Forum menu
Agree TJ. It's not like Biden wouldn't be on hand as an experienced advisor to a possible successor (probably the most experienced political advisor a USA president has ever had available to them).
Maybe if the decision was taken earlier, and if Trump wasn't the presumptive candidate for the Republicans. But now it looks like weakness, and the options poll badly against even the Republican minnows, let alone Trump. The Democrats need the incumbent advantage to win.
I don't think Biden wants to be there, which is part of the problem, but he feels it is his duty to see off Trump again because of the risk to the democratic process itself.
surely there is someone? Is the talent pool that shallow?
You generally want someone with experience either as a state governor or in the Senate so they understand the major issues and can talk to a wide range of voters. Having the support of major unions is important for Democratic politicians and having support from Black voters is too. Biden ticks those boxes - support from Black voters is what let him easily beat Bernie Sanders. Biden has announced he's running for re-election. In order to get the nomination, a challenger would have to run against Biden in primaries and beat him. Any candidate who takes on Biden and loses will probably never get another chance. That's a big risk for an ambitious young politician. I don't think there's anyone else in the Democratic Party that has the level of support needed to beat Biden.
That’s pretty weak for a guys who has been the party leader for the last eight years.
So weak, it is an all time record margin - Trump is going to be the Republican candidate and the odds are he will be able to beat Biden.
What scares me more is that if Trump gets in his first move out of the gate will be to copy his heroes Putin and Kim and make himself Dear Leader for Life. You can only rely on death to rid us of this tiresome beast!
And then the offspring replace them
An American political commentator, Professor Robert Langdon, is just on 5 Live now repeating the claim that the evangelicals in Iowa regard Trump as 'a sort of messiah' who is doing 'gods work'.
They think that he will protect them from the 'Deep State', and all the charges against him proves them right as they are 'out to get him' because of this
How can you campaign against that?
They're all absolutely ****ing nuts!
Professor Robert Langdon
Very good in the Da Vinci code.
He is a lecturer, but not in fictional subjects. Though I bet commentating on the present state of American politics, he must wonder....
If you haven't seen or heard any/all of the 'God gave us trump' vid...here you go.
Made by some rabid trump supporters; it's truly unhinged.
PLayed in Iowa, shared by trump on Truth (?) Social.
It's likely this will be played over and over during the election campaign.
Very good in the Da Vinci code.
Deserves credit
The cognitive disassociation required to simultaneously believe that Trump is representative of God on Earth, and read that he's up in court again for defaming a woman that he's already been charged with sexually abusing must cause a not insignificant number of seizures
Related to the comments above about Biden and the Democrat candidate - how late in the game can a candidate be switched? Is there a point of no return? I think I'm hoping that the Democrats are waiting for the GOP to commit to Trump as candidate and then they'll perform the ole switcheroo for a younger candidate (if, say, Biden's health falters etc).
Theres a good chance Trump will be the next president, but Trump's ability to alienate people will help Democrats swing behind Biden, even if they dont like him
Reversing Roe vs Wade brought it home to a lot of people
Thats no guarantee though
Its worrying that in the UK we follow where america leads, Austerity, Brexit, trussonomics..... youd think the Tories would be wiped out for a generation, but they still poll at least 25% of the vote
Some polling has Trump in front, but polls in some of the key swing states, the only ones that matter really, are against him currently. Can't see that situation improving if he is convicted of various felonies in the meantime.
Trump die-hards don't care if their man is a traitor handing over national secrets to foreign enemies, but quite a lot of regular folks do.
I don't think it's huge news that he'll likely be the Republican candidate, it was almost a given...
The election on the other hand...we can only hope he loses!
youd think the Tories would be wiped out for a generation, but they still poll at least 25% of the vote
That's why when I'm in the corner shop I punch 1 in every 4 customers I see.
Probably flawed logic but it makes me feel better.
Biden will be the Dems candidate unless he dies or is deemed mentally incapable before November.
IF Biden is re-elected I think it will increase the possibilty of Mitch Landrieu standing as a Dem candidate in 2028.
If you're asking...who he?
Two term Lt Governor of Louisiana, two term mayor of New Orleans; senior adviser to Biden's infrastructure and investment board; now co-chair of Biden's re-election committee.
From a family steeped in politics.
Kamala Harris is not, IMO, a likely candidate in 2028.
I agree with earlier post that Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer are also likely candidates.
