Bernie Sanders says President Biden will win in 2024 if he runs on a "strong progressive agenda"
cbsnews.com
With the 2024 presidential race beginning to unfold, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he believes that President Joe Biden will again earn the Democratic nomination — and the president likely win reelection if he runs on a strong progressive campaign.
"I think at this moment ... we have got to bring the progressive community together to say, you know what, we're going to fight for a progressive agenda but we cannot have four more years of Donald Trump in the White House," Sanders said Sunday on "Face the Nation."
…
Sanders endorsed Mr. Biden in April. Sanders referenced several of those issues in underscoring what he believes is the importance of building "a strong progressive agenda" to win the presidency in 2024.
Look, I'd love for that to be true, but it just isn't. Biden will win by being a boring centrist, because that's who he is and that's who will win a general election (generally speaking).
With the GOP going completely off the rails the easiest path to victory is to simply go middle of the road and pick up all those independents/centrists and conservatives with brains. Progressives will vote Biden regardless because Trump (or any Trump wannabe) is too terrifying of a reality.
This country has never shown it has some giant progressive silent majority - Bernie would know, he bet and lost on that materializing in his own presidential runs.
I don't see Democrats running hard on progressive policies until either the GOP starts running moderates again (forcing Democrats to pickup votes elsewhere) or young people prove they can be a force at the ballot box.
All this is not to shit on what Biden has achieved, because he has done things for progressives, but I don't see him suddenly switching to anything resembling a "strong progressive agenda" because it will just give his GOP opponent ammo to claim "see he's radical too". Biden will be the most boring, normal politician he can, while highlighting how bad things will get if his extreme opponent gets into office, and that's probably the smartest thing to do.
nonsense. The dems pulled the dirtiest tricks to kneecap bernie - including ALL of them dropping out on super Tuesday. They battled bernie harder than they fucking did trump. Don't spread garbage like this
Bernie had a surprising turnout, and the Dems had to pull all the stops to prevent him from being the front runner. Meaning something in the ballpark of a quarter of Americans who actually bother to vote were supporting him. Far from a majority, but to your point, it's a big and growing political force.
But I think the point stands that they aren't likely to swing a general election. Progressives (those that actually vote at all) are almost certainly going to vote for Biden regardless how how much he panders to them. This election will be decided by a fairly small number of centrists and moderate Republicans that may have been alienated by Trump who happen to live in swing states.
Unless, of course, Biden does something monumentally stupid and pisses off the progressives so bad that they are willing to risk another Trump term and vote 3rd party, which seems unlikely.
The way people vote and the policies people actually want enacted are very different. If you're talking specifically about how people vote, there's a lot you can infer as to why they vote the way they do, but if we're talking about actual policy - if people voted for policies instead of politicians, the vast majority of americans are very progressive. This is the point I was disagreeing with the commenter on.
The polls bear it out time and time again - people want progressive policy, but are afraid to vote for progressive politicians, and hedge their bets on the "safe" candidate.
This, so much.
It's so, so exhausting to keep on being told that "voters don't want progressive policies because they don't vote for progressive candidates" when the same people saying that are also the ones working the hardest (and spending the most money) to defeat progressive candidates by presenting them as 'risky' and doing their best to get voters to vote for the candidates backed by more money.
I would love to see American voting switch to Ranked Choice Voting. I'm tired of hearing the parties leverage voters' fear of splitting the vote into compromising on a vote that 'can win'- that pattern wags the dog far too much for my liking.
It's also frustrating to watch the Dems fight against taking up policy that young people say they want because "young people don't vote". It's as if people won't vote for you if you keep on promising not to do the things they want
Please don't assume I'm entitled or an idiot, and I do vote.
I vote consistently for Democrats in the general because they're the least-bad option. I participate in the primaries. I am trying to help, try not to shoot the messenger.
With that said, this was a pitch-perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion and being a jerk about the thing you imagined (even though I am not it). I should be allowed to express frustration over what I see as self-defeating behavior, and sure enough you volunteered to exemplify it by turning what could have been a constructive exchange into a shitty one. Do better.
Stop being an entitled idiot and Vote. It's that simple. Turnout for local elections, primaries, and off big ticket years is abysmal. There are no excuses. You have the power to vote for whomever you want. You can even write-in someone. Stop complaining that the status-quo won't change for you. You aren't going to get what you want by saying it. Vote or Run for those policies. If a majority of people don't agree with you, then that's that. You can push for ranked choice, but you aren't going to get it complaining about it. You have to vote.
Yeah, Trump's cult and "Vote Blue No Matter Who" don't help things either. The election system needs a major overhaul or we're going to keep getting incompetent old guys.
It absolutely helps. Republicans make things worse. The worst Democrat keeps things the same. Same > Worse. Vote in the Primary to decide on what Democrat gets to run.
Doesn't help that Sanders dropped out and we ended up with Biden, who everybody thinks is a moderate but says racist shit all the time "by accident."
People think he's this sweet grandpa, but he's an old man with dementia and a questionable history, who needs to retire. But he gets away with it because he's got a D after his name.
I can’t give a shit about any negative traits that Biden has that every Republican also has worse. It comes off as apathy spreading bullshit and that’s how we got a criminal con man who attempted a coup.
