>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

It's not well said. It's fucking stupid, and rife with wishful thinking. So I can see why you like it so much.


>>"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.

He's incapable of running any other kind.

>Obama was great at being both.
>
>
>He simply wasn't the moderate in either race he won.

Yes, he was the moderate in both races. You think people saw Mitt "47%" Romney as the moderate in that race? The Republican with a car-elevator in his garage? He was breaking from the Republican base?

>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.

Oh, with unity on top. Like he's an ice-cream sundae.

Unity was the campaign. The (false) promise that Republicans and Democrats would get along. The fact that the current president was (by then) overwhelmingly unpopular meant that "change" also meant unity.

I notice you didn't mention a SINGLE issue on which Obama took a position more progressive or populist than the mainstream of the Democratic party. He was against the Iraq war, but by that point every candidate wanted to claim they were against the Iraq war.

>You know he did. Stop.

Stop with the "stop." You say that all the time. As if we should all just know that the world really works the way it works in your head.

If your only argument is that "you know it happened the way I think it happened," then the time is long overdue for you to consider the possibility that maybe it didn't happen that way.


>>>>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.

Jesus Christ. Is THAT the reason you're unsure about Bernie?! In a head-to-head race, Bernie versus Trump would be a catastrophe for progressives. Not because of Bloomberg, but because Trump would (AGAIN) be the moderate candidate.


>>>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.

In what sense is more weight being given to results in a different country than to results in our own?

You're SEVERELY misunderstanding the recent Democratic wins if you think the candidates won by being progressive.


>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.

I haven't seen anybody scratching their heads about that. Anyone who knows anything about polls knows that it's much harder to poll in the UK than in the US. Maybe you're following the wrong sources if you thought people knew how that race would turn out.


>Dems, no mattter who is the nom, shouldn't get too
>comfortable.
>
>That's the panic I take from this.

Polls are much easier in the US, though, and are historically quite accurate. Including 2016. If that's what you're taking from this, you're taking the wrong message, and forgetting, at the worst possible time, that the UK system is different.


>>>>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.

Wishful thinking. The only people who care about FDR anymore are guaranteed Democratic voters anyway. But no need for us to argue over this.


>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 jump in when you say something stupid. And that's what you did.


>>>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.

Why don't you agree if we're talking about the general election? You know that the general election is the only election mandated in the Constitution, right? You know that the general election is the one where the president is actually elected, right?

The general election is the election I'm talking about.

The primary election is the election where narcissistic idiots shoot themselves in the foot.

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

Yeah, it's such a dumb and wrong point that I couldn't help pointing it out.

Corbyn's loss is a reminder of something that we should have fucking learned 20 years ago. New Labour happened for a reason. And the "New Democrats" happened for a reason. New Labour provided the longest-sustained Progressive Government in the UK for the last 100 years. That's what you can do when you try to govern the whole country.


>>>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...

You haven't listed a single one that proves otherwise.


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

Thank you. I choose to see reality. You should have a look yourself some time.


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

No, he was a centrist because his entire campaign was designed to make him out as the centrist candidate. He won by attaching John McCain to George Bush and Sarah Palin.

>And Trump was not the centrist.

Yes, he was. The fact that you find it unfathomable doesn't make it untrue.

Right now, Donald Trump has the whole fucking Republican Party thinking that Russia is an honored ally and Ukraine is a den of corruption. Trump is not bound in any fucking way by the beliefs of his base. No Republican before him said they were gonna pull out of trade deals. No Republican before him said they were gonna raise taxes on the rich. No Republican before him said they were gonna end wars in the middle east. Of course he was lying, but that didn't matter then and it won't matter in 2020. He ran against his base and he won. The Bernie supporters act like there are hordes of socialists out there who never vote but would love to have a candidate that they can believe in. But Trump actually did get nonvoters out to the polls, and he did it in exactly the same way that Obama did, by going against preconceptions.


>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.

I'm not talking about Megan fucking McCain. I'm talking about winning back the millions of voters who voted for Obama twice and then switched to Donald fucking Trump.

>Also, independent doesn't necessarily = moderate.

No, but functionally, it does. Independent could also mean doctrinaire socialist, or "Natural Law Party" member, or some other crackpot philosophy that refuses compromise and can therefore never build a politically relevant coalition. But those voters are literally throwing their votes away, so we can ignore them.

Apart from them, independent does indeed mean moderate. What are you envisioning? Do you think there are hardcore, anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty right wingers who would vote Democratic if only the Democratic candidate seems really, really, really sincere? No.

For all practical purposes, independent == 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".

If so, it's because those talking heads are informed, and they want to win.


>>>'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'll take that as a concession that you were completely fucking wrong. This was Obama's first major national speech. It was where he made his name as a national figure. It was the event on which his entire political life was built. This is only cherry-picking if there was only one cherry on the tree.

Find me a single, even vaguely comparable, example of him taking a position significantly to the left of his own party.


>>>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.

Did I even mention Hillary? You brought up Hillary. Obama won because he convincingly ran as a moderate. Hillary lost because she wasn't able to keep her base in line without caving to them.


>>>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.

This is not opinion versus opinion. You're wrong.

>Change = progressive

Change = the opposite of Bush

Were you even following politics at the time?


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

And as no candidate dares to do right now.


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

Crazy, perhaps, and completely irrelevant.

>>>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?

Character attacks that marked him as: not a moderate!

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

And I'm definitely not trying to say he was a good candidate. Our selection in that cycle was almost as shitty as this one. But he didn't lose because he couldn't excite the base. The base always shows up, at least as much as we need them to show up. He lost because the people who don't think about politics every day couldn't take him seriously. They couldn't take him seriously because he was successfully smeared as "too progressive."

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

My point is that he was NOT seen as more moderate than W. He was ahead when he was seen as more moderate. Then as his optics changed his position declined.

>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.

Sure. It tells you that Kerry wasn't able to turn out enough moderate voters.

>>>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.

Oh, you mean I should take you "seriously but not literally."

That's a fucking dodge when the Trump supporters say it and it's a fucking dodge here. Say what the fuck you want to say.

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

EVERYBODY. Donald Trump controls his fucking base. His base believes whatever the fuck he says. Seven years ago Republicans believed (accurately, in retrospect) that Russia was America's greatest geopolitical threat. Now they want to disband NATO because the Germans are freeloaders or something. Ten years ago North Korea headed an "axis of evil" that threatened the entire free world. Now to the average Republican they're with us because (supposedly) they're with Trump.


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

That's the problem. Right now, Trump is a moderate compared to every single fucking candidate we have.


>We should be golden either way based on your logic.
>
>But your logic kind of changes when it needs to fit your
>narrative.

No, you just choose to ignore the reality.


>>>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...

At this point, my hobby seems to be arguing with the willfully naive.

>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.

So your point is dumb, trite, and exactly the opposite of what progressives need right now.

We need to know where the electorate stands, and polls are the only tool we have to measure where the electorate stands.

>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.

If you still think the mainstream Democratic candidate wasn't a progressive, I hope that three years of the Trump presidency has already shown you how completely fucking wrong you were.

Labour is digging through its ranks right now looking for someone who can run a "New New Labour" campaign after Boris Johnson exits the EU, kills the NHS, and invites the dissolution of the UK. For the good of the world, and about 70 million Brits, we can only hope they succeed.