Which candidate does Zig Forums think is the most likely to win the Democratic nomination?
Will they beat Trump?
Which candidate does Zig Forums think is the most likely to win the Democratic nomination?
Which candidate does Zig Forums think is the most likely to win the Democratic nomination?
Other urls found in this thread:
Who cares? Fuck'em.
Bernie is the only one who can beat Trump. They'll probably rig it for someone like Beto or Kamala though.
I doubt Trump will be reelected, has he even filled any of his campaign promises or has he just sat on his ass for the last two years?
What president ever has? It's just about what team they are on for most people.
It's pretty obvious Bernie is the one who stands the most chances against the orange faggot. Given that the mainstream "left" is comprised of liberals (left leaning ones, though), Bernie is the chosen one.
It really is amazing how delusional the DNC is, it's almost as bad as our "they're going to run Hillary again" jokes:
It's like it's still 2016 and nothing changed inside their bubble.
This. Bernie or bust.
A major electoral factor most "wonks" don't take into account is the public impression of the economy. Not just brainwashed Republican voters, but even inside the DNC establishment, Trump's premise that the economy is "booming", or at least doing well, has been broadly accepted. By doing this, they've arguably conceded the election to Trump.
Are they really delusional though, or just working in their class interest? It's not like they really care if Trump wins again, as long as a lefty doesn't.
She is Obama 2.0. Now with new and improved lady parts, to bring in those disaffected Hilary voters.
Cory Booker is like a cheap bootleg of Obama. He isn't even half the orator that Barry was, and while Barrack was on the cutting edge of the emerging social media scene Booker gets basic PR wrong.
Nope, because the Dems beat Trump last time with Hillary but look whos prez. All these crypto-liberals on this board like to forget that Hillary got 2 MILLION more votes then Cheato Bad Man but still lost because the electoral college gives votes TO FUCKING LAND.
For Dems to win, their candidate can't just get more votes, they have to SHUT OUT any Republican candidate to overcome the electoral college AND Republican voter suppression. inb4 Dems do it to, sorry it's not nearly to the same degree
I GUARANTEE it's gonna be 4 more years of Trump. This asshole ain't going no where. Dems will probably lose their gains in the House and Senate too.
Crap forgot to spoiler, sorry mods :(
No one cares, lib. *Every* candidate, Hilldawg Slaykween included, built - and builds - their campaign around flipping it. You and all the other faggots are just pissed that your neoliberal kween thought the Rust Belt was a lock because "the algorithms never lie" and didn't even bother campaigning there.
Substantiate your claims, because I can prove elections have changed proletariat lives. Heck the very internet we're on is because of legislation opening it up to commodification.
What does this even mean? Please don't use your own words.
So the electoral college DOESN'T give votes to land. It ISN'T a hold over from the chattel slave days?
Oh no, I'm unhappy that millions of voters got disenfranchised. You're so smart, changing laws have never helped working people right?
The only reason anyone cares at all about muh 'lectrikal collich is because Trump's in the White House. Don't act like you'd be crying about this if Hillary won without the popular vote.
Who cares if it does? This shit's been around since the founding of the US, yet it's *only* in the time of Cheetoh Hitler that we get dozens of articles crying about the college's "legacy of slavery", "muh disenfrachisement"?
The United States is a hold over from the chattel slave days bruh.
You gotta be cointelpro. Spitting on all the working class people that did vote for Hillary is just too comically obtuse. You don’t need to worry about the electoral college ever electing a moderate liberal, it never will, and has over turned the popular vote twice in 20 years to elect a proto fash.
The people that voted for Hillary, and all the people that didn’t vote. Just because they didn’t vote doesn’t men they would have ever voted for anyone like Trump.
Excuse me plenty of people were pissed when Gore lost due to the electoral college as well. You need to get your news from someplace other than Reddit.
What? The media is going to blacklist him just for being 'sympathetic' to ALL working class people equally?