How long before trump and his acolytes start raising concerns about the possible integrity of this year's election?
How long before trump and his acolytes start raising concerns about the possible integrity of this year’s election?
About 3 seconds after (if) they start looking like they might lose some states on the live updates on TV during the counting process of said election!
That of course won't apply to states where they have a promising/healthy lead 😉
How long before trump and his acolytes start raising concerns about the possible integrity of this year’s election?
They've already implied it a long while back by saying that, "if you let the Dems get away with the steal they will do it again!" Etc etc.😑
That’s a big risk for an ambitious young politicia
Might be me but nearly every US politician seems to be old.
Might be me but nearly every US politician seems to be old.<br /><br />
it requires an exceptional amount of money to be in us politics - the fund raising required to get elected (or rather just to run)at any level is pretty extraordinary. At congress level a term is only 2 years so you are campaigning (and funding your campaign) almost continuously . At some levels of state government elections are every year. You basically need to be both wealthy and well connected to wealthy people to be in politics. It takes wealthy well connected people most of their lives to get both wealthy and well connected. By which time they’re old
It's all coming home to roost for the democrats unfortunately, they chose Biden as their candidate 4 years ago at the age of 77, and Kamala as his running mate, this has left them with the embarrassing situation of having an 81 year old going for reelection, and if he isn't the candidate, by rights, it has to the be the VP who gets the nomination, but she's even less popular.
Trump just survives everything, it's unfathomable, he's in court for criminal charges, hoping to use immunity, his family are the same, he's named in the Epstein reports, but it's laughed off, same as everything, the guys teflon when it comes to politics, his presidency was all about just lie to their face and blame the other side, and it still works for him.
So no ambitious young politicians. Just old people with no vested interest in the future because they won’t be a part of it. America, **** yeah!
There is, but not for a sitting president going for their second term, never happened before, won't happen now.
I suspect the young ones dpn't have the cash or the contacts with cash to make a go of it...it isn't cheap and you need to dig very deep if you have any morals to sell off what you want to do to get the money to get you to the position where those promises need to be cashed in. Politics, in the US, doesn't appear to be a young persons game.
De Santis is only 45 and has raised plenty of money.
So no ambitious young politicians.
Cant remember who it was about or which paper it was but there was a comment about someone considered a "young politician" and then a note saying they are 60.
No, but to become a national figure, you need time to work your way up through the party
Or be a "celebrity" (aka useful idiot)...
Struggling to think of something worse other than Trump obviously.
The Lettuce?
Full of not just old men but, mainly old white men who chose to be career politicians.
If you want to get policies enacted, you need to become a career politician. You probably know the Japanese proverb, "Even monkeys fall from trees," meaning that even experts make mistakes. In politics there's another proverb, "A monkey who falls from a tree is still a monkey, but a politician who loses an election is nothing." If you want to get policies enacted, you have to become a politician and win elections again, and again, and again.
There's a story about Nancy Pelosi, and old white woman who was one of most effective Speakers of the House in recent history, she really knew how to get things done, hence retaining the job despite her age. When young Democratic house members came to her wanting to know why the party didn't enact some policy that young people are deeply into, she would apparently tell them that she was happy to bring it up for a vote, but before they did that, she wanted the young person to go around the Democratic caucus and count up how many votes there were in favour of the idea. What Pelosi understood was that there was no point in wasting time on policies that had no chance of attracting enough Democratic votes to get passed into law.
Young lefties keep bringing up policies like universal basic income, for example, that have zero chance of being enacted. Whatever the merits of the ideas, they only appeal to a very small constituency so they are DOA in congress. Biden tried to push student loan forgiveness but it got shut down. That is a policy that appeals to a very small constituency of young Democratic voters but there isn't enough mainstream support for it to get it done. Blaming Biden for that is the least useful thing that supporters of it can do - he tried to get it done, it didn't fail because he didn't try hard enough, it failed because it just doesn't have a big enough constituency supporting it.
it failed because it just doesn’t have a big enough constituency supporting it.
In a round about way sure but I see the core problem is the 2 party system and Republicans gerrymandering the bejesus out of districts and making voting harder (especially for poor people, e.g. in-person voting requirements and polls open mostly during working hours) meaning they currently have control of congress so there's very little legislation the Democrats can pass. That's a lot different to what percentage of people support a particular policy (gun control being the obvious example).
