Joe Biden announces Kamala Harris as running mate.

[SilentPony]

Not really, they have been about less federal power, reduction of social programs, bringing back a more religious foundation, and less federal intervention in the market. For a good long time. Other aspects have shifted, but those fundamentals have been fairly consistent since the political shift happened.

No that's just what they tell people they're about. They are for less federal government, but a huge military, less Government intervention in the free market, but huge corporate tax breaks and bailouts. Less Government intervention in their lives, but no gays or abortions. They're for bringing back the religious foundations of the nation, but don't know the founding fathers were mostly atheists and specifically wrote they didn't want a Christian nation. They're for less social safety nets, yet keep the military industrial complex which is a job's program. They're for a free and 'democratic' society, but draw maps to specifically circumvent democracy and make it harder for people to vote.

The only thing you can say the Republicans have been consistent on is hypocrisy.

 

[Cheetodust]

I feel like those two things are related, yeah democrats lost in 2016, but there's no reason to believe any other candidate would have won. Like you said, it's really easy to lose but claim that it's because <insert conspiracy> and that you'd totally have won the real election. Clinton lost 2016, Sanders would have lost 2016. The last UK election was practically a trial run of what a Sanders x Trump election would have looked like and the left got humiliated.

And in Ireland the left wing party got the largest share of the votes. More people in Ireland voted for left leaning politicians than right. I mean, we still got a right wing government because conservatives are great at "um actually-ing" and pushing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law but whatever.

There's a myth that there's no appetite for far left policies. It's bullshit. What there's no appetite for is neo-liberal Republican light nonsense that will pull all the same fiscal shit as conservatives but just wave a rainbow flag and pretend that they think black lives matter while not actually caring that the vast majority are skipping further and further into poverty. And I resent "liberals" demanding my vote just because they say they're on my team but don't actually want to push any of the things I believe in. Until left wing parties realise that the bar needs to be higher than '"better than Boris or Trump" they deserve to lose. Here Sinn Fein stuck to their guns and whether or not you agree with them, or of you think the formation of our government was fair, you can't deny that they had more support than any other party in the country. The Dems want people to believe they can't win by going further left but they'll never actually try it out to prove that hypothesis.

 

[Worgen]

No that's just what they tell people they're about. They are for less federal government, but a huge military, less Government intervention in the free market, but huge corporate tax breaks and bailouts. Less Government intervention in their lives, but no gays or abortions. They're for bringing back the religious foundations of the nation, but don't know the founding fathers were mostly atheists and specifically wrote they didn't want a Christian nation. They're for less social safety nets, yet keep the military industrial complex which is a job's program. They're for a free and 'democratic' society, but draw maps to specifically circumvent democracy and make it harder for people to vote.

The only thing you can say the Republicans have been consistent on is hypocrisy.

I never said they weren't hypocritical, just that they were consistent.

 

[SilentPony]

I never said they weren't hypocritical, just that they were consistent.

No my point is that they're consistently inconsistent. They say X and Y at the same time. So there is no clear Republican ideology because no two Republicans believe the same thing.

 

[Iron]

No my point is that they're consistently inconsistent. They say X and Y at the same time. So there is no clear Republican ideology because no two Republicans believe the same thing.

I'm voting for the Borg party in 2020. At least they all believe the same thing!

 

[SilentPony]

I'm voting for the Borg party in 2020. At least they all believe the same thing!

Except for all the rogue Borg and the Queens who each want different things.

 

[Cheetodust]

No my point is that they're consistently inconsistent. They say X and Y at the same time. So there is no clear Republican ideology because no two Republicans believe the same thing.

... fuck the lefties and also why can't those libtard cucks argue in good faith. Seems pretty universal among them.

 

[meiam]

And in Ireland the left wing party got the largest share of the votes. More people in Ireland voted for left leaning politicians than right. I mean, we still got a right wing government because conservatives are great at "um actually-ing" and pushing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law but whatever.

There's a myth that there's no appetite for far left policies. It's bullshit.

What myth? There was an entire election about this. Labour lost decisively, not a small difference like 2016 US election, but such a big lost that area that had been labour for close to century flipped, place that voted for Blair didn't vote for Corbyn. How is it a myth that people don't want far left policy when the candidate representing far left policy get trounced? Where are all the people clamouring for far left policy when election day roll around? Where are they now that Labour, under new leadership, is polling better than it did in the election? I say they either don't exist or they don't really care for far left policy if they can't even be bothered to show up election day.

Not that I have any evidence against that argument, but you have no evidence for it, either. It's very possible a different candidate, Bernie or otherwise, could have won the 2016 election. Strategically, Hillary's loss was down to a couple hundred thousand votes distributed across several swing states. There are many, many factors that could have been different to have won that small a proportion of the vote in those states. Even Hillary could still have won it if she hadn't run a pretty bad campaign.

The primary? There was a clear question asked of people "do you want Sanders or Clinton to represent the democratic party in the 2016 election" Clinton won, by quite a lot actually (no, superdelegate didn't steal the election, even without them Clinton had way more vote than Sanders). Sure, it's not perfect evidence, but its damn good evidence that Sanders would have lost when even the left wing leaning segment of the population doesn't vote for him.