We're getting to the point where even being a reformist social democrat for the true working-class of this nation is so taboo that you end up on the fringes. The only way forward is revolution, it seems, and I don't think we're even remotely ready for that.
Also, Yang would beat Trump by virtue of sucking up a lot of his voters. Sanders already burnt every bridge by shilling for Shillary during 2020. I don't even like most of Yang's platform, and UBI is only good in that the money can be pooled into a revolutionary movement or be a band-aid replacement for means-tested welfare.
Also, this, but that empty 'land' is actually the 50 States of America, each of which has their own histories and cultures. The Soviet system, ideally, does a similar thing where soviets are the primary block of the federal government, not individuals. Of curse, Stalin removed this, but it's clear that individualist voting systems are inferior to bloc voting except on the local level. Also, the Presidency is gay. We should have no executive head of state or at least only a directorial one like in Switzerland that deals with basic administrative duties and nothing more.
I think they'll go for Kamala since she gets the most identity points. She's also attractive.
"Kamala" is Finnish for horrible, btw.
If it were an actually competent organization and not the Democrats, I would think Trump is losing 2020 automatically. He's pissed off enough conservatives by now and proven that he's just another neoliberal who says retarded shit every now and then, and while the hardcore Trumpers are never giving up on it, Trump won't get the bump from people who think Trump is somehow anti-establishment or a funny joke since he has proven to be neither of those things.
The only problem is that it's the Democrats, so they'll find a way to fuck up and turn off voters with their rabidly terrible policies and open disdain for anyone who isn't a professional class wanker. Libs can't get out of their own way. I wouldn't be surprised if they try Hillary yet again, even.
Bernie has the worst shot of winning because all the centrist turds will happily flip to Trump, and there aren't enough socdems who actually believe in the voting process to counter that. Conservative-leaning "independents" will never vote for the Bern, whatever they may say, because they're dumb and will swallow whatever programming they're given from their thought leaders. If they bought the line that Retard-Man was actually anti-establishment and bought the approved narrative of 2016 hook line and sinker, they'll buy Trump again once the propaganda gets going but with even more backing from the money powers. No one who actually knows what is going on would actually believe socdem is possible today, and certainly not the way Bernie is describing in his campaign (plus, it's easy to attack Bern's massive handouts to the education establishment that he was pushing in 2016, and he's unlikely to turn away from that position).
Bernie is the most likely to win in general, but the one who gets the nomination will be whomever the DNC picks.
Nah, the EC is shit. Though Hillary knew the rules going into the race, so it's stupid for her and her followers to keep harping on about how she won the popular vote.
Absolutely, anyone that voted Hillary in the general was a traitor, which is why millions of lifelong Democrat voters stayed home or voted Trump.
No, he "lost" due to Dubya's brother and then-governor Guacbowl teaming up with the federal supreme court to unconstitutionally reach down and kill the recount in Broward County, Florida. And then-president of the senate Gore suicidally tabling a motion to block this overreach by the supreme court.
This. Just like everything else the Trump-deranged screech about (muh voter suppression, muh pootin, muh shutdowns, muh chillunz in cages, etc.) it's been going on forever with nary a peep.
Not left enough to poach Sanders voters, not right enough to compete against DNC faves, doomed candidacy. If he were to ostentatiously switch parties and primary Trump? THAT would actually give him a serious chance of winning.
The education thing isn't a partisan issue though. Conservatives, liberals, and some leftists alike believe in the meme that education is the key to success, education is meritocratic, etc. The minority position doesn't have a public representation in the allowed spectrum of discussion, but it's there, and the education thing was one of the big reasons I couldn't really get behind Bernie, because I know that the schools and university system are so ass-backwards, and throwing money at a system that produces 90% failures is just going to exacerbate the situation. We already did the whole meme where we're all supposed to just go to college and get a good job, and look how that has turned out.
You can pay for everyone to get a PhD if you like, but the way education is set up is to enforce a hierarchy, and if everyone has a PhD they'll just invent a new system of merits so that the same minority has more of them than the rest of us scum, while a substantially sized minority are flat out denied any education whatsoever (which is increasingly the case for young people today, in a school system which has openly given up on anyone who isn't college-bound).