The Republican Party is the source of a lot of today's problems, no argument there. One problem with policies like gun control is that the people who oppose gun control are very likely to be single-issue voters but the larger group of people who support gun control see it as just one issue among many. Enacting serious gun control would really require amending the U.S. Constitution. That's a nearly impossible task because most voters don't see it as their top priority issue. It's not just how many people care about an issue, it's how strongly they care.
Whatever the merits of the ideas, they only appeal to a very small constituency so they are DOA in congress.
It is almost as if, policies need support from senior politicians in order to gather support. Why is it that tax cuts for the rich get more support than universal basic income? Maybe it is because politicians campaign for one and not the other despite the merits and benefits they would provide for society.
It seams to have become a centrist mantra to give up before even trying.
Pelosi might have been a "successful" politician in a political bubble, she wasn't a successful politician for the benefit of people.
I started watching that documentary on Trump's comeback last night. I had to stop after about 20 mins cos it was too depressing, but i was struck by the claim that 3 million people had entered rhe US thru the Mexican border in just one year.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, and the complex reasons behind it, that's an open goal for Trump right there.
Goes a long way in explaining why most governments are ****. Full of not just old men but, mainly old white men who chose to be career politicians.
Which way do you want it - If someone is young then they can only be a career politician to reach any position of power and still be young - what else will they have done with their lives? What lived experience is informing their decision making. Without that it's policy is all just abstract. You might as well be gaming. We used to have much older politicians in the UK that had done other stuff - fought in wars, worked in coal mines. It meant we had quite a lot of by-elections becuase they tended to die a lot. But if age brings some wisdom and empathy with it then thats a good thing isnt it? It has to be said something that Biden has in spades is empathy - his speech after Oct 7 was testament to that - image if that had been Trump's job to deliver.
We had a young Prime Minister not so long ago, starting the job at the sprightly age of 43. In fact 'Prime Minister' was his first job in government, no ministerial experience. That went well.
But if age brings some wisdom and empathy with it then thats a good thing isnt it?
not guaranteed though and a lot of them seem to have the vested interests of their fellow old folk as priority. The whole system needs a bloody good overhaul
Worth re-posting this review of trumps inauguration by the Scottish Herald
https://twitter.com/bencooper/status/1746846658468491381?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg
received a warning for posting that I wish that Trump would shuffle off this mortal coil
That's weird.
I got a pissy mail for daring to suggest that a big-hitter on here who worked for the NHS may be in the wrong career when they hoped Boris would die when he was in hospital with CV19.
How things change.
Worth re-posting this review of trumps inauguration by the Scottish Herald
That is a work of genius. 🤣
We had a young Prime Minister not so long ago, starting the job at the sprightly age of 43. In fact ‘Prime Minister’ was his first job in government, no ministerial experience. That went well.
Our current PM was younger still, and had spent less time in the commons than Cameron. And is arguably even worse.
TBF, Blair was only about 44 when he became PM, but had at least been an MP for 14 years, and in the shadow cabinet for a decade.
Cant see a good source but supposedly Gordon Brown was asked recently about a "Cameron style comeback" and said.
"I’m too old to be a British politician and too young to be an American politician."
The Republican Party is the source of a lot of today’s problems, no argument there.
Err, yeah there is. The reason the republicans and Trump get away with what they do is because the Democrats don't offer an alternative, and spend most of their time telling working people they can't help them whilst at the same time bending over backwards to accomodate the wildest fantasies of Wall St and corporate America. Working class US voters can see that the democrats are not on their side, so they choose the only alternative. And if that alternative is removed by the courts then we can probably expect something much worse than a Trump victory in November.
Working class US voters can see that the democrats are not on their side, so they choose the only alternative.
A good percentage of the folks who're supporting Trump have the honestly held belief that Democrats are [literal] demons who eat babies, and another good percentage of them are convinced that any Democrat policy is pretty much just Communism in disguise and a vote for the Democrats means they'll be one step closer to the New World Order that will force them to eat insects and make their children change sex.
Lumping them together as "working class voters" misses the reality of the malign influence that the alternative far-right media has over a great deal of folks.
I wouldn’t mind but the democrats appear to be right wing to me. I can’t imagine what would happen in the US if there was a genuinely left wing option. A percentage of the voting public just wouldn’t be able to comprehend it.