And the best the Democrats could do is some racist geriatric with dementia who belongs in a nursing home. But don't worry, he understands the wildfires in Maui because he burned his kitchen down once and had some ice cream.
With Democrats, every issue that matters just gets pushed off to the next election. "Give me four more years and I'll legalize abortion again!" And during covid, they became the fascists they pretend to hate, enforcing mandates and then partying in Republican-led states like Florida. "Rules for thee but not for me!"
This is why I don't take either side seriously. We know where Republicans stand, but the Democrats aren't doing any better and it's all somebody else's fault.
Bullshit. You want better Democrats? Vote. Until Democrats attempt to overthrow the government I don’t want to hear your same sides brain dead take.
Bold assumption there. I've voted in almost every election since I've turned 18, but the brain dead ones always win anyway.
And yes, this includes primaries.
We don’t always get what we want. Write and call your representatives and clearly articulate what you’re looking for. If that fails, run yourself. We do the best we can.
grok
I've yet to see any evidence that there was some orchestrated agenda against Bernie. Sure, all the moderates probably did drop out so that moderate Biden could win against Bernie. What's wrong with that? Isn't that sort of implicitly how it works and should work? They made a choice that sacrified their own candidacy for the sake of advancing their policy goals (through Biden).
Nor have I seen any evidence that the DNC orchestrated some sting against Bernie in 2016 - the most that ever came out of that leaked trove of DNC emails were some DNC staff saying they wanted Hillary to win - not that they were going to take any action to make that happen.
I was a bit disappointed and wanted Bernie, but you're right that there wasn't really anything wrong with them doing that.
Not only that, but it showed that they aren't like the crabs in a bucket Republicans who failed to do the same because of their own egos and allowed Trump to ascend to the nomination through a series of plurality wins.
In my opinion, it shows they aren't dumb fascists and actually put the party and their country ahead of their own power and self-interest.
We can go even further and assume the democrats were all purely working in good faith, with the end goal of helping people. Even if that were the case, the idea that americans don't want progressive policy is still garbage and is completely trashed by polling. The polling alone disproves the commenter's completely contrafactual claim. It's demonstrably wrong on several levels.
regardless, the DNC could just overrule the results of the primaries if they wanted to and it'd be above board. It's completely legal. Biden could win 100% of the vote in every primary and they could put forward some random dude from Kentucky as their candidate and it would be "how it works". I disagree that that's how it should work.
Sad but harsh reality, it's not pretty but just how democracy functions under FPTP-voting with zero campaign finance subsidy available. If you can't pick up popularity in one of the two big parties you're shit out of options in the current system - designed by wealthy romans for the benefit of wealthy romans. If not allowed to evolve the great experiment is doomed at the whim of the super rich whenever enough lose their minds into fascism.
If it was trump v Bernie we would still have president trump right now. I’m in GA and there is basically not a single Bernie voter here. And as we all know ours and other swing states were key.
Except all polls showed the exact opposite. But keep dreaming I guess
I'd like to see the polls you found. I usually go to Five Thirty Eight for their polls, because they have a lot there. They do tend to go down as center left, and I'd like to see other polling agencies, especially those that focus on the socialist side of things
It was nearly unanimous amongst the polls. Nate Silver is an absolute moron lol. Not that him being an idiot directly means his polling is trash. This guy made one prediction correctly, got famous for it, and now think he's fucking nastrodamus, spewing the dumbest assed takes. he's the definition of the saying "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"
Biden also wins around the same against Trump according to RCP polling aggregation. Really nice site though I'll definitely look at it. Not sure why you think Nate Silver is a fascist though. He isn't a pundit, more so just a statistics nerd. If anything the Five thirty-eight team is against Trump, who is the fascist American's pick.
Okay. What's your point? Does it have anything to do with the discussion around the population of americans that want progressive policy?
When Bernie was a threat, Nate Silver and lots of liberals were saying shit like they'd vote for trump over bernie, or just simply not vote if bernie was the nominee. They'll side with fascists against if they think progressive will threaten their power
Yeah I forgot about the context. Bernie Sanders could definitely win against Trump
To those types, because liberals aren't doing enough in their eyes to oppose the fascists, the quote of sitting at a table with fascists applies, therefore all liberals are fascists too
Then all communists and socialists are Fascist also. Mussolini was an ardent socialist before being a fascist, and indeed still considered himself a Socialist. Joseph Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact with Adolph Hitler, who was a thug for the Marxists before starting his National Socialist Workers Party. The Conservatives who value the appeal of Strength that Fascist thinkers call out with also fall prey to Fascism
Indeed the Liberal Government of the United States subverted governments to install Fascist governments in South America such as the government under Pinochet. You and I both have the potential to be Fascist. I do not think that Nate Silver is any more of a Fascist than you or me, simply because he doesn't shout from the street corners about the evils of Fascism.
I'm trying to follow your logic. How does other candidates dropping out on Super Tuesday screw Bernie? Those voters didn't vote for Bernie.
Are you trying to follow my logic, or have you already reached your conclusion? Looking at your comments on just this thread, it feels like it would be a waste of time to engage
I don’t understand what your implying. If the field remained messy Bernie could have won like Trump did in 2016? Right now it reads like you assume those votes that went against Bernie would have just became his or something. Idk.