I highly doubt any reform of the education system is going to happen unless it's a reform to make it even worse (and I don't even think a good education system is possible, the best we could do is offer free textbooks and technical training). The status of the educated is predicated on the failure of others in a supposed meritocracy. Without our failure, the meritocracy could only be an illusion.
If it's not Yang or Bernie they're doomed, and doomed exceptionally worse than Hillary ever was, you think Trump winning by electoral college majority was bad in 2016? Wait until 2020 and watch him win the popular vote too because no one even know's who Biden is.
Mandated, recallable delegates aren't representatives. Representatives vote freely on laws, delegates vote according to the wishes of their constituencies and function more like diplomats than politicians.
Also, you don't need representatives to have unequal voting numbers. The Roman assemblies had voting by tribe and centuriate, I honestly advocate for voting for laws by blocs of local citizen assemblies as opposed to a single federal referendum to protect the rural population, to make vote-counting easier and less bureaucratic, and to encourage actual deliberation over just voting yes/no in plebiscites. Mandated, recallable delegates are kind of made obsolete by modern communications technology, and all we need are just committees of administrators who are recallable to enforce the laws made by the assemblies.
One man, one vote's problem is assuming that democracy is simply a game of numbers as opposed to being about the participation of citizens in politics. Having everyone's vote be equal in a nation of 300 million people means all power will go to the big population centers and the democracy of the local assemblies would be undermined by nationwide plebscites. This is the difference between democracy and ochlocracy. Ironically, the latter gives all power to whoever will be enforcing the demands of the mob as opposed to the mob itself, as the mob is just a mass of disorganized individuals as opposed to being truly citizens of a democracy.
This. Academics have already been democratized to the point where random NEETs on the internet can compete with university-graduates. Information isn't hard to come across. It's actually sifting through the trash that matters the most, and I don't trust universities with their biases at all in that task.
I unironically think that labor unions should take over the job training aspect of education and trade schools should train our workforce.
What a hilarious fantasy you have constructed.
A manager of capital.
It doesn't matter, whoever wins in 2020 will continue supporting capitalism and do their best to crush any notable working class power that may grow. Stop being socdems.
This so much. You guys ARE the farce that Marx was talking about.
Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
The DNC doesn't approve other candidates.
I think it's gonna be Harris, since there is a lot of presswork on her already (the black woman who fights against oppression personified in Trump) in my country, and we aren't even the USA.
Since there will be a lot of DNC fuckery involved again, Trump will get his second term, no problem.
Your revolutionary purism is your weakness.
I don't think Biden has a chance due to his baggage of being a fucking creeper. The general public doesn't really care about corruption, as evidenced by Hillary, but show some videos of Biden nuzzling reluctant children and he will drop like a rock in the polls.
This, most of the big independent progressive youtubers have already made big take-down videos of Biden. He's practically a moderate republican.
I thumb was pic related at first glance, Biden because I hate him the most and he's one of the slimiest establishment autocrats in the pic, and it doesn't fucking matter because the intershit and burgerland are a wasteland and will be even more so after the changing of the sheets. Benus Sandman would beat Annoying Orange tho.
No he lost, (don't know why you put that in ironic quotes), because of the electoral college. Even if you accept that Bush won Florida by a few hundred votes very contentious Gore still won the popular vote by a quarter million votes. All the electoral college does is give votes to land and the porkies that live on that land.
Are you a mind reader? Because landed middle class white women weren't the only people that voted for Hilary. Plenty of poor working class people vote Dem because they feel like they have no alternative. And Porky makes sure the media reinforces that thinking in every waking moment the working class has.
Your endless support for liberals and other anti-revolutionary forces are your weakness. The working class is right to not rally behind you, you are nothing more than an edgy democrat.
You'll buy anything the liberals say
This guys seems to get it.