The fact that it takes vasts amount of money to even get started in US politics speaks to the root of the issue. The Nancy Pelocie story outlined further up there is shameful too. Both point to an utterly broken system. I feel very sorry for your average, normal US citizen.
It has to be said something that Biden has in spades is empathy – his speech after Oct 7 was testament to that
His empathy appears to be very situational. This is a man who is still supporting what’s happening in the Middle East. Granted things would be exponentially worse under the orange haystack.
I wouldn’t mind but the democrats appear to be right wing to me.
They are - the trad choice in the US was centre right V hard right ( the last 50 years or so)
Lumping them together as “working class voters” misses the reality of the malign influence that the alternative far-right media has over a great deal of folks.
I suppose I'm talking mostly about the floating voters who will end up putting him in power again than the nutjobs. It can't all be explained by saying 50ish percent of the population are conspiracy freak nutcases.
Granted things would be exponentially worse under the orange haystack.
Would they? All Trump cares about is money. I doubt whether he'd be as enthusiastic as Biden to continue writing a blank cheque to supply Israel with weapons. And that's without considering his propensity to cosy up to the likes of Putin.
I can’t imagine what would happen in the US if there was a genuinely left wing option. A percentage of the voting public just wouldn’t be able to comprehend it.<br /><br />
Anything vaguely left wing is seen as socialism which to the vast majority of Americans is akin to communism, unfortunately the American dream has run its course due to unfettered capitalism and the economic powerhouse that was America is dead and buried
Would they? All Trump cares about is money. I doubt whether he’d be as enthusiastic as Biden to continue writing a blank cheque to supply Israel with weapons. And that’s without considering his propensity to cosy up to the likes of Putin.
I reckon so. He’ll do whatever he needs to cling on to power and he’s a weapons grade ****wit and man child. His ability to stir up hatred and division shouldn’t be underestimated.
but the larger group of people who support gun control
It gives them a sense of power in a society where they have no power.This is why a certain class are attracted to them.
De Santis is only 45 and has raised plenty of money.
<br />Maybe, but it’s got him absolutely nowhere.
I wouldn’t mind but the democrats appear to be right wing to me.
That’s true, but to most Americans who live in the Red States, (an irony, considering their fear of the Red Menace), the Dems are the Extreme Left, and constantly demonised as such, so how do you overcome such vitriolic rhetoric? It’s no surprise really that Mango Mussolini is so keen on kissing Putin’s ass, as Russia is no longer Communist, but an authoritarian dictatorship that’s now effectively fascist, and everything that Diaper Don aspires to.
The guy is litteraly guilty of fraud and sexual assault, should have been rape really, but that's acedemic now...the only argument is how much he should be punished or, if as ex-prez he's immune to breaking the law.
That people will still vote for him is simply staggering....
I was talking about this with a mate of mine the other day, and he came up with a really good point...
"if Biden put a gun to his(Trumps) head, live on TV, and asked Trump 'if I pull the trigger can I pardon myself?' I wonder what Trumps answer would be!
Interesting thought experiment!
I wouldn’t mind but the democrats appear to be right wing to me.
No, they're a center-left coalition. America is a huge and diverse country with a different culture and history to the U.K. That diversity means that a successful national party has to accommodate a very broad coalition of voters to be viable. The Democratic Party is very different to the U.K. Labour Party, but that doesn't make them right-wing. They are liberals, which means that socialists won't get a lot of things they want. Anarchists will definitely not get what they want.
The Republican Party, however, have pretty much abandoned policy and are just trying to fight culture war battles. They aren't campaigning on which policies they want to enact, they are campaigning on which groups of people they want to punish. It's not about economic policies, it's about racism and xenophobia.
Tom Nichols is worth following as a center-right former Republican congressional aide and then academic who has realized that the Republican party no longer has anything to offer. Donald Trump has taken it from caring about policies to just being a party of incoherent rage:
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/01/the-age-of-incoherent-partisanship/677188/
dazh
Full MemberI suppose I’m talking mostly about the floating voters who will end up putting him in power again than the nutjobs
TBF, at this point I have less respect for the floating voters than for the flat earthers, at least they're mad. What excuse does a persistant floater have? "Oh I just can't decide between the old guy trying to make things better but who probably won't change much, or the sex offender kleptomaniac who tried to overthrow democracy"
The Republican Party, however, have pretty much abandoned policy and are just trying to fight culture war battles. They aren’t campaigning on which policies they want to enact, they are campaigning on which groups of people they want to punish. It’s not about economic policies, it’s about racism and xenophobia.