I was really clear. But now it's really clear instead of following the thread, you're trying to shoehorn in your opinions, under the guise of "oh please help me understand". That's why I explained that it's a waste of time to engage.
I simply ask why everyone dropping out on Super Tuesday is a dirty trick. I can’t even tell you if I agree or disagree with your conclusion because I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You took the time to reply again without explaining yourself, so clearly it’s not about wasting time.
ok, see ya later
I look forward to more vague proclamations that you refuse to explain in any way despite clearly having the time to do so.
Cool, great chat!
But they already do that, so why care?
I voted for Biden in hopes that
The clown show would be over
We would get one nice progressive win.
He gave me half of what I wanted. So I guess partial victory.
I think we may have found out that's a risky strategy in the general election in 2016. It's as if having a choice between a status quo centrist and republican crazies isn't good for turnout- when the American Dream is increasingly regarded to be a cruel joke by young voters and the result is such low turnout that if 'did not vote' had been a candidate it would have won, maybe it's time for the Dems do some soul searching here.
I don't see him switching either, and in any case it doesn't make sense for him to run away from progressives to avoid being called radical- after all, they're calling him radical anyhow and it's unlikely they'd stop doing that
To the extent that running to 'the center' is seen as just appeasing Republicans in trade for no benefit to anyone but those Republicans (I think it is seen that way by a lot of younger, left and independent voters), I take the view that the one thing the Democrats must do (if they do nothing else) is keep on pressing hard on antitrust enforcement and restoring unions and labor protections and promoting environmental protection. If they don't, I expect a lot of stupid protest votes going to the green party or other splitter factions set there to split the democrats and lower the bar enough for the GOP to heave a fascist boomer into the white house where they will finish the job of dismantling American democracy
Yea I laughed when I read this headline. Man who failed to win with strategy thinks candidate will win with same strategy.
The infra bill was a huge shot in the arm and, based on the ads I'm seeing, he's going to run on its passing... that bill is beyond amazing, but they should have gone harder. While the ~$1.6 trillion is an eye watering amount of money, ~$4-6 trillion is what was originally asked for and what is needed. Hopefully he'll run on a Build Back Better: Part Deux. Also his appointees to the NLRB have been super progressive and aggressive, the return to Joy Silk will give the reinvigorated labor movement serious steam, but he also busted the RR workers ability to strike and he seriously shouldn't have done that. Overall, I'm not mad at the Biden WH on domestic issues... but more is needed and he should have let the RR workers strike. Like, the economy be damned, call the hedge fund's bet and end the Reagan era union busting.
"They" didn't have control of Congress. Two Senators are Democrats but are much more centrist and won't vote for certain things.
You mean the one that created a government function thats proposed to privatize water?
As well as mandated increasing federal fossil fuel extraction leases many times over before beginning any expansion of renewable energy.
It's amazing how neoliberals will just blindly believe the propaganda of Politico, NYT and WaPo 🤦
Would you rather be dependent on foreign supply while waiting for renewable energy to be built? A lot of america still runs on oil and it's gonna take a long time for that change even with the green transition finally happening.
Fun fact: the US already produces much more oil than it uses and exports most of it.
The "energy independency needs oil" argument is a false one made up by the fossil fuel industry and the corrupt politicians they own.
Their efforts, not a lack of feasibility, are the main impediments to transitioning to a renewable energy grid, which can be done surprisingly fast (a 50MW wind farm can be operational in 6 months, a 10MW one in only 2, and a solar farm in 6-12) and the resulting decentralised grid would be much more resilient in avoiding catastrophic failure than one focused on a few large fossil fuel burning plants that stop working every time it gets too hot or too cold.
In conclusion: your pro-fossil fuel argument is invalid and you've fallen for empty propaganda.
As an actual climate lobbyist, the IRA is the single most effective piece of climate legislation ever passed.
Lobbying for WHICH climate action group, though? Some are as good for climate action as Neera Tanden's CAP is for progress.
In fact, you're sounding like a more polite version of her right now with your exceedingly vague yet utterly false trumpeting of neoliberal saviours 🙄
That's not relevant to their point
It's relevant to whether their profession lends any legitimacy to their ridiculous claim.
"Doxx yourself or you're a liar"
Nope, that's not at all what I was saying.
I was pointing out that not all climate lobbyists know any more about climate policy and the content of specific bills than reasonably diligent laypeople.
As such, "as a climate lobbyist", does not necessarily lend the authority to the following statement that some might imagine.
They seem to be able to detect foreign propaganda and are immune to it, and deny US propaganda exists, despite living in the propagandized country on earth
And even then, they're much better than Republicans who can't detect and are extremely susceptible to foreign propaganda.
Of course, "much better than Republicans at resisting propaganda" is like "much better at bowling than an armadillo". The species just isn't built for it 🤷
But he's not all that progressive. He never has been. In a sane country, he'd be a middle-of-the-road Republican. There is no progressive left in this country. Not with any real power.
I keep seeing this but I'm not sure what you all want ..
Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we're not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it's been 3 years
Edit: with a republican congress no less
They don't like Joe Biden because he doesn't pick losing fights on principle, in general, and because they don't want to admit that the primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.