Socialism is a hold over from capitalism, and so it's a hold over of chattel slavery as well. Chanting slavery at people isn't some trump card you can play on people.
What the fuck kind of ancom are you?
It's not just the mainstream left, it's this thread and dare I say the majority of this board.
Nigger have you been watching the news at all? He's building the wall, stopped the war in Syria, lowered taxes, got rid of the individual mandate. He has done more for the working class than any of the cucks in this thread could even dream of.
What about the people who voted for her in the primary?
None of that shit helps the working class. Plus those tax cuts are for the rich, and he backtracked on Syria.
You're forgetting that he doubled the standard deduction, which effects everyone.
Anti-immigration does help the working class, mass immigration is a tool of capital against labor.
Removing the individual mandate is positive, because it doesn't help the poor to coerce them to buy health insurance they can't afford, or to fine them for doing such.
whichever one the jews see fit
So is wage labor. But you never seem to bring that up, curious.
Literally this whole thread is closeted socdems talking about getting bones from the democrats.
I was pointing out that he did carry out policies that he said he would, like tax reform.
Do the democrats bring that up? I haven't seen other """leftists""" bring it up in this thread either, they are just licking democrat boots
Irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Tax cuts that help "everyone" are pointless. If he wanted to help the middle class he would support something like a 0-10% bottom rate and a 90-100% top rate. That's how you redistribute the wealth from the parasites at the top back to the working class.
So regulate capital instead of dividing the working class.
And yet it doesn't do anything to fix the fundamental problem of health care in this country. Working class people will still go bankrupt and die with or without that shitty plan.
If you're going to scour for bones like everyone else in this thread, I'm just pointing out that removing the individual mandate is a better bone than any democrat is going to give you.
Mass immigration is dividing the working class, importing a bunch of scabs helps no one
There is more exploitation in taxes than there is in the wage system at this point.
He said he would cut taxes for the working class, instead he RAISED taxes on most people by eliminating things like being able to write interest payments off on your income taxes.
They do not, do two wrongs make a right?
Nice cherrypicking, the whole rest of the board talks about class.
How does this absolve Trump and the GOP though.
We advocate that migrant and immigrant workers be allowed to unionize rather than allow capitalists to set one group of workers against another.
It would buy into the idea that one section of workers ought to regard another section as their foes rather than the capitalist class which tries to set one against the other. Marxists don't seek a "tight labor market," they seek to compel the capitalists and their government to give jobs to the unemployed and prevent the use of wages as a weapon against organized labor.
Compel the capitalist to pay the foreign-born worker as much as he pays the native-born, and protect the foreign-born from the threat of deportation, and that will do far more to better the lot of all workers.
Labor lieutenants of the capitalist class from Gompers onward sought to orient trade unions toward scapegoating and throwing out the foreign-born. It is a policy that serves the interests of the capitalists by dividing workers and scaring American workers into accepting pay cuts by hanging the threat of poorly-paid foreigners over their head.
Even before immigration was an issue, there were plenty who echoed the "warnings" of slaveowners that the abolition of slavery would be ruinous to white workers because newly-emancipated Blacks would compete and drive down wages.
Read the Critique of the Gotha Programme
Emancipation was disastrous to white (and all) workers, it literally drove the southern states into the sharecropping system which was literal feudalism. The idea should be to uplift everyone, not drag people down into equality.
That's not what that quote means. It means that communism will have accepts for capitalism for a long time as it emerges from capitalism, in the same way that a newborn will be covered in afterbirth. But said afterbirth is NOT a part of said newborn.
So it's a holdover, just like the electoral college is an accept from bourgeois democracy.
That isn't to defend the system, I'm pointing out that there are better ways to end institutions. Nuking a nation into feudalism isn't """progressive""" in any sense.
Lol no, it raised white and everyone's ability to sell their labor at a higher price and lowered the bourgeois' ability to take surplus value.
And? And how is that the fault of the newly freed slaves and not the landowners that instituted sharecropping?