Can you imagine if the governing party in the UK was ever like that 🤔
We could teach the Yanks a thing or two for once…
Syphilis Don is trending on Twitter, not saying it’s true but……….
https://twitter.com/vicenews/status/1748074887590097319?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg
Leaking biro? he looks like the sort of person who likes to write in red ink.
The Donald likes crayons, he has to chaperoned though as he has a tendency to eat them
thols2 - democrats are not centre left and haven't been all my lifetime. Centre right at best. Yes a broad coalition and some lefties in the party but overall they are well to the right of any european leftish party overall
I wouldn’t mind but the democrats appear to be right wing to me.
It's left or right relative to what really. Most of the US democratic party is to the right of our Conservative Party but we have to remember we're a pretty odd country politically - we have all the mechanics of socialism in place - universal healthcare, a cradle to grave social safety net, free education and so on. Then, more often or not, we elect a rightwing government who resents delivering those services but could never be allowed by the electorate to get actually get rid of them, just to symbolically wound them. We really, really are weird and we can't use ourselves as a benchmark for other countries' political compasses. Do we elect conservative governments just to torture them? Let them dream of their sunlit uplands of free markets and bigger pies - then just take it all away from them again?
In the US Fiscal conservatism is hard wired into the apparatus of the country - a 'left of centre' president or government is still running a country where healthcare isn't universal, the social safety net is full of holes. And there are too many 'checks and balances' in their system at federal and state levels that theres rarely time where there could be a consensus to change anything. Just lots of opportunity to make noise about it. Something the US right has done very effective is configure themselves as a party that can stop change even when they are not in power so they keep the country on the fiscal Right regardless.
Remembering of course we sort of have two lefts and two rights in politcs. Fiscal left and right - basically large state vs small state, and also Left and Right in terms of socially liberal or conservative. In resent times theres been a bit of fracturing of the various coalitions on either side. In the UK the red wall conservatives are an example of appealing to socially conservative trait in the working class labour left which doesnt have the same 'mutual aid' roots as the Clarion socialism that makes up other elements of the UK left. And the MAGA / culture war thing has been a similar thing - appealing to socially conservative and otherwise politically disenfranchised voters.
we have all the mechanics of socialism in place – universal healthcare, a cradle to grave social safety net, free education and so on.
The basic concept of socialism is that the means of production should be nationalized - socialists are anti-capitalist. Liberals accept capitalism, but want to regulate it and provide a safety net. Most of the people around the world who call themselves socialists now are actually liberals.
a ‘left of centre’ president or government is still running a country where healthcare isn’t universal, the social safety net is full of holes.
The Obama administration's biggest achievement was health care reform. They achieved a lot in the face of utterly determined opposition from Republicans. No, they didn't achieve everything they wanted, but Obamacare was a major improvement and really was the best that was achievable. The U.S. system means that Presidents must get support in Congress for their agenda. When Republicans simply refuse to cooperate with anything that a Democrat President favours, the blame is on the Republicans, it's not because Democrats aren't trying to pass liberal policies.
I suppose I’m talking mostly about the floating voters who will end up putting him in power again than the nutjobs.
Well in the last round of "off year" elections last year, they pretty much rejected all the Trump aligned Republicans, with a lot of folks voting Democrat simply on the Roe Wade issue. Most Americans (nearly 80%) think that a woman should have access to a safe abortion. The evangelicals may be happy, (see Baby-eating and Iowans) but most mainstream Americans are appalled, and that includes a good percentage of Republicans.
Edit: Oh, and Did you hear/see Nikki Hayley respond to the question "What was the cause of the Civil War?" by an audience member at a recent town hall event? She fluffed it and said something about "States rights" because she genuinely thought that saying "Salvery" wouldn't be the right answer. So when you say "nutjobs" here's some-one hoping to become the mainstream Republican candidate in the election fight and presumably hoping to be president, and she didn't think that she can tell her own party member the truth about a war that happened over 160 years ago..
The Obama administration’s biggest achievement was health care reform. They achieved a lot in the face of utterly determined opposition from Republicans.
But the actual package he presented was one that had been dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. Thats whats so odd about US politics -the Republicans did everything the could to resist it, talk of nothing but repealing it...... it was their bloody idea.
