thought there wouldn’t be a blue wave in the 2018 mid term as he saw some of the results rolling in. He and some others are of the old thinking and are at least a bit outdated. I agree the focus needs to be on trump, but that’s about it. Society and tools have changed rapidly and I think some of these guys aren’t yet caught up and probably will never be. A nobody in the 2016 trump campaign tried something new (random almost) and hit the target. They are now expanding on those techniques. Go read about the 1B disinformation pinpointed campaign in the Atlantic. That’s the unfortunate future of election using technology and leveraging the polarization to win. The author knew what he was seeing (the disinformation) but yet was influenced by it somewhat - tell you how powerful they are at shaping people views. Shadow might be an attempt by the Dem to counter such an effort - not sure yet. But I do hope there is something that can counter that disinformation and those techniques. Right now it seems to be a huge adv for the trump campaign.
and that’s why you go after trump and focus on his extremist. The issue is half of the Dem allow and even agree with the Rep that their policies are extremist while 100 percentage of the Rep are saying their are reasonable. Do you see the messaging problem and why the media and people get pulled to the right? Focus on how extreme the gop has become and stay there while defending your positions at the same time as normal and centrist. This isn’t to say Bernie is the idle choice - far from it, but that the big issue is giving up ground and not playing offense. Equally bad, your defense sucks while doing so.
Huh? You're saying I'm mixing things up? I'm pointing out that numerically Sanders isn't increasing the vote total as the total votes from Iowa didn't meet record numbers and Buttigieg narrowly lost to Sanders. Your argument is now that depressed vote totals are the fault of the other candidates and not Sanders. How does that make any sense then that with the idea that Sanders is bringing in new voters? If that was true then shouldn't Sanders totals be much greater than his opponents. True and I give Sanders credit for capturing the youth vote. Whether that is enough to sustain him to win the primaries or the general we don't know. Historically the youth vote has been fickle and many politicians have counted on it only to be disappointed. For that matter though there are other candidates very much trying to expand the electorate. Reaching out to minorities and Klobuchar is very specifically going after rural Americans to woo them away from the GOP. I agree and I give Sanders credit that he has built off of his success from 2016 and as other posters have noted he has moved the political discussion quite a bit. I think you're somewhat in the minority here among Sanders supporters as many, including in this thread, are still rearguing the 2016 campaign.
This continued argument that Trump can only be defeated by going extreme and that it's the moderates who have to make way for the extremist just isn't supported by history. Again look at the 2018 election. Moderate and even conservative Democrats have given the Democrats the majority. And for those who say that these are just Republican lite consider that all of those moderates, except for two, voted for impeachment and removal in the Senate. If we look at the actual evidence it's not the liberal wing that are putting he Democrats back into power but the moderate wing. This argument that only Sanders can win by bringing in new voters isn't supported because he's not blowing away the field but is only barely beating a moderate in a caucus state which traditionally favors party activist. Sanders and his supporters certainly have passion but passion doesn't mean much unless it translates into actual votes. The model I always look at is Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District. That is a suburban district in SW of Minneapolis. A large chunk of it is also rural. In 2016 Republicans narrowly controlled it but in 2018 a moderate Democrat who ran on a platform emphasizing health care and farm issues won convincingly. If Trump is to be defeated we need a candidate that can win districts like MN 2 (Angie Craig). I know Bernie Sanders can carry and probably get more votes than Clinton in MN 5 (Minneapolis) but I doubt he can win MN 2. This is a point I've been making repeatedly. Clinton won the popular vote soundly and got pasted in the Electoral College. Theoretically Trump could lose the popular vote by 10 million votes and still win reelection. He could lose every single vote in CA, NY and IL and still win. I do think there is something to the argument that Sanders is bringing in more youth vote and exciting the base. AOC, Tlaib, and Omar are exciting the base and I'm sure Sanders will carry those districts with more votes than the democrats did before. That doesn't matter NY 14 (Cortez) and MN 5 (Omar) aren't going to decide the election. MI 13 (Tlaib) might decide the election but if Trump wins MI 3 (Amash) overwhelmingly that will counter any benefit the Democrats get in Dearborn. The geographic map matters. That is the way our elections work. I am very critical of Sanders and his supporters but I do think he has some good ideas and they certainly deserve to be part of the national debate. None of that means anything if Democrats can't take the Presidency and most likely Congress also. In these debates I often get the feeling that many would rather feel they are right or at least on the side of being right than win. I've been guilty of that too. Many of us agree that Trump is wrong, the majority of the country thinks Trump is wrong. He still is president and as long as the GOP controls the Presidency and the Senate it doesn't matter whether he's wrong. There will be no progress on whether we have a single payer system, expanded ACA, or any other of the issues that Democrats are vigorously debating unless Democrats win.
