Yang has basically no chance. He may theoretically do well in the general because he could appeal to independents and young people, but he’ll never win a primary in any state.
I also think that ranking matters less than polling percentage. Nobody cared when no. 3 Martin O‘Malley didn‘t get any coverage.
LOL Biden…this is a terrible way to deal with people lying about you
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1178388163993190401?s=20
1 Like
If Obama had had a decent VP like Castro, they’d be a lock.
Amber and Matt are 100% communists. Matt has said in some fairly recent episode (maybe two or three months ago) that he would scrap the Constitution and start over with the first principle being the abolition of private property. He was serious.
PS: You were remembering right that they said Warren flipping houses happened during the financial crisis.
Lotta people who call themselves socialists and not communists would abolish private property, though “private property” should really be called something more specific, because no one means that as toothbrushes. It’s about the means of production and/or land. I think most people think you have to agree with State control of economic activity to be a communist. Or perhaps community control of economic activity if you’re an Anarcho-communist.
I think all communists are socialists (though whether or not actual communist parties are socialist is debatable), but not the other way around.
I’m probably the biggest Yang supporter here. Can you give an example of me doing that?
Well their theory of the case seems to be pretty underpants gnomeish. They concede Bernie will get little done directly, because of the strictures of our Constitutional system and the capitalist interests arrayed against him. But his politics being the most populist, the most predicated on direct appeals to the people, he will somehow galvanize the public into bringing about “real change” and upsetting the capitalist order.
It’s very vague. They never spell out exactly how it’s supposed to go, or why, for example, electing a socialist President who gets little done within the current system doesn’t in fact alienate a bunch of people from socialism. And the majority of Americans are living okay (living wage, employer provided health insurance, safe neighborhoods, etc), so unless that changes, it seems pretty dubious that sweeping revolutionary change will be in the air during a Bernie Presidency.
Tbh, they say this stuff, but I really think it’s as simple as they’re rooting for the guy who is closest to their politics (which is fine, of course).
1 Like
This is why you don’t want to be on the wrong side of a binker thrown by Klobuchar.
They don’t haaaaate Warren. Every one of them would have her second in the primary and vote for her in the general. This is a primary; doing anything other than advocating for who you believe to be the best candidate doesn’t make any sense. I agree with you that the foreclosure thing specifically is highly specious
Really? I don’t remember this and it seems unlikely because even most communists believe that transition directly from capitalism to communism is not possible.
“Communism” as a term is kind of meaningless but Amber and Matt are definitely both full on state Marxists, state ownership of the means of production, that kind of thing. I don’t think either are for banning private property entirely, and certainly not as a first step. The interesting thing is that Amber writes for Current Affairs and her and Robinson both call themselves socialists, but they in fact have absolutely nothing in common politically, Robinson being an anti-statist. It speaks to the vague nature of “socialism” as an idea in the US.
The idea is that change will require ongoing popular organizing, labor militancy etc and that Bernie understands this and will push for it, but Warren either doesn’t understand it, or isn’t for that, or both.I think it’s correct to argue that Bernie is more likely to engender change which could be described as revolutionary than Warren is, I just think the respective odds of that happening are like 0.1% vs 0.0%, or whatever.
He did say that, although it’s hard to tell how serious he was since he’s a professional edgelord
Professional edgelord is a job?
1 Like
Sure, if someone pays you for it 
Edgelording is a fickle mistress. Just ask Milo Yabbadabbadoopolis.
3 Likes
Chapo can be incredibly insightful but they are also often just plain wrong. Their WAAF brand leads them to basically always go with “it’s all rigged, nothing good can ever happen” borderline nihilism. Which has sadly proven correct since 2016. But they’re straight up delusional and wrong on Liz.
1 Like
So, they are Quincy Maddox?
1 Like
i mean, its been proven correct for a while before 2016
Warren herself has said she will take corporate money if she wins the primary. Some people will say good for her gotta do whatever it takes to win the election. Others will ask at what cost?
1 Like