Yahoo Finance with a ridiculous article fanning the "socialist" flames over our 2020 candidates.

[Bleacher Creature]

Reposting after stupidly posting in GD.

The article is here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/here-are-the-most-socialisticand-most-capitalistic-democrats-running-for-president-190000240.html

I don't want to post the entire thing, because it just infuriates me, but the following chart tells you all you need to know.

[rampartc]

1. ridiculous

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Remove the incendiary headline and it seems about right.

If you look at the top five candidates that are most left there isn't much difference between them. Inslee sticks out though. I can't believe he's that far to the right.


Six is the sweet spot.

[crazytown]

5. I'll have to look at Inslee's climate policy.

It’s rated center/right ?

[Celerity]

3. We are all reaping what Bernie sowed.

By his foolish, ill-conceived and FALSE self-labelling as a democratic socialist, he is now setting up the worst possible outcome.

Number 1: NO, none, zero, nada, of ANY of the currently elected (Bernie included) federal Democrats in the US House or Senate are socialists of any stripe. NONE advocate for state ownership of the means of production, and NONE advocate for the dissolution of capitalism. Those 2 demands are essential bedrock for any true socialist, democratic or otherwise.

Number 2: By stupidly trying to re-define a term that has had clear, globally accepted definitions for 200 plus years they have now helped usher in the MSM to FALSELY label bog standard, boilerplate social democrat/progressive programmes and initiatives as pure socialism. This now will lead tens of millions, maybe well over 100 million, non-discerning, and even reactionary Americans to instantly conflate basic progressive programmes with socialism which then they will conflate with communism. This leads to ludicrous charts like this one, where Kamala Harris or Cory Booker appear to be of a socialist (and, again, conflating things, communist) bent!

It is fucking outrageous. Bernie is in the process of destroying a LOT of political capital in terms of ever enacting any of even the most banal, basic progressive programmes that even many centre-right parties in much of the rest of the advanced world support. Think of the Nordics for example, where even the majority of centre-right parties there would never dream of smashing up their single-payer healthcare systems or their free or near-free universities.

At this rate, even the most mild of liberal, progressive thought is soon going to be tagged as socialist, and the Rethugs don't even have to lift a finger, as the MSM will do all that skulduggery themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. All this for one to one and half point of difference on a ten point scale.

[BlueFlorida]

7. You are partially correct

nevertheless, Bernie and people like him are proudly wearing the socialist label thinking it would get them votes and not realizing that said label is a net loss of voters.

I have no idea what the obsession with the socialist label is. Isn't progressive not enough?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. In U.S., Socialist Presidential Candidates Least Appealing

https://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

[BlueFlorida]

10. It is shocking

that socialist is less favored than gay, Muslim and atheist considering all the hate directed at those groups.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Maybe people think members of those groups aren't coming for their money.

[Celerity]

11. +1

It's electoral suicide.

[crazytown]

4. They don't like Elizabeth's wealth tax do they?

Better put all those socialist local councils with property taxes under the microscope. They’re teaming with Marx and ‘Lennons’.

[BlueFlorida]

9. I don't see anything wrong with the article

It is a normal part of the vetting process and the voters need to know how the various candidates stack up.

It is also displaying the contrast between reality and fantasy which is a good thing.

People are entitled to this info.

I wish they would put our past presidents in there for reference .... at least Clinton and Obama. That would give the voters a perspective.

[Celerity]

12. what is wrong with it is that NONE of them are socialist and yet it falsely labels many as such (or

at least on the road to being one).

The chart makes people like Kamala Harris appear to be a hop, skip, and small jump away from being Tito, which is patently absurd. Even Bernie is nowhere near a real socialist. European actual socialist parties would laugh in his face and slam the door if he tried to join them.

In Sweden, for instance, there is a fundamental antipathy between the Social Democrats and Vänster (The Left, aka the old actual socialists and communists). They have never been officially together in a majority government. The Left Party only will act in a confidence and supply role (meaning they support by the Soc Dems with votes but do not officially join the actual Government), allowing the Social Democrats to maintain control of the parliament, but historically, over the last 100 or so years (The hard left left the Social Democrats in 1917) they have both often been quite hostile to each other. Many Social Democratic governments actually ran clandestine spying and political espionage campaigns against the hard left.

[BlueFlorida]

14. No one is labeled anything

They are plotted on a curve between socialist and capitalist.

"socialist" is wayyyyyyy to the left.

[Celerity]

15. none are socialist, and the blowback from that label is damaging as hell

Sanders is a fool to falsely self-mislabel. It gives the Rethugs and now the MSM a bullshit open door call many of us socialists. This article is a perfect example, regardless of what you are saying about the spectrum of the curve.

When is the last time you saw a non RW, completely mainstream news site use a diagram with the word socialist in it when referring to Democrats?

And regular standard liberal and progressive programmes labelled as such by non-Rethugs in a myriad number of other places?

It's a poison apple Bernie has brought into the orchard.

[Celerity]

16. the very top main label sets up an entirely false dialectic by its very verbiage

It's binary. That's a big deal in psychological framing.

[BlueFlorida]

17. I may be naive

but since both possibilities are given, and since one of the candidates is actively calling himself a socialist, what is the data scientist to do?

All that was done was plot them on a spectrum of socialist on one side and capitalist on the other. Socialism and capitalism are a spectrum, correct?

Same could be said about any issue --- "Pro guns" vs "Ban guns" or "Abortions for everyone" vs "No abortions for anyone" and candidates plotted on that spectrum regarding their positions.

It is just standard vetting. Is the data inaccurate? Argue that. Senator Warren expressly stated that she is not a socialist when she was asked.

[Celerity]

18. My whole issue is that Sanders, with his dodgy self-labelling, has drug the whole term socialism,

with all its negative fallout in reactionary America, to a point where the MSM is applying it to Democrats, even if on a scale.

Other than the simply insipid and eternal fringe baying of RW attack dogs barking to their choir (they would call a ham sandwich socialist or communist if they thought they could score points), it's simply, from what I recall (and confirmed by people older than me), not happened for ages.

When was the last time, pre-2016, that you saw any discussion of a raft of Democratic Presidential primary candidates framed as remotely being judged as possibly socialist by a non RW, mainstream source?

[BlueFlorida]

19. I agree with your subject line

and your point made.

This was never an issue prior to 2016. Correct.

[Celerity]

20. I also can relate to what you said too