All Obamacare really does is turn a competition based market for health care into a 'managed' competition based market for healthcare.
Also - despite the actual provision of healthcare not being universal... the US gov spends more tax payers money per capita on health provision than the UK does. Our government spends about £2300 per head of population. The US pays £3700 per head - but US citzens themselves pay about £3800 on average actually accessing it
In a "debate" recently of a mix of X/Twitter Lefties and a bunch of Right wing populist assholes, one of the lefties said "The election doesn't matter anyway, because according to you (pointing at the right wing panel) Kamila Harris can just change the electors anyway, right?" The howling and bluster was a sight to behold. It was a meaningless exchange, but funny to watch them try invent reasons to wave away the very thing they were hoping for just 3 years ago...
But the actual package he presented was one that had been dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. Thats whats so odd about US politics -the Republicans did everything the could to resist it, talk of nothing but repealing it…… it was their bloody idea.
One consideration was that people with solid jobs (especially union members) had health care paid for by their employers. Asking voters to give up their existing health care for a government scheme that would probably have lower benefits was just not going to work (i.e. a truly socialist system would be extremely unpopular, including with union members). So, they needed to find some way of providing health care for poor people that fitted into the existing system. Romneycare achieved that so they assumed that a system modeled on that would be easy to sell to Republicans. What they did not appreciate was that the Republican party had just become reflexively opposed to anything supported by a Democrat President.
So sure, Obamacare was a bodge to try and work around the constraints of the system, but it did improve health care for tens of millions of poor Americans and the realistic alternative was no health care reform. It was a major liberal policy making achievement, but not a socialist one.
One consideration was that people with solid jobs (especially union members) had health care paid for by their employers.
Thats at the root of a lot of it. By an accident of history US health provision isn't administered by doctors, it's administered by your HR department and has become one of the dog treats that tells you that you've been a very good boy. It's part of the system of rewards along with a comfier chair that comes with a promotion. The boss has a comfier chair than his secretary even though his secretary is the one that has to sit at a desk all day - its not enough to just pay him more it also has to be shown to him and everyone that he's worth more. The management have better healthcare packages than the warehouse staff even though physical wellbeing is a more necessary attribute to those manual staff, becuase the management need to feel better about themselves.
The inequality of healthcare provision has weirdly become the point of healthcare provision - it's valued as something that you can have and others can't. And it keeps you loyal becuase you have more than a job to lose.
Thats at the root of a lot of it. By an accident of history US health provision isn’t administered by doctors, it’s administered by your HR department and has become one of the dog treats that tells you that you’ve been a very good boy.
American unions were successful at getting benefits for their members. Non-members didn't get those benefits. Unions' job isn't to fight inequality, it's to do the best they can for their members. Unions' success at getting healthcare for their members made it impossible to institute universal health care.
lot of noise about the "bloody" hand of Trump!
The basic concept of socialism is that the means of production should be nationalized – socialists are anti-capitalist. Liberals accept capitalism, but want to regulate it and provide a safety net. Most of the people around the world who call themselves socialists now are actually liberals.
What? You're conflating two different axes on a political compass.
Socialist - capitalist
Libertarian - authoritarian
You can be socialist and libertarian (anarchist) or authoritarian (communist)
Similarly you can lie anywhere on the scale as a capitalist.
Using one axis as a description is useless without the context of the other.
https://www.politicalcompass.org
You can be socialist and libertarian (anarchist)
They make very uneasy bedfellows. Socialism is based on the idea that the means of production should be publicly owned. Marxism also introduced the idea of historical determinism, so a socialist society would arise following industrialization (to hard-core Marxists, the reason communism failed was because it was implemented too soon, the communist revolutions occurred before industrialization was complete.) So, in practice, socialism requires a highly organized central state. Libertarians and anarchists reject the legitimacy of that kind of state apparatus.
They make very uneasy bedfellows
Possibly in your mind but once we get beyond that plenty of people reconcile the two.
If you are going to talk about "hard-core marxists" then surely you have read Marx fully and note by the end of the revolution the state disappears?
Its always amusing seeing the right wing anti state nuts rant about him given how close his end vision was to theirs. Its just a different path to an unachievable paradise.
Your definition of "liberal" is similarly flawed. There is nothing intrinsic in it requiring a "safety net" as the Irish victims of the potato famine demonstrate.