02-15-2020, 06:23 PM
(02-15-2020, 08:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-15-2020, 12:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'd rather see it that the regeneracy is in process in the last couple of years, and it's a question of how far it will move the ship of state, and how soon. Who the president is, is important, but the leadership toward the new paradigm comes from the people too. I don't think Democrats will choose Bloomberg, for the reasons above. Right now it all seems to depend on whether the regeneracy among the people has gone far enough for them to be willing to choose Sanders, or whether they will be scared of his political label. If Biden revives, then he is an alternative that would move the ship of state to the new course more slowly. I don't think any other Democrats have a chance. The Democrats could certainly nominate Buttigieg or another loser, but I don't think he can sustain his current success either.
There's a great comment in the NYT from Paul Krugman. He's really pissed at Bernie Sanders, not for his policy positions which he tends to favor, but from a total frustration with his apparent need to sell himself as a socialist when he clearly is not one. I even wrote about that myself months ago.
If he had adopted the more accurate label of social democrat, he would have much broader support than he does. But using the magic work 'socialist' is, to many people -- especially older people, like labeling himself as a pedophile. It's unacceptable on a visceral level … and he's doing it for no reason at all. He cites Denmark, but Denmark has few if any true socialists; plenty of social democrats though. Why not be who you are instead of starting an unnecessary fight that costs dearly and gains nothing?
Agreed. I don't think he would lose credibility if he reversed those two words. He does stress his interest in reviving what the Democrats used to be, but he needs to make clear that he is not going to overthrow capitalism or confiscate/nationalize ownership of all businesses, etc. which is what "socialism" means.