 

[Agema]

What myth? There was an entire election about this. Labour lost decisively, not a small difference like 2016 US election, but such a big lost that area that had been labour for close to century flipped, place that voted for Blair didn't vote for Corbyn. How is it a myth that people don't want far left policy when the candidate representing far left policy get trounced? Where are all the people clamouring for far left policy when election day roll around? Where are they now that Labour, under new leadership, is polling better than it did in the election? I say they either don't exist or they don't really care for far left policy if they can't even be bothered to show up election day.

Labour's policies were popular. Unfortunately, its leader was catastrophically unpopular.

Plus the public were not impressed by its fudging over the biggest issue of the election, and that its central campaign organisation was humiliatingly amateur.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I feel like those two things are related, yeah democrats lost in 2016, but there's no reason to believe any other candidate would have won. Like you said, it's really easy to lose but claim that it's because <insert conspiracy> and that you'd totally have won the real election. Clinton lost 2016, Sanders would have lost 2016. The last UK election was practically a trial run of what a Sanders x Trump election would have looked like and the left got humiliated.

Clinton lost 2016 despite having a 2:1 money advantage, incumbent party advantage, more expansive ground game, running against a hand-picked opponent who just so happened to be Donald Trump, and enjoying every other strategic advantage a presidential campaign might have had in an election year. She accomplished this feat by being the head of the most incompetent, bumbling, corrupt Presidential campaign since Howard Taft's 1912 re-election bid, and committing practically every mortal sin in the course of five months a presidential campaign could have, short of performing an act of bestiality on prime time broadcast television.

Would the Sanders campaign have gone around insulting voters? Would the Sanders campaign have defrauded state parties and bilked them out of vital funding for state-level campaigning and down ticket elections? Would the Sanders campaign have let themselves get outflanked and outcampaigned in swing states?

 

[Tireseas]

Labour's policies were popular. Unfortunately, its leader was catastrophically unpopular.

Plus the public were not impressed by its fudging over the biggest issue of the election, and that its central campaign organisation was humiliatingly amateur.

I do think people, and activists in particular regardless of the ideology and their position in regards to the political mean, grossly overestimate how much specific policies matter in terms of electoral outcomes and grossly underestimate the importance of the leader in persuading voters (whether for or against them).

 

[meiam]

Labour's policies were popular. Unfortunately, its leader was catastrophically unpopular.

Plus the public were not impressed by its fudging over the biggest issue of the election, and that its central campaign organisation was humiliatingly amateur.

I supposed that's possible. But he was up against Boris Johnson... And you'd think people would appreciate the only leader that's carrying policy that are supposedly popular.

 

[Silvanus]

What myth? There was an entire election about this. Labour lost decisively, not a small difference like 2016 US election, but such a big lost that area that had been labour for close to century flipped, place that voted for Blair didn't vote for Corbyn. How is it a myth that people don't want far left policy when the candidate representing far left policy get trounced? Where are all the people clamouring for far left policy when election day roll around? Where are they now that Labour, under new leadership, is polling better than it did in the election? I say they either don't exist or they don't really care for far left policy if they can't even be bothered to show up election day.

And in 2017, Corbyn won a higher voteshare than the winning parties in any previous election since 2001. A higher voteshare than Cameron ever got.

Do you imagine that leftwing policies dropped in popularity so dramatically in just 2 years? Or do you imagine there might be a few other defining features of the 2019 election that acted as overriding issues for the electorate?

 

[Hades]

Plot twist! Kamala Harris isn't a real American either!

Trump weighs in after campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Harris' eligibility to be vice president

The dean of Berkeley Law School, a constitutional law expert, called the notion that Harris is ineligible "a truly silly argument."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[meiam]

And in 2017, Corbyn won a higher voteshare than the winning parties in any previous election since 2001. A higher voteshare than Cameron ever got.

Do you imagine that leftwing policies dropped in popularity so dramatically in just 2 years? Or do you imagine there might be a few other defining features of the 2019 election that acted as overriding issues for the electorate?

And there weren't defining features in 2017? Just a completely normal/uneventful election? Also he didn't win a higher voteshare than May, so...

 

[Jarrito3002]

Plot twist! Kamala Harris isn't a real American either!

Trump weighs in after campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Harris' eligibility to be vice president

The dean of Berkeley Law School, a constitutional law expert, called the notion that Harris is ineligible "a truly silly argument."

www.cbsnews.com

Is this going to be the new thing where anyone with a drop a black plus some other ethnicity is going to the have their muricanism tested.

As for this choice....its alright. I am not upset at it nor am I excited I will see how things play out.

 

[Silvanus]

And there weren't defining features in 2017?

To the level that Brexit and the antisemitism scandal dominated the 2019 election? No. Ordinary domestic issues notably played a much larger role in the discourse around the 2017 election.

Also he didn't win a higher voteshare than May, so...

Proving what? I'm not trying to claim that he won the 2017 election.

I'm saying that in 2017, there was not this decisive rejection of leftwing policies that you are claiming happened in 2019.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Found this meme today.

 

[Hades]

Is this going to be the new thing where anyone with a drop a black plus some other ethnicity is going to the have their muricanism tested.

Yes.

 

[Revnak]

Plot twist! Kamala Harris isn't a real American either!

Trump weighs in after campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Harris' eligibility to be vice president

The dean of Berkeley Law School, a constitutional law expert, called the notion that Harris is ineligible "a truly silly argument."

www.cbsnews.com

Nobody is a real American.