No the idea is for workers to keep their wealth. Slaves don't keep ANY of their wealth.
Oh and freeded blacks were responsible for that, and not say the land owners?
That will just massively loosen the labor markets, who gives a shit if everyone gets the same welfare? The wages will be low as fuck. You have no basic understanding of how markets operate.
No it's not a holdover. A holdover is something that was from another older form. The electoral college is actually antithetical to bourgeois democracy since it gives political power to land and not capital. Most of the capital in the US is in the Blue states, particularly the coasts. There are some exceptions like Texas.
Sharecropping was pretty disastrous, you weren't even paid a wage you just kept a small fraction of the crops you raised, literal feudalism.
It is their fault, I'm just pointing out that sharecropping wouldn't have taken form if emancipation happened on better terms than it did.
They kept more of it when sharecropping wasn't a thing. Sharecropping was in every way objectively worse than the system that preceded it. I am anti-sharecropping
Socialism is a hold over by that definition of the term.
The US was founded as an agrarian society, most of the capital at the time WAS land.
Also while we're on the topics of hold overs from chattel slavery, this whole thread is talking about supporting the democratic party, which *literally is* a hold over from the chattel slavery days. The literal party of slavery. Even the super delegate system was devised to suppress the votes of blacks, but no one here will say that.
They (not sure about you) talk about getting bones, and I point out that the current president is giving them bones, I don't personally care about bones, but they moreso just want bones painted blue instead of red ones; which I'm pointing out is retarded.
You're a socdem as well bucko.
I'm not opposed to electoralism because it's not revolutionary, I'm opposed because its track record is awful and it takes up a lot of time and resources. If berniefags put in half the effort into organizing in their workplace or neighborhood that they did getting his ass in the primaries then we'd have a radical proletarian movement instead of a loose coalition of unbearable faggots.
So was chattel slavery.
Slaves kept nothing, so it was even worse.
I'm glad we agree
But it's still superior to chattel slavery in terms of workers keeping their wealth. It seems like something else bothers you about the end of slavery. Maybe it has something to do with yoru flag?
No slaves kept nothing. This is the weirdest historical revisionism I've ever encountered.
It was not worse the chattel slavery. Humans were literal property of slaveowner and were raped, murdered, beaten and killed on a whim.
No socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. What Marx meant by "scars" of capitalism is just that, the historical legacy of capitalism imprinted on everything.
Well it ain't anymore. And the electoral college was made because slaves couldn't vote and slaveowning states were butt mad that their slaves weren't going to be counted in the census.
Slaves weren't wage-workers nor were they competitive in industry. Rare attempts by capitalists to employ slaves hardly got anywhere.
Really, the whole thread? Proofs? Like anywhere?
I've said that, Jimmy Dore has said that. You're just desperate to fight your Zig Forums informed strawman of what a leftist is.
Yes I said the tax breaks that Trump gave the working class were bones. He also took away a bunch of tax breaks like mortgage interest writes offs from the working class. So for many he raised taxes on the working class.
No you're running cover for Trump. You haven't posted anything critical of Republicans.
I pointed that out because he wants to go on and on about the electoral college being a remnant of the slavery days. I pointed out that the democratic party is also just that. He should be consistent if he is to take such a retarded position.
I agree, but sharecropping was objectively worse.
No it's about the same, in both slavery and sharecropping no one was paid a wage and labor had no upward mobility. It's just with sharecropping you submit all workers to that instead of just blacks. Other states emancipated slaves on their own terms and then didn't have to revert to feudalism, I'm pointing out that sharecropping didn't have to happen.
Southerners still exist despite your attempt to genocide us, get over it.
Sorry but Billy Joe in his trailer park doesn't have a mortgage. They rent trailers, I'm sorry your parent's second summer home got taxed more.
He banned bump stocks, that's bullshit. The GOP is totally cucked on social policy, they won't cut taxes nearly enough. It's not cover it's just acting like the democrats who want to raise taxes and war are preferable, they aren't.