I get it. I feel the same way at least emotionally. But $1.3 trillion dollars towards climate change and what is almost certainly the most important climate bill ever passed in the world so far is really hard to argue with.
I would like him to stand up and advocate for court reform. We need to strike while the iron is hot and people are seeing the Supreme Court for the corrupt political institution it always has been. He's backed down with very little fight on a couple of the things they've pulled lately when the Trump Administration would have just kept hammering on passing the exact same laws with tiny changes until they accept it. For example, the opinion on that student loan relief case made this incredibly idiotic argument about how the HEROES Act doesn't give permission for partial waivers because it only allows a modification or a full waiver and the partial waiver apparently doesn't count as either of those. I think you should have just come back and said well all right then, full waiver and total jubilee. That probably would also have been struck down but it would have really shown how vapid and hypocritical the court was.
The word neoliberal has basically lost most meaning. But everything they accuse Joe Biden of being are things that describe Joe Manchin. The guy who singularly keeps killing Progressive legislation put forward by the Biden administration.
Does it tho?
The 2016 general election was a contest between candidates with historically low favorables It took just 27.2% of eligible voters (in the right places) to put Trump in the White House Clinton underperformed Obama, while Trump over-performed Romney
If 'Did not vote' had been a candidate in the 2016 general, it would have won in a landslide https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/
If "did not vote" were a candidate in ANY modern US election it would win. The 2016 and 2020 elections both had historically high turnouts.
What is your counterfactual? Would Bernie have been able to get more votes than Biden, then follow it up by passing as much impactful legislation (e.g., the IRA) as Biden did? We can't really know, but I am extraordinarily confident the answer is 'no'. He'd be labeled a full commie by the likes of every GOP + Manchin/Sinema and fully blocked from doing anything, even appointing cabinet members.
2016's turnout was 55% of eligible voters. That's not historically high. Clinton underperformed Obama in total votes received.
2020's turnout was historically high- it's tough to say whether that was all anti-Trump energy (in which a ham sandwich with a (D) next to its name could have won, or if it was all pro-Biden energy that no other Democrat could have received (but TBH, I kinda suspect it's more the former than the latter)
Probably not, given that centrists seem to prefer kneecapping progressives to supporting them.
As for things we "can't really know", we do know 100% that Clinton didn't win in 2016, and that resulted in flipping SCOTUS rightward for a generation, the overturn of Roe, it meant that we'd have the pandemic under leadership that just wanted people to pretend it wasn't there and sacrifice themselves for the economy, it was a terrible shit-show and the biggest thing we all got was ballooning debt so the billionaires could get their tax cuts and American foreign policy experienced setbacks from which it may never recover.
So was Biden. So was Obama. So was FDR. So was Kennedy. So was LBJ. They've called every Democrat to the left of Hoover a communist since Woodrow Wilson's administration. This "oh no, we have to nominate people that republicans will accept or they'll call us names" nonsense is quite possibly the worst sort of preemptive-surrender politics imaginable and I imagine it has something to do with why young people don't vote
Counterfactuals. You can't ignore counterfactuals.
The counterfactual to Biden is even less successful progressivism than we got. You yourself agreed with this and it is the most salient point.
You can and should demand more. You can and should advocate for change far beyond this. But my original points stand. By the time we reached the general election, Biden had proven he was the candidate to vote for to cause the most positive change possible. There was not a better way to spend your vote.
That's all well and nice, but it wasn't republicans holding up far more aggressive and progressive legislation. It was Sinema, Manchin, and the other "centrists" who at least are smart enough to see the GOP for the totally evil lunatics they are, even if their politics really isn't much better.
Young people getting out and voting is WHY Biden won. He didn't win in spite of them.
Yes, young people showing up tipped it that way. It worked out better for Biden than it did for Clinton and I'm really glad about that.
But did they show up because Biden earned their vote, or because a ham sandwich vs. Trump would have got their vote?
Certainly in the general he was vastly preferable to Trump, but was he really a better choice in the primary than, say, Sanders or Warren or Buttigieg? I see a lot of confident assertions and untestable claims about that, but I suspect we'd all do well to consider the Democratic primaries as first and foremost a money contest, as secondly a process by which the money people signal to the voters which candidates they will support or tolerate- and in which whoever designates "the candidates that can win" has leverage to get voters to give up on what they might really want in order to get someone who "can win". In other words, are the primaries really a way of getting to know the will of the people, or are they a means of pressuring a critical mass of people to vote a way the donors will accept and then presenting that as the genuine will of the people?
There's a certain begging-of-the-question involved when we use confident claims about who "can win" to influence the way people vote. After all,
I'm not really sure what to say.
To me, the best evidence of a candidate's ability to get the most votes is their ability to get the most votes. And their ability to get the most votes from voters seems to be pretty damn predictive of their ability to get the most votes from members of congress.
I mean, I personally voted for Buttigieg and would've personally preferred Sanders or Warren. But I am also genuinely surprised at how much positive legislation Biden has gotten passed, especially the IRA, and am pretty dubious anyone else could've built that much consensus to do the same. Not to mention that I'm pretty disappointed in Buttigieg's lack of massive change in the DOT so far, as much as I know it is an ultra-conservative and hard to change department..
