well, first up there is this, which is well said-

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13354635&mesg_id=13354635&page=#13359270


>"There's 'The United States of America!'"
>
>Corny and untrue as it was, THAT is how Barack Obama won.

No one is saying Bernie or anyone should run a divisive campaign.

Obama was great at being both.


He simply wasn't the moderate in either race he won.


How many Hill voters voted for McCain? That's a lot of 'progressive Hillary voters' moving to 'right wing' McCain.

Nah. Obama ran as a progressive/populist outsider with unity on top.

You know he did. Stop.


>
>>>the labor (left) party in australia suffered a historical
>>>upset (led *every* poll since 2016 and lost) while running
>>on
>>>a campaign extremely similar to the 'progressive' agenda
>>>here.
>>
>>Corbyn makes Bernie look moderate number one.
>
>
>Not really. There are certainly differences between them, but
>there are also differences between the countries, as you point
>out when it becomes convenient. Mainstream political thought
>in the UK is generally to the left of mainstream political
>thought in the US. So even if "Corbyn makes Bernie look
>moderate" that wouldn't necessarily mean Corbyn is farther
>from the mainstream in the UK than Bernie is in this country.

When convenient? I've never talked about the UK on here. Ever.

But it is pretty convenient for everyone who is freaking out right now to leave out that they have a completely different system.

Now, if someone said "a Bernie nom will lead to a 3rd party run by Bloomberg" I'd believe that.


>
>
>>Number two, the metldown I am seeing is amusing because very
>>few people used the *US* elections last month this much to
>>forecast trouble for the GOP to this level.
>>
>>VA turning blue? media= "oh, cool but how can Dems keep it
>>going? They better be careful!"
>
>That's not what the coverage has been at all. It's been "Does
>this presage another Blue Wave? The Republicans had better be
>careful!"
>

Cmon, you get my point.

>
>>UK results? media= "democrats are fucked!! Is it too late
>to
>>convince Romney to run as a Dem?"
>
>I know you're joking, but NOBODY has been saying democrats are
>fucked. Democrats SHOULD be in a good position. The question
>is whether they're squandering their advantages by failing to
>run presidential campaigns that match the successful (and much
>more centrist) local campaigns.


Yeah I was, but also pointing out how much more (relative) weight is being given to results in a different country than our own. Tongue in cheek? sure.

Glad you are getting better at picking up jokes though.


>
>
>>I do think we all need to be very wary of polls- yes polls
>>that show Bernie beating Trump, but also polls showing Biden
>>beating Trump.
>
>Sometimes people don't like polls because they don't like
>data, especially when the data contradicts their beloved
>preconceptions.

Sure. Applied to everyone? Then we agree.

I'm just pointing out that a lot of folks were scratching their heads at Boris outperforming the polls.

Dems, no mattter who is the nom, shouldn't get too comfortable.

That's the panic I take from this.

>
>
>>>https://www.vox.com/2019/5/18/18630483/australia-federal-election-2019-scott-morrison-coalition-bill-shorten-labor
>>>
>>>similar results await us if bernie sanders is the nominee.
>>
>>Again, I don't think we use results in different countries
>>with completely different political systems to freak out.
>>
>>
>>I have underestimated Bernie's campaign, as have you.
>
>
>Nobody has seen Bernie's general election campaign, because
>he's never run one. We have seen plenty of campaigns that are
>analogous to Bernie's general election campaign. The UK
>catastrophe is one of them, the Australian Labor collapse is
>another.
>

Again, completely different systems. And, as you say, no one has seen a GE Bernie.

Maybe he picks a VP that makes certain people more comfortable, and leans into the FDR thing.

I'm not saying its the smartest/best play by any means- I'm all over the map.

I just don't think we should write him off at this point.

Especially considering Reeq and I both doubted Bernie would be this successful this time out. Context to my comments.

But, as usual, you jump in either not knowing the entire context or ignoring it all together.


>
>>I don't know if nominating him is the smartest move
>>necessarily, but I don't think its the apocalypse if it
>>happens.
>>
>>
>>I think if he keeps leaning into this FDR democrat thing it
>>will help. And a VP who will ease some fears (not sure who
>>that is...Kamala? someone from the midwest like Baldwin? )
>>
>>
>>>
>>>american history has been crystal clear about what happens
>>to
>>>prez candidates who run too far left of the (majority older
>>>white center right) electorate.
>>
>>Yeah man the problem with this line of thinking is no one
>can
>>pinpoint what "too far left" even means.
>
>
>Just because it might be hard to do doesn't mean we don't have
>to do it. The voters will pinpoint what "too far left" means,
>whether we like it or not.

Okay, sure. You mean, in the primaries? Then I agree completely.

I'm just saying right now, we shouldn't all run to the center because Corbyn lost. Thats it. Thats my point.


>
>
>>Instead, it is used as reasoning to nominate/vote/support
>the
>>centrist candidate.
>
>Yes. As it should be. Because, again, history has been crystal
>clear that centrist candidates do better in general elections.
>

LOL you never let this go no matter how many elections prove otherwise so its pointless but...

If you choose to see it the way you do, I guess.

But Obama wasn't a centrist just because he talked about unity.

And Trump was not the centrist.


If anything American loves an outsider, which is why I think Bernie's time in the senate is actually a bigger weakness than the socialist label. Well, at least as big imo.


