Joe Biden isn't a particularly nasty piece of work. As for Sanders, he isn't getting overlooked; he made the mistake of asserting that his movement would run over the rest of the Democratic Party, only to find out that his movement consists of a relatively small faction of the party, and a lot of them don't actually turn up to vote. Polls consistently show that Democratic voters want much of what Sanders wants, they simply don't believe he's capable of delivering on much or any of it. And I suspect they're right: you need a broad coalition to get things done, and he doesn't have one.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Joe Biden isn't a particularly nasty piece of work. As for Sanders, he isn't getting overlooked; he made the mistake of asserting that his movement would run over the rest of the Democratic Party, only to find out that his movement consists of a relatively small faction of the party, and a lot of them don't actually turn up to vote. Polls consistently show that Democratic voters want much of what Sanders wants, they simply don't believe he's capable of delivering on much or any of it. And I suspect they're right: you need a broad coalition to get things done, and he doesn't have one.
Biden's history isn't great. He seems to be inconsistent with his Democratic Party beliefs, often cosiing up to Republicans. The impression I have got from reports and historic C-Span video is that he can be quite nasty when it suits him.
It's true that Sanders stands for much of what people like. I think he'd have a strong chance of being elected as a PM of the Labour Party here. And that's the thing. The USA is politically right of the UK, and Sanders will find himself overlooked in the end, for the "safe" option. And Biden will lose against Trump.
Biden was never my candidate, but he has a far, far better shot against Trump than Sanders. The key is to get your people to turn out; Biden has gotten record turnout in most primaries thus far, while Sanders' key voting bloc -- young people -- are showing up in lower numbers than they did in 2016 and 2008 (there wasn't a Democratic primary in 2012 for all intents and purposes). The idea that Sanders has some sort of mass appeal has failed at the ballot box every time it is tested.
Sanders has a loud (and often very angry) online fanbase. And that's about it. He's Corbyn, with the same drawback Corbyn had: what he believes doesn't matter if most people do not believe him capable of delivering (and his plans had, at last count, a $2.5 trillion annual shortfall even with optimistic revenue projections). And like Corbyn, that extends to a lot of his colleagues...Sanders has never, in 30 years, been a particularly effective legislator, because even his ideological allies find him nearly impossible to work with.
And Biden's extremely consistent relative to the rest of the party. He's more moderate than I would prefer, but his voting record was squarely in the middle of the Democratic Party throughout his time in the Senate. DW-Nominate is a mathematical scoring based on the left/right axis, and for Biden he was:
1987-1989: more liberal than 51% of Democrats.
1989-1991: more liberal than 54%.
1991-1993: more liberal than 52%.
1993-1995: more liberal than 53%.
1995-1997: more liberal than 55%.
1997-1999: more liberal than 54%.
1999-2001: more liberal than 57%.
2001-2003: more liberal than 55%.
2003-2005: more liberal than 53%.
2005-2007: more liberal than 54%.
2007-2009: more liberal than 51%.
On an absolute basis, he has moved to the left because the whole of the party has moved to the left.
Sanders has a loud (and often very angry) online fanbase. And that's about it. He's Corbyn, with the same drawback Corbyn had: what he believes doesn't matter if most people do not believe him capable of delivering (and his plans had, at last count, a $2.5 trillion annual shortfall even with optimistic revenue projections). And like Corbyn, that extends to a lot of his colleagues...Sanders has never, in 30 years, been a particularly effective legislator, because even his ideological allies find him nearly impossible to work with.
And Biden's extremely consistent relative to the rest of the party. He's more moderate than I would prefer, but his voting record was squarely in the middle of the Democratic Party throughout his time in the Senate. DW-Nominate is a mathematical scoring based on the left/right axis, and for Biden he was:
1987-1989: more liberal than 51% of Democrats.
1989-1991: more liberal than 54%.
1991-1993: more liberal than 52%.
1993-1995: more liberal than 53%.
1995-1997: more liberal than 55%.
1997-1999: more liberal than 54%.
1999-2001: more liberal than 57%.
2001-2003: more liberal than 55%.
2003-2005: more liberal than 53%.
2005-2007: more liberal than 54%.
2007-2009: more liberal than 51%.
On an absolute basis, he has moved to the left because the whole of the party has moved to the left.
Last edited:
Over the past couple of days I have come to realise that I am expendable in this Governments pursuit of its ideological goals.
The cynic in me can see Cummings persuading Johnson that the corona virus will wipe out a large proportion of the over 60s and these are the ones that occupy a large proportion of our housing stock, use the largest proportion of our NHS budget and put strains on the social care system. Bump off as many of them as possible and pressure on these three major services are substantially reduced. This is probably why we have witnessed as expected too liitle, too late and total indecisiveness allied to saying it is health experts that are driving policy.
Ministers listen to advice and it is THEY, not experts that decide what will be done.
At this time of national crisis, as serious as WW2, we have the most incompetent PM we have ever had supported by the most inept Secretary of State we have ever had and just don't get me started on that nasty parasite we have as a home secretary.
We have a country run by a megalomaniac advised by a control freak both of whom are watching their backs and both are setting up the Health Advisors for the blame when it all goes horribly wrong.
On a score of 1-100 where 100 is highly incompetent I would score them in the thousands.
The cynic in me can see Cummings persuading Johnson that the corona virus will wipe out a large proportion of the over 60s and these are the ones that occupy a large proportion of our housing stock, use the largest proportion of our NHS budget and put strains on the social care system. Bump off as many of them as possible and pressure on these three major services are substantially reduced. This is probably why we have witnessed as expected too liitle, too late and total indecisiveness allied to saying it is health experts that are driving policy.
Ministers listen to advice and it is THEY, not experts that decide what will be done.
At this time of national crisis, as serious as WW2, we have the most incompetent PM we have ever had supported by the most inept Secretary of State we have ever had and just don't get me started on that nasty parasite we have as a home secretary.
We have a country run by a megalomaniac advised by a control freak both of whom are watching their backs and both are setting up the Health Advisors for the blame when it all goes horribly wrong.
On a score of 1-100 where 100 is highly incompetent I would score them in the thousands.
There is one caveat though St.G. Apart from yourself and a proportion of enlightened others of similar age, most of the elderly voted for Brexit. The balance of public opinion on that could be changed in a very short time.
You might want to read this Guardian article on Trump's performance over the last few days: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/13/coronavirus-donald-trump-presidency-sick-joke
garysfc
Well-Known Member
I'm going to go with complete and utter incompetence, for one simple reason: that's their voting base. I don't doubt that they have such things in them, but older voters make Conservative majorities possible. But it is troubling how often the "gross negligence or utter evil" question becomes a necessary debate in this era.
Being a proponent of the 'cock-up', as opposed to the 'conspiracy' theory of history, I broadly agree.
I think it will take a very long time to persuade the many who voted Brexit, to change their minds, if at all as their convctions are so entrenched.
Don't need to change their minds, Ides.
If this is true, then Johnson will be personally responsible for many businesses going into bankruptcy. All for £25,540 + VAT.
You must log in or register to see media
Cartoon in yesterday's Times.
You must log in or register to see images
And Priti Patel saying sorry for the Windrush debacle!
I'm sure she meant that sincerely folks.
Best edition of Question Time in living memory this evening, and the reason?
No audience.
No audience.
The BBC couldn’t plant their own question asking guests in the audience a al anti labour ,anti remain,anti EU .......wished I watched now.