I'm against bullshit that reverts a nation to feudalism. Just like I hate capitalism, but I will side with the merchants if it means that I won't have to live in a neofeudal society.
And if because I'm not criticizing Trump means I'm his supporter, then everyone else in this thread are democrat supporters, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make.
You already do.
No it wasn't but regardless, why are you trying to correlate the emancipation of blacks with the rise of share cropping, instead of to the landed porkies that were seeking to continue their exploitative labor practices?
No it not at all. Again slaves were legally beaten, killed raped and murdered all with 100% approval from the state. White sharecroppers, not so much.
They could keep some of their surplus labor. Again why do you think EMANCIPATION caused sharecropping instead of you know, the land owners?
Whites were never chattel slavers under Burgerland sharecropping.
The confederate flag wasn't the flag of the confederacy or the south. Racists claimed it was during the beginning of the Civil rights era.
Sorry, but many do. Regardless, many working class people have mortgages, don't know why you think working class=trailer park.
Trump preserved the mortgage interest tax writes off for "Billy Joe's" landlord. Making "Billy Joe" even more vulnerable to his landlord. HOW did Trump's tax reform help working poor people like "Billy Joe" again?
But my parents don't have a second summer home….you know what, I don't think you know my parents at all!
Well that's one critique I'll give you that.
The GOP is totally cucked on social policy,
Uh oh, here we go.
That last two major wars were started by Republicans.
Yeah it does, it means lying by omission.
Nobody defended Dems against any salient critiques though.
Please see where I blamed the proprertied class, however emancipation is what enabled them to do what they did.
Not sure if you knew but blacks were beaten well into the 1900s.
And making them sharecroppers is justice?
It was the symbol of the south during that time, it wasn't the flag of the national government which only makes it more of a symbol of southern people because it wasn't co-opted by bureaucrats in the government.
Not sure how your parent's summer home constitutes working class either.
Both parties are united on being pro-war, however Trump has been less imperialist than Obama by a long shot. On top of arming the Kurds, he is objectively the better option.
They are defending the dems when they literally are saying "Bernie or bust" and similar sentiments. Amazing how you contrive shit that I say into shit I don't mean but you can't see the support for democrats that are blatant in this thread.
Fixing the diploma meme is a separate problem from ensuring people won't be enslaved for life by bankruptcy-proof non-dischargable debt (aside from criminal fines, literally the only such debts that are still legal!) as a result of falling for it.
Cities are inhuman and the urbanites are demented bug people, but rural voters are overwhelmingly gullible classcucks to an extent unmatched by any other demographic.
Oh yeah, only after being pressed, and even then just some single sentence blurb.
You REALLY want people to blacks on sharecropping don't you. Lol
Not sure if knew, but Chattel slavery allowed for this to be institutionalized. Blacks were regularly slaughtered and mass graves of enslaved blacks are still being found to this day with way more expected.
Going back to chattel slavery would stop sharecropping?
It was the "battle flag" of slavers. So you're saying slavery is the cultural heritage of the south?
Not sure how this made up taunt is relevant to the taxes Trump raised on the working class by getting rid of mortgage interest payment write offs.
He's killed more people with Drones, and wants to start a war with Iran and Venezuela. At least Obama ended the Iraq War.
Why is that bad?
I means only Bernie can win the presidency for the Dems. Cool your tits you triggered sweatheart.
Amazing how you construe basic political analysis as support for the Dem party.
*You REALLY want people to blame blacks for causing sharecropping don't you. Lol
Oh and BTW I live in a pretty racist state and have heard this sob story about how hard sharecroppers had it, and how it was all the black people's fault. Funny how we don't have sharecroppers anymore but have more food then ever. It's almost like that exploitative MoP was never necessary to begin with.
Reminder this is the only nigger on the thread that "supported" the democrats, you can recognize the rest of his posts by the way he puts some words in caps, literally one guy that the confederate fag keeps saying represents the entire thread.