The rest of your complaint here is just that you don't like the way US politics works. Yeah, join the club. National popular vote and more ranked choice voting is probably the best first step to reform, but even they have serious drawbacks.
this seems to imply that the democrat party is left, but it is not.
The smugness. Imma vote for Cornel West just to piss you off.
With all that projection I guess you really do have an apt username.
“If you want to pull the party to your thinking, you must show them that you are capable of not voting for them.”. You didn’t convince me to change my vote. Milquetoast liberalism will doom us all.
Primaries have a purpose. Vote in them.
Don't go around telling progressives to throw away their votes and let conservatives win in the general elections. Do that and you're a colossal piece of shit working for the big bad. I'm tired of people like you helping get Republicans elected because you think principles matter more than the things they exist to defend.
Linking to clips about an election where literally one of the more progressive democratic candidates of my lifetime lost to Bush thanks largely to progressives failing at the GOTV and a major third-party spoiler candidate. Fuck, man, at least have a sense of self-reflection.
i remember the 2016 primary. the purpose was to coronate a candidate i didn't want.
gore won florida. the supreme court coronated bush.
Your principle is the status quo. My principle is egalitarianism. I’m tired of people like you telling us we can’t have democracy because it risks fascism. As if the Democratic Party wouldn’t go fascist to preserve their power. They’ve already proven they will.. Demand more for your vote! Join the dissidents at CornelWest24.org. Or https://beehaw.org/c/cornelwest2024@slrpnk.net
Your principle is idealism with no concessions to reality. Keep dreaming, old man.
Says the guy that would have been perturbed because people complained about King George before the Revolutionary War. People like you prevent progress from happening. Never change, literally.
It's difficult to believe West is anything but an ivory tower academic trying to elevate his status on the national stage; I know he has a lot of opinion pieces (a lot I even agree with) but has he ever held any office at all? He's not a real candidate, best case scenario he's got his own angle he's working.
That's the best case. Worst case scenario he's funded by some shady PACs looking to divide the (true) left vote and spoil 2024. You really think subconsciously racist white-America (think NIMBYs) are going to vote for a self-described "non Marxist socialist" that looks like this I have my doubts friend-o!
That being said, I support Dr. Wests voice in the conversation and hope he can be an intelligent advocate for thoughtful policies, even if he's not ready for the presidency.
All that could be true, but that’s not what’s driving voters to his candidacy. This country needs a fundamental overhaul of its infrastructure to prepare for the climate to come. The duopoly will be over, it just hasn’t recognized it. The goal is to pull Biden and the corporate Dems as far left as possible to the needs of the citizens. We can do it by threatening the vote, not by falling in line to maintain this flawed electoral system. I understand it’s frightening, because the threat of fascism is real. But as Mark Watney says, “Fortune favors the brave.”
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/B37zCueHfFM?si=49wG2XDEXmMKXlrg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
He's also yet to declassify weed even though he carrot on a sticked it leading into the general and then again before primaries. He could do it any time and has not.
If Biden were to make any such change to Marijuana scheduling by executive order, the next president would just undo it the same way. Worse still, the GOP would use such a move as a talking point that Biden is soft on crime and trying to get their kids on drugs, which the GOP base would eat up.
In fact, though, the Biden administration actually is making progress on this front. Some time ago, they requested that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study whether or not Marijuana should be rescheduled. Just a few days ago, HHS sent their recommendation to the DEA to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. The DEA has sole authority on drug scheduling.
So then whats the next step after this recommendation?
Demand everyone be satisfied with it and coast on it for at least 15 years.
Good point, forgot that. At least the states (the good ones) have taken on that mantle
They love dangling that carrot stick before elections. Only for it to ripped right back election day and tucked away for the next election
living wage would be cool
Tell it to the Midwestern white women.
The men, too, but let's be real they're a lost cause unless Hell freezes over and the Dems nominate someone with a gun collection.
Really simple. Pay close attention.
Now as for some of your points.
"Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we’re not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it’s been 3 years"
He also ticks a lot of boxes that makes him a glorified 80s republican. All of the stuff I mentioned requires no act of congress and he has more than enough political capital to do. And even if he did all of this, he still wouldn't be all that progressive. I really wish you neoliberal would stop with this nonsense.
Spot on.
I wasn't a fan of how Biden quashed the railroad strike, and his response to the Maui wildfire was lackluster.
I want someone who fights like hell for my interests, not a goddamn third way triangulator.
No more hugs.
There are certain facets to consider here. The nuance I would add is that if he campaigns as a progressive, that will be a more winning platform but they will still just be campaign promises.
Then he should do that. Then, if he doesn’t uphold his promises, we can hold his corpse accountable.
I would like to live in a world where politicians treat campaign promises as a blood oath, but we do not and cannot live in that world.
Pretty sure he lines up well with the neoliberal side of most European parties, which is on the right.
If neoliberalism means massive state intervention in investment activities, and putting up trade barriers, then the word has no meaning.
Thing is: it really has none that's if any use globally. A "liberal" in the US is something a liberal form Europe will not recognize as even remotely similar to their own stance and vice versa.
I don't think there is much difference in the use of the word liberal. If I compare the politics of the main liberal party in my home country (VVD in the Netherlands) there isn't that much difference with the average Democrat in the US. The main difference is whether they are perceived as left or right wing by the population.
