Can a Self-Described 'Capitalist' Win the 2020 Democratic Primary?

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) jumped into the 2020 presidential race last week, reporters sought comment about Bernie's democratic socialism from the other would-be candidate who tends to make Democratic voters weak in the knees, former congressman and failed senatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke.

"I'm a capitalist," O'Rourke replied. "I don't see how we're able to meet any of the fundamental challenges that we have as a country without, in part, harnessing the power of the market. Climate change is the most immediate example of that. If you're going to bring the total innovation and ingenuity of this country to bear...our economy is going to have to be a part of that." Asked at a town hall two months prior if he was a progressive, O'Rourke incurred the wrath of Team Bernie by saying, "I don't know....I'm not big on labels. I don't get all fired up about party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I'm for everyone."

O'Rourke this week announced that he has made a decision about whether he is going to run; he says he's "excited to share it with everyone soon," which pretty much everyone (including his sister) interprets as #He'sRunning. With Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and his less-subtle surrogates clearly relishing a campaign fight against socialism, and with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) emerging as both the go-to conservative bogeyman and an influential driver of Democratic policy discussions, some on the left are catching the distinct whiff of triangulation from the toothsome Medium author.

It's worth pointing out that the O'Rourkian thrill that went down Democrats' legs during his unprecedentedly expensive race against Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) had far less to do with policy or ideology and far more to do with the challenger's charisma and inclusive uplift. This quality, otherwise elusive on the Democratic primary side so far (with the possible partial exception of California Sen. Kamala Harris), has drawn not just frequent comparisons to Barack Obama but some obvious enthusiasm from the former president's inner circle. Trump would probably love to run against a democratic socialist. I might prove a thornier challenge for him to smite someone who excites Democrats without either promising too much or scaring half the country.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/01/can-a-self-described-capitalist-win-the

Maddog wrote:When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) jumped into the 2020 presidential race last week, reporters sought comment about Bernie's democratic socialism from the other would-be candidate who tends to make Democratic voters weak in the knees, former congressman and failed senatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke.

"I'm a capitalist," O'Rourke replied. "I don't see how we're able to meet any of the fundamental challenges that we have as a country without, in part, harnessing the power of the market. Climate change is the most immediate example of that. If you're going to bring the total innovation and ingenuity of this country to bear...our economy is going to have to be a part of that." Asked at a town hall two months prior if he was a progressive, O'Rourke incurred the wrath of Team Bernie by saying, "I don't know....I'm not big on labels. I don't get all fired up about party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I'm for everyone."

O'Rourke this week announced that he has made a decision about whether he is going to run; he says he's "excited to share it with everyone soon," which pretty much everyone (including his sister) interprets as #He'sRunning. With Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and his less-subtle surrogates clearly relishing a campaign fight against socialism, and with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) emerging as both the go-to conservative bogeyman and an influential driver of Democratic policy discussions, some on the left are catching the distinct whiff of triangulation from the toothsome Medium author.

It's worth pointing out that the O'Rourkian thrill that went down Democrats' legs during his unprecedentedly expensive race against Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) had far less to do with policy or ideology and far more to do with the challenger's charisma and inclusive uplift. This quality, otherwise elusive on the Democratic primary side so far (with the possible partial exception of California Sen. Kamala Harris), has drawn not just frequent comparisons to Barack Obama but some obvious enthusiasm from the former president's inner circle. Trump would probably love to run against a democratic socialist. I might prove a thornier challenge for him to smite someone who excites Democrats without either promising too much or scaring half the country.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/01/can-a-self-described-capitalist-win-the

He is a moderate, passionless, uninspired. He did well against Cruz largely due to odious and sleazy personality of his opponent.

But he was a 'loser' in 2018 - I'm pretty sure Trump would enjoy mentioning that more than once in a hypothetical electional race. Especially losing to 'Lyin Ted'

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) jumped into the 2020 presidential race last week, reporters sought comment about Bernie's democratic socialism from the other would-be candidate who tends to make Democratic voters weak in the knees, former congressman and failed senatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke.

"I'm a capitalist," O'Rourke replied. "I don't see how we're able to meet any of the fundamental challenges that we have as a country without, in part, harnessing the power of the market. Climate change is the most immediate example of that. If you're going to bring the total innovation and ingenuity of this country to bear...our economy is going to have to be a part of that." Asked at a town hall two months prior if he was a progressive, O'Rourke incurred the wrath of Team Bernie by saying, "I don't know....I'm not big on labels. I don't get all fired up about party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I'm for everyone."