I don't support Dems though. Just pointed out the simple fact that Hillary DID win by a landslide against Trump by 2 million votes.
I don't know why it triggers you all so much to point that out.
I am anti anything that will bring sharecropping
It was institutionalized after emancipation
It's part of the past, yes. It was also a flag carried by starving workers who couldn't even afford shoes.
I was saying that arming the Kurds is a good thing.
In your own words not criticizing is supporting them
Still shilling for the Hilldawg
She didn't though. That's not how the game is played. That's like a team claiming they won the World Series or whatever because they got the most homeruns, even if they didn't win the most games.
Unruhe also pointed out that Google won them millions of votes through biased searches. Not sure how factual that is but it sounds like something they would do. The election itself was manipulated af for the dems
She got a lot more votes.
It's not, the US is the only 1st world country that has this. Any Gerrymandering also played a huge role as well.
It's nothing like that. There's only 1 election dip shit, not multiple "games" like in the World Series. The electoral college give votes to land, period.
No it wasn't. "White trash" originated as white sharecroppers making up most of the south's "free" white population, and the same system (also originally alongside a parallel one of slavery) extended southward to Mexico's hacienda system and beyond.
I'm not defending the EC, but that's the system we have and all the candidates knew that going into the race.
This is why I say the majority of people in this thread are pro-Democrat, the faggot saying they aren't is purposefully being facetious
Black people got beat and it wasn't illegal, and the state didn't do anything about it.
Attempting to point out that the Republicans are cheating, voter suppressing, Gerrymandering, porky-funded scum to a far greater extent than the Democrats through no lack of effort, doesn't imply ideological support of the Democrats.
I don't know why anyone thinks Bernie will win shit in a (fair) general election. Americans have already rejected socdem, repeatedly, and your normie Democrat is just about as vile, greedy, and racist as a Trumptard (they just keep quiet about it). American politics isn't really all that ideological - the two parties don't have any defined ideology to speak of, just a vague sense that Democrats are supposed to be populist (but haven't been so since Bill Clinton) and Republicans are the party for rich people and muh taxes. Once the thought leaders set the narrative, the olds, most of the normies, and most of the edgelords will fall into their designated camps. We live in a managed democracy, not an actual democracy. It would be easy to build a narrative against Bernie, but no one really has yet.
As to Bernie himself - if he somehow won, he'd be Gorbachev-tier and way out of his league. I'm throwing him a bone for that reason. I doubt anyone can save American Empire, but Bernie would mean straight up surrender (which is what we should do, everyone else wants to start WW3 and kill us all, and the Empire only makes us poorer for the benefit of profiteering assholes). I don't give a shit about his healthcare policy that is never going to pass and wouldn't work anyway. I don't care about his education cash grab. I just want to see the rich and powerful burn.
I know, FDR only won 4 times.
I guess this thread answers the question of what could be dumber than a socdem.
Talking about the 1970s and 1980s, when memory of the New Deal was still a thing and boomers and silents turned it down in favor of neoliberalism. The reasons why are complex, but basically the New Deal coalition didn't have an answer to the problems facing America, while the Reaganites were promising hamburgers and SUVs and all of the stables of ugly Americanism we are familiar with today.
Keep in mind that FDR tasked himself with saving capitalism first, and the whole New Deal was a desperate attempt to keep the machine going at all. People weren't asking for Social Security. It was given to them to accomplish a purpose. Of course the recipients aren't going to turn down free money, especially when that money is the only reason they have food to eat, so it's wildly popular. The recipients are held hostage and won't dare think about even meek resistance to the system, since their check can be taken away at the government's whim if they step out of line.
I've been citing facts. Just because some of the circumstances around 2016 show the Democratic party was a victim of election fraud doesn't mean I support them.
It's more likely your a Trump supported triggered by anything that even smells of deference to Dem voters.
Lol, this from the guy trying to blame sharecropping on emancipation. No you dumb fuck Klansman, it was the Southern Bourgeoisie and the fuck rock stupidity of Class cucked southerners like you.