And it very much is neoliberal. Both parties (VVD and Democrats) are in favor of a smaller government and laissez-fair capitalism. They might need to compromise on these principles from time to time to remain popular, and in Europe maybe a bit more.
Funny thing: right wrong conspiracy nuts get their talking points from the us, so more and more people are starting to call liberals left-wing communists in Europe. So far it's just by the people who get their talking points online.
You're right. It's the left/right part they seem to have shifted mostly.
Although Republican tends to be a leftist thing in monarchies like the Netherlands.
Republican means you are in favor of a republic, meaning no monarchy. Communism wants a classless society, so they are republicans as a logical consequence of the ideology. America is a democratic republic, so both Democrats and Republicans are just meaningless labels .
After the last guy the country just needed a guy who mostly plays but the rules, as unwritten as they are. Understands the system. Makes the country look like its head is connected to the neck. Generally speaks diplomatically. Doesn't have too many ideas that are way outside center. Looks after the little guy sometimes. Hires advisors who have a clue.
We got that guy. That's a good thing.
Now we need a newer, younger person with vision. Somebody who can help rebuild an American dream. Somebody who will be alive to see their dream come true. Somebody who can get everyone excited about figuring out what it means to be an American. Somebody who can set aggressive goals and make the case for why we should pursue them, and get the ball rolling. Somebody who shows the average American that their life specifically can be better tomorrow than it is today.
Regrettably that person will still struggle to defeat the ancient skeleton incumbents.
quit packing congress with them then and demand age limits
You know what's easier than buying old politicians with track records? Buying young outsiders with no record that can just say what you want to hear then pass bills written by lobbyists.
Maybe the problem is the buying and not the age of the product
I’m not convinced taking money out of politics isn’t going to just send it all underground. Just look at the implication that nefarious actors hacked the RNC and are blackmailing Republican politicians into pushing the Kremlin’s agenda. Money doesn’t even need to change hands. Power is all that’s necessary and we can’t do much about that.
He had better. Nothing worse than an incumbent democrat losing to fascists.
Can you rephrase it? I don't think I get what you mean.
Sure thing!
I hope the incumbent democrat wins because otherwise, if a fascist won that would be terrible.
Hope that helps!
Alright, thank you!
The alternative for president is either Trump or a Trump wannabe
This country didnt turn fascist on republicans alone. Dems and their ratchet effect helped immensely
Yeah...no. Enough of the fucking 70+ year olds. I'm so fucking tired of people who should be fucking retired owning and running everything. Fuck the mother fucking hell off fossils. God damn it. Enough with the fucking retirement home bullshit. Holy fucking hell.
Anything in specific or just the age thing?
Yeah, there's the "decrepit and out of touch" Biden/Trump/Mcconnell/Feinstein old and then there's the "elder statesman who's still true to himself and his constituents and sharp as a tack if far too polite, even subservient, to people who he should consider the least disagreeable of two enemies rather than allies" Bernie old.
Which one of these wildly disparate forms of old do they prefer, I wonder 🤔
Oh fuck. He got us. Turns out there's nothing wrong with any of them at least partially due to their age.
I mean sure, age and related health issues CAN be a part of the problem like with Mcconnell and Feinstein, but usually the out of touch policy positions are much worse than the age itself.
For example, I'd much rather have Bernie than Madison Cawthorn making any decisions on behalf of the people and the vast majority of millenials and gen z agree 🤷
Gen X here. Most of the younger half of us would agree as well.
My girlfriend from the older half of Gen X does too, though I'm not sure if many people her age do 🤷
No no you're right, I'm sure there's not a strong correlation between being an octogenarian and being out of touch, those outliers prove it.
Didn't anyone ever teach you that correlation ≠ causation?
While the aforementioned health problems are a direct result of age, being out of touch isn't. If you do your due diligence as a politician, you can keep your finger on the pulse no matter how old you are, health permitting. Of the two people in my example, the octogenarian has political views and general mentality much more in line with the vast majority of people under 45 than the Gen Z fascist does.
Right. Because you cherry-picked the examples, then you're using that to wave away proportions. I'm saying, expand the sample size and you'll see that in general having ancient farts in high offices should be the exception, not the norm. If a correlation is strong enough, the connecting middle is kind of irrelevant for the purposes of the lower standard of justifying a bias.
Even Bernie, who years ago inspired hope in so many with his rhetoric, has all but given up, hearing him talk now many see a fire that's extinguishing. He doesn't have the energy to fight against the status quo within his own party anymore. A younger Bernie did.
As voting citizens, we don't give enough chances to younger politicians, when honestly we should be demanding it of the political parties to allow new blood to breathe life and ideas into their party, and provide us with more options.
Nope, I picked those two to illustrate that, while geriatric politicians are a bad thing in general, there are exceptions. I've never seen any of the people advocating term/age limits mention exceptions and was arguing against an absolute ban based on age and nothing else.
Maybe mandate some cognitive and policy knowledge tests every time someone, regardless of age, run for re-election. The senile out of touch ones from both parties would fail and so would younger idiots like Cawthorn, Boebert and Perjury Greene.