>
>>Anything to the left of the preferred candidate is suddenly
>>"too far left"
>
>Exactly. And for Republicans, anything to the right of their
>best candidate is too far right.
>
>This isn't about shutting down the left. It's about winning.
>

I didn't say otherwise.

Megan McCain isn't voting for a Dem and you guys need to stop with that fantasy.

Also, independent doesn't necessarily = moderate.

But when talking heads say "we can't go too far left" before Iowa...it means "please Dem voters, vote for our preferred candidates".


>
>>>even biden (as well as clinton) is running even further
>left
>>>than obama (especially on immigration). that comes with
>its
>>>set of risks in crucial rust belts states and nc, fl, etc.
>>
>>This is more dem party panic thinking.
>
>And more importantly, it's true.
>
>
>>The entire country has moved to the left of Obama on a lot
>of
>>issues, like immigration and gay marriage.
>>
>>
>>'08 Obama is actually a decent look at what a Bernie nom
>could
>>look like to me.
>
>Really? Really?
>
>Does this look like a Bernie speech?
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueMNqdB1QIE

LOL cmon man. I can cherry pick too.



>
>
>>I know certain folks want to revise what Obama presented
>>himself as,
>
>No. Maybe you misunderstood what Obama presented himself as.
>He definitely benefited from the fact that everyone sees in
>him what they want to see. And apparently a lot of people
>still do.
>
>But he WAS running as a moderate. He didn't just say we needed
>to get out of Iraq. He said we needed to get out of Iraq so
>that we could increase our presence in Afghanistan. He said we
>could have health care reform without an individual mandate.
>
>He was trying to become the first Black president. Job #1 was
>ALWAYS "don't scare anyone!"
>
>>but dude was promising to walk picket lines with
>>folks. Talked trade reform. Etc.
>
>Oh, he supported unions. Like every Democrat since FDR. He
>"talked trade reform", like every Presidential candidate in
>the history of the republic.
>
>>He was far more progressive than Hillary, and far more left
>>than McCain was to the right.
>
>You're inventing this because it makes you feel good.

LOL what? No, I'm not. You just haven't gotten over your Hillary crush. Its odd how defensive you still get with her.


>
>
>>McCain was the moderate, the bipartisan "maverick"
>
>That's what McCain was *trying* to run as, and that's why, at
>first, Obama was mostly running against the Bush record, and
>the fact that at that point Bush was not seen as any sort of
>moderate. Bush was popular when he was running as a
>"compassionate conservative." He was not popular when the
>deregulation that every Republican in the world supported
>caused the entire financial system to collapse and he'd put us
>in an unnecessary and catastrophic war.
>
>The fact that McCain had forcefully supported the Iraq war
>(even arguing that Rumsfeld was being too cautious!), was a
>key to how Obama was able to undermine the "maverick" image.
>
>And then when McCain got forced by his base to choose Sarah
>Palin as a runningmate it put that "maverick" image right to
>bed.
>
>Obama won that campaign specifically by looking more moderate
>than McCain (and, just as important, Bush).

He really didn't man. I know you want it to be true because it fits your current belief, but Obama sold himself as a change agent.

Change = progressive


Sure, he talked unity...as any candidate should.


Crazy how many 'progressive' Hillary voters voted for 'right wing' McCain in the general comparatively speaking.


>
>
>>Rewind 4 years. Dems nominated a "safe" moderate candidate
>>and got their asses fucking kicked.
>
>You're talking about Bush/Kerry? The electoral vote was 286 to
>251. The popular vote was 50.7 to 48.3. Hardly an asskicking,
>especially considering that the Iraq war was still popular at
>the time outside of the Democratic base.
>
>And let's not forget a central feature of HOW Bush won. Kerry
>was trying to run as a war hero who'd then protested the
>Vietnam war. The Swiftboaters turned him, in the public
>imagination, into a "typical progressive," supposedly a coward
>in Vietnam, and then "unpatriotic" after he got home.

Wait, what...the GOP waged...character attacks??? In an election?


LOL


Yes, I'm well aware. Kerry was also a career politician who inspired little hype.


To your point, he was definitely more moderate than W...why didn't he win?


A Dem losing the popular vote this century is an ass kicking, man.


And it tells you a lot about turnout on the Dem side.

>
>
>>The sky isn't falling in the US because the UK just *might*
>be
>>more fucked up than we are.
>
>Nobody's saying the sky is falling. We're saying that if a
>candidate can get stereotyped as beholden to your base then it
>makes them weak in a general election. To the extent that
>"political science" is really a science, there's no principle
>more fundamental than this.

I've definitely seen panic about this.

You really love to take my wording literally when it suits you, which makes me think you just like to fight.

Who is more beholden to their base than Donald Trump??

Who could we possibly run that would make Trump look 'moderate'?

We should be golden either way based on your logic.

But your logic kind of changes when it needs to fit your narrative.



>
>
>>Only lesson here is to not trust polls.
>
>I'm getting the distinct feeling that you want to "not trust
>polls" because it feels so much better to trust your
>imagination.

Trust me, I get that your hobby is being a condescending asshole...but that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying we shouldn't get too comfortable no matter what the polls say.


Seems to me like you just want to feel so much better about supporting centrist candidates. *shrugs*

Maybe Hillary will jump in and you can tell us all how wrong we are about her again.