O'Rourke this week announced that he has made a decision about whether he is going to run; he says he's "excited to share it with everyone soon," which pretty much everyone (including his sister) interprets as #He'sRunning. With Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and his less-subtle surrogates clearly relishing a campaign fight against socialism, and with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) emerging as both the go-to conservative bogeyman and an influential driver of Democratic policy discussions, some on the left are catching the distinct whiff of triangulation from the toothsome Medium author.

It's worth pointing out that the O'Rourkian thrill that went down Democrats' legs during his unprecedentedly expensive race against Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) had far less to do with policy or ideology and far more to do with the challenger's charisma and inclusive uplift. This quality, otherwise elusive on the Democratic primary side so far (with the possible partial exception of California Sen. Kamala Harris), has drawn not just frequent comparisons to Barack Obama but some obvious enthusiasm from the former president's inner circle. Trump would probably love to run against a democratic socialist. I might prove a thornier challenge for him to smite someone who excites Democrats without either promising too much or scaring half the country.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/01/can-a-self-described-capitalist-win-the

He is a moderate, passionless, uninspired. He did well against Cruz largely due to odious and sleazy personality of his opponent.

But he was a 'loser' in 2018 - I'm pretty sure Trump would enjoy mentioning that more than once in a hypothetical electional race. Especially losing to 'Lyin Ted'

He came closer to beating Ted/a Republican in Texas than anyway has come in long time.  And he raised more money than any Senate candidate in history.  He may be inexperienced, but passionless may be the most inaccurate term I have ever heard used to describe him. He oozes passion. I'll never vote for the guy, but I know his strengths. He knows how to move people emotionally. The reason he did so well was because he managed to get about a million Texans that never gave a shit before, to givgive a shit. Ask Ben if he's ever seen a Democrat get folks this worked up around here in 30 years.  He's the real deal.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) jumped into the 2020 presidential race last week, reporters sought comment about Bernie's democratic socialism from the other would-be candidate who tends to make Democratic voters weak in the knees, former congressman and failed senatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke.

"I'm a capitalist," O'Rourke replied. "I don't see how we're able to meet any of the fundamental challenges that we have as a country without, in part, harnessing the power of the market. Climate change is the most immediate example of that. If you're going to bring the total innovation and ingenuity of this country to bear...our economy is going to have to be a part of that." Asked at a town hall two months prior if he was a progressive, O'Rourke incurred the wrath of Team Bernie by saying, "I don't know....I'm not big on labels. I don't get all fired up about party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I'm for everyone."

O'Rourke this week announced that he has made a decision about whether he is going to run; he says he's "excited to share it with everyone soon," which pretty much everyone (including his sister) interprets as #He'sRunning. With Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and his less-subtle surrogates clearly relishing a campaign fight against socialism, and with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) emerging as both the go-to conservative bogeyman and an influential driver of Democratic policy discussions, some on the left are catching the distinct whiff of triangulation from the toothsome Medium author.

It's worth pointing out that the O'Rourkian thrill that went down Democrats' legs during his unprecedentedly expensive race against Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) had far less to do with policy or ideology and far more to do with the challenger's charisma and inclusive uplift. This quality, otherwise elusive on the Democratic primary side so far (with the possible partial exception of California Sen. Kamala Harris), has drawn not just frequent comparisons to Barack Obama but some obvious enthusiasm from the former president's inner circle. Trump would probably love to run against a democratic socialist. I might prove a thornier challenge for him to smite someone who excites Democrats without either promising too much or scaring half the country.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/01/can-a-self-described-capitalist-win-the

He is a moderate, passionless, uninspired. He did well against Cruz largely due to odious and sleazy personality of his opponent.

But he was a 'loser' in 2018 - I'm pretty sure Trump would enjoy mentioning that more than once in a hypothetical electional race. Especially losing to 'Lyin Ted'

He came closer to beating Ted/a Republican in Texas than anyway has come in long time.  And he raised more money than any Senate candidate in history.  He may be inexperienced, but passionless may be the most inaccurate term I have ever heard used to describe him. He oozes passion. I'll never vote for the guy, but I know his strengths. He knows how to move people emotionally. The reason he did so well was because he managed to get about a million Texans that never gave a shit before, to givgive a shit. Ask Ben if he's ever seen a Democrat get folks this worked up around here in 30 years.  He's the real deal.

