Originally Posted by Martina (Post 1256276)

So, Bloomberg. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Martina (Post 1257764)

Warren dropped by half. It's either her Medicare plan, which supports those a who think centrist policies will prevail, or just Mayor Pete doing better at her expense. Biden is still on top. Biden looks frail, and Pete is pretty cool. But if it's all about winning the general election, and you had to choose between those two, Biden would be the better bet. But Sanders is still number two, and polls show him doing better against Trump than Biden would. And he held his own in the same poll so I don't think this is a reaction to Medicare for all. Pete's just kicking ass out there.

Originally Posted by homoe (Post 1258446)

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has a well-funded Democrat prepping to challenge her next year. She has national women’s groups ready to attack her over her vote for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And she’s a moderate facing an electorate that increasingly prioritizes purity. Still, the four-term Maine senator’s biggest hurdle to re-election may be the president of her own party.

President Trump’s potential impeachment in the House and subsequent trial in the Senate presents a distinct dilemma for Collins. Of the handful of Republicans senators facing re-election next year, she has done perhaps the most to keep a clear distance from Trump.

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/11/...ection-hurdle/

Originally Posted by charley (Post 1257775)

My original thought was that Warren was doing well until she announced her policy - that is, eliminating choice for health care, and how she would finance it. That just won't wash for a large majority of Americans. After keeping an eye on polls and watching news, it still seems that that is the case. I wonder if it is possible now for Warren to backtrack and change her mind on that. It just seems so strange to me that these candidates seem to be entirely locked in their positions. Doesn't anyone talk to them and advise them that they might lose 'cause they won't budge on their positions? I mean, doesn't anyone worry enough that Trump might win a second term, unless some candidate rises to the top against him that is willing to understand that most Americans who vote Democrat have a moderate bent?

Pete is doing well 'cause of his "centrist"/moderate viewpoint and this appeals to many Americans, and this is also why Biden is still ahead in the polls (I still don't trust Pete).

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE (Post 1261404)

Anybody remember George McGovern?

"In the general election on November 7, 1972, the McGovern–Shriver ticket suffered a 61 percent to 37 percent defeat to Nixon – at the time, the second biggest landslide in American history, with an Electoral College total of 520 to 17. McGovern's two electoral vote victories came in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, and he failed to win his home state of South Dakota Over the nation as a whole he carried a mere 135 counties. At just over four percent of the nation's counties, McGovern's county wins remain the fewest by almost a factor of three for any major-party nominee." (Thanks Wikipedia).

Nixon won.

I'm sure there are still some Democrats around who remember that idealistic disaster.

Originally Posted by nhplowboi (Post 1261435)

Originally Posted by nhplowboi (Post 1261434)

Originally Posted by dark_crystal (Post 1251860)

They are not afraid. They are capitalism's backup plan.

The Democrats as they currently exist are allowed to diverge from the Republicans only to the degree which leaves the flow of wealth intact. The flow can narrow within certain margins if it has to, but it cannot be redistributed.

(As much as i have ranted against the idea in other threads, I'm not obtuse, I know that this is what Chapo Traphouse is talking about when they call identity issues a distraction. It is true that there can be huge differences in how the two parties treat minorities without any real threat to most industries' profits.)

As long as social stratification is preserved, capital ultimately doesn't care about the identities inside those strata. The GOP sees that it's easiest and most profitable to just preserve traditional race and gender stratification, while the Democrats are able to look progressive in their willingness to let identities mix within strata, or to sacrifice a variably-sized slice of still-healthy profits to keep people in the lowest strata alive.

Capital does not want to accommodate this sacrifice, but it can easily survive it. The GOP way is more profitable, and therefore preferable, but if they should happen to go too far and fall from grace for awhile, their Democratic replacements will be tolerable. A backup plan.

The thing is, capitalism is not going to survive the things humans are going to have to do to survive on this planet. We keep trying to find ways around that by using tax credits to reward capital for certain sacrifices, but it was already too late for that in 2008.

We are going to fight capital every step of the way and at the end? When what's left of us are eking out our survival down in the caves or whatever?

It's going to be socialist as heck down there.