Balta1701

I believe the Supreme Court actually just changed this a few weeks ago. Gimme a second for the link. Edit: link, https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional

That doesn’t cover a billion dollars of loans though.

Well the other answer to reviving towns like that is immigration.

Well first of all an old white centrist seems to have a good shot at knocking off the worst disaster in our country’s leadership history. While they had advantages of incumbency. And violated the law tons by using government resources to campaign. So let’s not undersell that. But you want a way to change that, whether he said it for real or or, go to the purported FDR quote - “I agree with everything you said. Now make me do it.” https://www.representconsumers.org/2009/09/15/the-real-story-behind-make-him-do-it/ That kind of change takes time in this country especially and doesn’t start at the top.

Needs Nevada or Georgia or Pennsylvania in addition to AZ. Trump must win all 3 of those.

I mean, only if they want to lose every election in the country.

I mean, one party had a platform literally saying “we have no platform” and it wasn’t mine.

93k cases and 1150 deaths yesterday. We may top 110k on Friday.

So the argument that moving left is the only way to expand turnout?

Then where are the elections that suggest leftist populism is a way to mobilize them? So far in my lifetime I’ve seen 2 candidates actually mobilize lots of democrats in a general election. Obama and Biden. Where are all the new primary voters and why couldn’t they lift Sanders? Why aren’t they winning R +5 districts somewhere? Because that effect is small, and the attacks on them are effective in general elections. At the least, “too liberal” ads work well to suppress that vote share and keep them non voting.

Ny 16 went 56-40 for Clinton in 2016 and Obama won it by 5 in 2012. And by definition beating long term establishment Dems isn’t winning competitive races. This theory of change says voters in rural areas and the rust belt are just waiting for populist democrats to vote for, and I don’t see it.

Also worth considering is that a standard Sanders concept is that he will bring new voters into the process. Based on both that not happening to a measurable amount in 2 primary races, and Biden accomplishing that with huge turnout numbers, I would argue that concept isn’t holding well either.

Then show me the wins at the Congressional level. There were races where the candidates endorsed M4A up against R challengers. Where are their wins? One lost near me in a competitive small R advantage district. Where are those wins?

Primaries aren't general elections.

LOL you mean "once voting started and they lost initial races"? You're correct. It was planned by the election calendar. Come on, once they start losing races, money dries up, votes go elsewhere, and there's no reason to continue.

Then at the very least, you should be able to point to places in the country where at the House of Representatives level, candidates supporting those things won solid victories in competitive districts (not D+20 or something like that, an R+10 or R+5 district). Can you do that? I'll bet you can't.

How does that describe this year? Too many other people endorsed Biden and therefore Sanders couldn't win? Sanders's campaign explicitly was built to win 30-40% of votes in the Democratic primary, not a majority. He had a full chance, ran a campaign that wasn't built to win a majority, and couldn't win a majority. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/23/1930034/-Sanders-campaign-was-SHOCKED-when-field-narrowed-because-they-really-thought-30-would-win-it Interestingly, Sanders's weakest spots in both 2016 and 2020, were always with non-white voters, who you are saying that should appeal to the most.

How is "similar but adapted policies" = "Wishy washy"? I mean, I can play the same game with Sanders. Medicare for all has been a Democratic goal for like 65 years, since Medicare became a thing. It was modified from Ted Kennedy I guess. But just picking one, Bernie's anti-corruption plan has 5 bullet points. https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of-politics/ Warren's is like 10 pages long, delving into cross-border money flows, international worker standards, etc. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/international-corruption

Who asks the questions in those debates? Usually, the press. The ones where we get some actual policy questions are town hall meetings. I'm all for a better press corps but am open to suggestions for how to get there again. Frankly, every change in my lifetime has been towards less substance - rise of social media, collapse of investigative reporting funds, more corporate ownership.

The f***? Like I said, you see the response you get for having policy after policy after policy. That doesn't even make sense, but people somehow believed it.

Because our system and our press don't care about substantive policies. When you try to explain substantive policies, you get criticized for boring people. If people wanted substantive policies with details, I mean Professor Warren supplied all those things and that's why I voted for her, and she didn't come anywhere close in the primary.

I mean, it's hard to enact policies to show that they work if you lose seats campaigning on those policies. You've got that pretty backwards to me?

I believe that better democrats would be better for the rust belt, business in general, and so on. I also believe that it is harder to elect them in those areas. I'm in an area now where a current Democratic congressperson seems on pace to lose his election and the constant theme on him was "voted to defund police" and "Socialist" and "supported impeachment". In the next district over, there was a genuine liberal candidate running against a fairly moderate conservative, and the democrat is going to lose that as well. Both a moderate and a fairly liberal candidate are going to lose because of basically the same attacks. So tell me what does work?

I'm more ok with "one of the things that is wrong with factions of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY (there is an official name please use it)" being "we're too hard on people for being racist" as opposed to "we have a lot of racists and don't want to do anything about them because they vote with us".