He's more likely to appeal in Texas - a thoroughly Red state. As if they'd ever vote for a liberal leftie. O'Rourke was just what was needed after years of slimy, cringey, sycophant Cruz. And even THAT wasn't enough.

I saw him in the debates he had with Cruz and he just seemed like someone who wanted to please the crowds. He seemed like absolute gold next to Cruz though - and I was disappointed that he lost.

To Add to my post in the other thread.

to Win the Democrats Also need a clean race in the Primary, keep the team together and let nothing slip that could be used against any potential candidate in the election ...

Fuck I hope  they can get their shit together and beat Trump

veya_victaous wrote:To Add to my post in the other thread.

to Win the Democrats Also need a clean race in the Primary, keep the team together and let nothing slip that could be used against any potential candidate in the election ...

Fuck I hope  they can get their shit together and beat Trump

As it is, Sanders and Biden are front runners and more popular in polling than Beto.

Sanders is my bet to win the nomination and the presidency.

Democrat voters might be put off by O'Rourke if he seems to be pandering to the Centre-Right. And remember, hardline conservatives are going to vote Trump regardless. The Dems need to get their base out - and the youth.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:


He came closer to beating Ted/a Republican in Texas than anyway has come in long time.  And he raised more money than any Senate candidate in history.  He may be inexperienced, but passionless may be the most inaccurate term I have ever heard used to describe him. He oozes passion. I'll never vote for the guy, but I know his strengths. He knows how to move people emotionally. The reason he did so well was because he managed to get about a million Texans that never gave a shit before, to givgive a shit. Ask Ben if he's ever seen a Democrat get folks this worked up around here in 30 years.  He's the real deal.

He's more likely to appeal in Texas - a thoroughly Red state. As if they'd ever vote for a liberal leftie. O'Rourke was just what was needed after years of slimy, cringey, sycophant Cruz. And even THAT wasn't enough.

I saw him in the debates he had with Cruz and he just seemed like someone who wanted to please the crowds. He seemed like absolute gold next to Cruz though - and I was disappointed that he lost.

He raised a lot of money in Californa. The Ellen and Oprah crowd loved him.

He didn't do great in the debate because Cruz is basically a professional debater. I'm not sure the debates are all they are cracked up to be. Trump is a shitty debater too.

veya_victaous wrote:To Add to my post in the other thread.

to Win the Democrats Also need a clean race in the Primary, keep the team together and let nothing slip that could be used against any potential candidate in the election ...

Fuck I hope  they can get their shit together and beat Trump

With Sanders in there it's going to be a shit show. A 77 year old that doesnt believe in privately owned corporations will go over great in Omaha.

Maddog wrote:He came closer to beating Ted/a Republican in Texas than anyway has come in long time. And he raised more money than any Senate candidate in history. He may be inexperienced, but passionless may be the most inaccurate term I have ever heard used to describe him. He oozes passion. I'll never vote for the guy, but I know his strengths. He knows how to move people emotionally. The reason he did so well was because he managed to get about a million Texans that never gave a shit before, to givgive a shit. Ask Ben if he's ever seen a Democrat get folks this worked up around here in 30 years. He's the real deal.

Ted Cruz has only run two elections, 2012 and 2018. He’s not such a formidable opponent.

Beto is inexperienced, and a big splash in a little pond. He is vying for the middle, and even the right side of Democrats. That is where candidates Sanders and Biden have sway, and also offer great experience.

Besides, that is the terrain of older voters, and older voters are not as caught up in the hoopla and “passion” as are younger voters. Beto is out of his element in the middle-right of his party.

Maddog wrote:A 77 year old that doesnt believe in privately owned corporations will go over great in Omaha.

Sanders is not opposed to “privately owned corporations”. He distinguishes Marxism from democratic socialism, and says he favors socialism as found in social programs of the Scandinavian countries. His primary emphasis is in reversing the trend toward economic inequality.

Wiki wrote:Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist" and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote." He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism, it instead describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.

Plenty of people in Omaha who think Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, and would like to see a single-payer (government) program.

This CNN panel is totally not interested in Biden, and most of them reject a centrist. 4 want a progressive, i.e. something different

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:A 77 year old that doesnt believe in privately owned corporations will go over great in Omaha.