Nah, that's just his greatest flaw from even before 2016 continuing: being so averse to playing dirty that he goes to the other extreme and lets his competition get away with anything as long as worse exist. He's like a neoliberal in that one aspect, always have been.
Still not a lack of energy, he's just playing too nice with his allies who should be his lesser enemies. And younger Bernie didn't have much influence outside of Vermont and Washington since, this being pre-internet, the establishment decided which ideas got to most of the population. Like local public radio and tv enabled him to become one of the most influential people in the history of Vermont, the internet and the resulting ability to reach people without going through establishment tastemakers enabled him to build the (inter)national influence he always deserved.
I partly agree, partly disagree: on the one hand, I agree that there are far too many old and out of touch people deciding things, but on the other, there is such a thing as too inexperienced. A 25yo would be fine for local office, but I wouldn't trust someone THAT young to run a country. I'd say late 30s to mid 50s is probably the goldilocks zone, with exceptions to be made for exceptional individuals such as Bernie or AOC.
That part I agree wholeheartedly with, no notes.
No more please can we just get normal human beings as presidential candidates and not whatever the fuck this has been?
They don’t exist. Not in politics, at least. All we get are crooks and 80 year olds.
In a real way, both major parties are still fighting out the battles of the civil rights era, and are effectively led by people who came of age then. Unfortunately, that they (or their ideas) are still running the show in the way that they are means both parties are stuck in a particular past, forever trying to avoid the calamity they're fighting to un-do
The GOP's leadership is fighting like a wounded animal to un-do desegregation and Roe, and to dismantle voting rights and industrial regulation
The Dem's leadership have spent decades fighting super-hard to prevent their voters from advancing progressives out of primaries and into general elections. McGovern's loss in 1972, they think, is forever evidence that progressives can't win and their subsequent curb-stomping of progressives (denying them party support, fighting hard to prevent them from winning primaries) serves as evidence to their way of thinking that 'progressives can't win'.
That this last bit (progs can't win, never mind we make sure they can't, so you have to vote for what wins or else all is lost) begs the question it pretends to answer seems pretty obvious to me. It has the same energy as saying 'socialism doesn't work' and then pointing to socialist governments that 'didn't work' because CIA ran coups to depose them and replace them with right-wing dictatorships. Of course these things don't work when you kill them off, the whole argument becomes self-fulfilling and circular.
Hence the error of a two party system; no one can afford to go out on a limb, especially now that literal Nazis are the alternative.
Biden is a normal Politician. Someone with of a wealth of experience in different levels of government who was elected slightly late. People seem to forget that younger less experienced candidates seldom live up to their hype. Obama never lived up to his hype, despite imo being a very good President. When you aren't experienced you can run on all these ideals and naivety. You get into the job and the reality hit you like a freight train. We all need to not get lost in "Not Progressive Enough", awhile the other side is pushing Regressive policies; It's far easier to tear something down than it is to build it.
Stop putting old farts in leading roles.
I'm 35 and I already feel a little out of touch tbh. It's insane people in their 80s being in positions of power is so normalized.
To old to be on a jury but not too old to make the law.
Atleast with Biden there's a good chance Harris will have to step up and become first female president
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-lMIGV-dUI
These are the old fucks deciding things.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=t-lMIGV-dUI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Biden? a progressive? yea right.
Biden is too old to run. And Trump is a liar, criminal, un-American, and working to get rid of our democracy, AND is too OLD. But it looks like I will be voting for Biden again. And he has done some good things while in office.
So, I hope that Biden will have a moment of clarity about the needs of the middle class and poor people of the US. And he'll want to die of old age with history saying he was very helpful in fighting for policies to help us.
Maybe. But I do know Republicans don't believe in our democracy and they don't want young people voting. They want to rule us with religion even though they are a small part of your nation.
You might wanna catch up on Biden's past.
Hey everyone, go outside and find some grass and take your shoes off and put your feet in it. Stand there for a minute or two and just feel the grass on your feet. Have fun!
The grass is dried out and it makes my skin itchy
Do i take my socks off too? I don't want to keep them on and get them dirty, but I don't wanna take them off cause the grass is prickly :/
Maybe the US should create a "Geriatric Party", where all these senile diaper wearers are put in a home.
Voting for a guy who has at MOST 5 years to live is not good foresight, regardless of what political party you rally behind.
Any human being of any age is better than a Republican fascist.
Sure, especially one who says racist garbage "by mistake." /s
We need to do better than these senile geriatrics.
Great, so what's your plan? Pick your favorite 3rd party candidate and hope 100,000,000 other people who've never voted 3rd party before decide this is the year, and they magically pick the same 3rd party candidate as you?
We need an overhaul of our election system. Having Biden vs Trump with no hope of a third candidate ever being successful isn't sustainable. These geriatrics need to go.
Seeing how much Trump has lost it, Biden might not even need to do that to win.
Remember, it isn't that Trump supporters don't know what he's done, it's that they don't care.
Considering the Trump supporters I know, I think there's a strong possibility that it's both
This is the best summary I could come up with:
He urged voters who are dissatisfied with the work the Biden administration has done to recognize that "we are living in an unprecedented moment in American history."
In the announcement, the president explicitly positioned himself opposite Trump, and some of his other Republican opponents, on key issues like abortion and social security.
Dictating what health care decisions women can make, banning books, and telling people who they can love.
Sanders referenced several of those issues in underscoring what he believes is the importance of building "a strong progressive agenda" to win the presidency in 2024.
Sanders called on Democrats to develop a progressive agenda that prioritizes the needs of seniors and of young people by expanding Medicare and addressing student debt.
"And when we win big, we have to make it clear that we stand with the working class of this country, against the kind of corporate greed that we now see."
The original article contains 702 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Not cool to say he'll lose like that, Bern.
He can run on a strong progressive agenda, but we all know it's all talk and no substance.
"I can't believe what you say because I see what you do." James Baldwin
All talk no action. Don’t just hear what they say, see what they did. You’ll make the choice, think about next generation. I wanted to live in US but maybe not anymore, there are many shit-and non-brain young people.
While I'll never vote Republican I don't see myself voting Biden this time. He got my vote to unseat the cheeto last time but his administration's antagonism towards financial markets along with his outdated stance on things like policing (more cops with no reform) and cannabis legalization (just no) along with him pushing a CBDC (programmable digital dollar that removes all privacy and places all control in the hands of the banking elite) have lost him my vote. I'll be wasting my vote on a third party since a worthy Dem primary challenge is highly unlikely.
So win by lying about what he's actually going to do while claiming that the policy positions of people who would have been better candidates are his own? Well it worked the first time, barely 🤷
Shut up trump supporter
Yeah, because you can't possibly criticize a conservative neoliberal like Biden from the left 🙄
I think that was sarcasm
I hope you're right
These two things are opposites, in any practical sense that isn't "not communist."
Nope. Neoliberalism is a center right to right wing ideology and amongst Neoliberals, Biden is one of the more conservative rather than one of the more progressive ones.
Dozens of millions of Americans alone and hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion or two people worldwide are to the left of neoliberalism without being anywhere near communism.
Try getting your news and political analysis from a source NOT owned by a billionaire once in a while.
Nothing you are saying is remotely accurate, so I'll stick with reality, thanks.
Hey look, I found a gif of you typing that reply!
Wow you should've linked it. That might've been funny.
I did, but since you apparently don't know how to operate a simple imgur link, I'll describe it for you: its a projector projecting.
No link bro.
Was there on my end, "bro" and it's a moot point now 🤷
It's a cow's opinion.
It's moo.
He ran on a progressive platform the first time. And then reneged on it. That union buster can fuck off.
"Most pro union President ever" As if saying it makes it true
Currently I am actually concerned if Biden makes it through the election healthwise. He looks very brittle and if the incumbent president bonus wasn't direly needed, I would advocate for someone else to get there.
But I am actually afraid of him dying or getting too sick during the campaign circus phase and Trump will win again. I don't trust the American people at all.
I guess you're right... The only option is to vote for the 80 year old, 300 (215?) lb guy who can't even make it up a ramp
And before you come in with "I'm just saying there could be better options!" there's not, so suck it up and quit with the fear mongering (if you're actually an American)
Stop twisting my words. I said no such thing as to vote for the other fossil. The issue is that the cultists will vote for Trump even if he was a corpse on a chair.
That's also weird. I never even pretended to be. In fact, I am not. But the election outcome usually has an impact on the rest of the world too, and 4 years of Trump was not a pleasure even outside of America, I can tell you that.
Right? We have a VP for these reasons. Biden has Harris and Trump will have one of those young clones from Brazil as a back-up.
I do not love Kamala Harris, she’s a grinning drug warrior, but the heads exploding as we swear in a woman of color would be pretty cool. The global Bosses have decided that we get to choose among evils this race and the Biden-Harris team is significantly less evil.
Bernie is not an idiot. He knows that at this moment holding the line is better for progress than what we will lose if we do not.
Why do idiots always do this whole whataboutism whenever someone criticizes Biden? Just because I criticize Biden doesn't automatically mean I support Trump. That just makes you look really stupid and ignorant as hell.
Because there are literally only two options that have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Of course looney lefty Bernie Sanders supports the commie cadaver sleepy Joe. They want to make it illegal to eat meat or even go to church. Carl Marks is laughing in his grave; in the end he won after all.
This post is an excellent example of Poe's Law.
So no?
If Democrats truly want to keep Trump out of office then they need to vote for West. We've tried it your way for decades and its not working when the entire discussion is which senile, geriatric, racist POS is the 'lesser evil' Your status quo is keeping people in poverty, increased homelessness, with no access to affordable healthcare or housing.
Oh, and Bernie can go fuck off. His progressive talk is tainted by insisting we support one of the architects of most of our problems in the US. If theres a law suppressing people's rights, it was probably written by Biden
Ya’ll act like Cornel West isn’t real.
He doesn't. Why he's running for president third party I really do not know.
Think. Deep down, you know.
Because he doesn't think he can actually win a primary, let alone a general?
He's definitely not a credible candidate.
He’s got ballot access in 17 states and is getting more. He’s polling at 4%. He’s real.
Polling at 4% is basically nothing more than a spoiler candidate. You'd need several years of getting 25% and handing the Republicans the election to really be able to bargain with the Dems.
Has Sanders ever won a contested election? Maybe we shouldn't be looking to him for campaign advice
You think he won a Senate seat uncontested?