Sanders is not opposed to “privately owned corporations”.  He distinguishes Marxism from democratic socialism, and says he favors socialism as found in social programs of the Scandinavian countries.  His primary emphasis is in reversing the trend toward economic inequality.

Wiki wrote:Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist" and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote." He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism, it instead describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.

Plenty of people in Omaha who think Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, and would like to see a single-payer (government) program.

Then he doesn't know what Democratic socialism is. The Swedes do, and they will tell you they don't have it.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:A 77 year old that doesnt believe in privately owned corporations will go over great in Omaha.

Sanders is not opposed to “privately owned corporations”.  He distinguishes Marxism from democratic socialism, and says he favors socialism as found in social programs of the Scandinavian countries.  His primary emphasis is in reversing the trend toward economic inequality.

Wiki wrote:Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist" and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote." He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism, it instead describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.

Plenty of people in Omaha who think Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, and would like to see a single-payer (government) program.

Then he doesn't know what Democratic socialism is.  The Swedes do, and they will tell you they don't have it.  

Sweden is social democracy, which doesn't mean no capitalism.

Ironically, while the Right love to laugh at the Left for thinking Sweden and other Nordic countries are 'socialist' (even though we actually don't), they have at the same time warned against becoming like 'socialist' European countries (like Sweden, with their 'socialist' high taxes and free healthcare).

So do you like the Nordic systems or not? They aren't socialist and do have market economies, so great, right?

PS: opinions on the folks on CNN?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then he doesn't know what Democratic socialism is.  The Swedes do, and they will tell you they don't have it.  

Sweden is social democracy, which doesn't mean no capitalism.

Ironically, while the Right love to laugh at the Left for thinking Sweden and other Nordic countries are 'socialist' (even though we actually don't), they have at the same time warned against becoming like 'socialist' European countries (like Sweden, with their 'socialist' high taxes and free healthcare).

So do you like the Nordic systems or not? They aren't socialist and do have market economies, so great, right?

PS: opinions on the folks on CNN?

The Swedes or Nordic countries do not have Democratic Socialism.

They have a free market economy, with a robust welfare state.

The poorly informed on the left and the right often refer to them as democratic socialists.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

^ This is not what they have in Sweden.

I'm not a huge fan of the tax rates in Nordic countries, but I appreciate their low regulations and freedoms.

Most places on this planet have far worse governments and economic systems.

As for the CNN folks we shall see. I'm wary of stuff like that is just to get folks to watch. The sample size is very small, so it's not of much use.

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

To that we'll add that Sweden, another of Sanders' inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.

If Sanders is going to continue to use these nations to guide his governing philosophy, he should base his policy positions on what they really are, not what he thinks they are or wants them to be. These countries have learned a harsh lesson. They don't deserve to be Berned again.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fusion-power-climate-solution-nuclear/

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then he doesn't know what Democratic socialism is.  The Swedes do, and they will tell you they don't have it.  

Sweden is social democracy, which doesn't mean no capitalism.

Ironically, while the Right love to laugh at the Left for thinking Sweden and other Nordic countries are 'socialist' (even though we actually don't), they have at the same time warned against becoming like 'socialist' European countries (like Sweden, with their 'socialist' high taxes and free healthcare).

So do you like the Nordic systems or not? They aren't socialist and do have market economies, so great, right?

PS: opinions on the folks on CNN?

The Swedes or Nordic countries do not have Democratic Socialism.

They have a free market economy, with a robust welfare state.

The poorly informed on the left and the right often refer to them as democratic socialists.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

^ This is not what they have in Sweden.

I'm not a huge fan of the tax rates in Nordic countries, but I appreciate their low regulations and freedoms.  

Most places on this planet have far worse governments and economic systems.    

It's a social democracy, which is not democratic socialism but the terms have (rightly or wrongly) become interchangeable.

To be fair, liberal used to have a different meaning too.

As for the CNN panel, CNN is hyper centrist, to have a panel with no Biden support is surprising at least.

Well, of Sweden is a social democracy then so is the US. No need for any changes.

Maddog wrote:Well, of Sweden is a social democracy then so is the US.  No need for any changes.  

Swedish style healthcare, free university education and prisons that put rehabilitation first would be great

Sweden is now Fucked, due to the amount of immigrants all wanting their own way !