2020 Dems: Nevada (gonna make Iowa look competent!)

[gmr548 16576]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont think so.  Philly and Pitt metros have grown.  Everywhere else has shrunk.  Some towns on the PA side of the Delaware water gap are also now becoming NYC exurbs with an increasing Latino population. 

It's still all about turnout though. 

Actually the Pittsburgh metro is shrinking too, albeit very slowly now. It's almost stabilized. Philly area is really the only growth. The state is more or less flat since 2010 in terms of population - only about 100k in growth from 2010 to 2019. Philadelphia has grown by about 60k since 2010 so that is definitely the main driver. 

Turnout is definitely the name of the game but the work is going to be harder in PA. The turnout path is very clear for Ds in WI and MI. Trump didn't do any better than Romney there. Clinton just grossly underperformed Obama in the Milwaukee and Detroit areas, respectively. Get the votes out from the base in the cities and those are Ws. Obama/Trump voters are not the mythical unicorns in WI and MI. Democrats stayed home. After four years of Trump, I'm confident those votes can be found if the Ds put in the work that the Clinton campaign didn't.

PA was not similar in that regard. Trump's performance basically mirrored Obama in 2012, and Clinton got 300k more votes than Romney. Turnout was up from 2012 in the Philly area. Given the surge in support for Trump and the flat population in the state, I think it's safe to assume his support is pretty much capped out at 2.95-3mm votes. That can be beaten but it is going to have to be an all encompassing effort. Turnout of new voters in Philly proper. Getting margins in Philadelphia suburbs closer to 2008 levels. Winning back some of the voters that flipped outlying SEPA counties. Trump also got about 10k fewer votes than McCain and about the same as Romney in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh). I don't know how many more D votes are there to be found given that Clinton essentially matched Obama's 2008 performance and the place hasn't grown, but even a slight D turnout boost there could have outsized results given that Republican support seems static. Fortunately the margin is small, so even a bit of success in a few of those categories could be decisive. But it is not as straightforward.

[Bama Chick 28596]

TIL

Biden has a private nickname for Mayor Pete - “Mr. President”.

I wish he’d say it to his face in his best mean, grumpy, sarcastic Uncle Joe way.

[troph 24781]

My only new takeaway from tonight is that Bernie was the only one on that stage that truly believes in democracy. Others too close to the office to fucking answer the simple question correctly. Shameful.
When is the last time a primary contender on either side went into the convention with a plurality and wasn’t the nominee?

You know he had the exact opposite response in 2016, don’t you? You know he’s in the lead and is expected to walk in into the convention with the lead but not a majority, don’t you? Everyone on that stage said what was in their best interest. He’s a genuine guy but on this he wants to win, that’s all it was.

[Pasken 1309]

Candidates lose runoffs after leading in elections all the time. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Candidates lose runoffs after leading in elections all the time. 

Won't get there anyway. After super Tuesday, only one of Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Pete will be left. Establishment vote will consolidate in the remaining states. Game over. 

[Dropout 355]

14 minutes ago, troph said:

You know he had the exact opposite response in 2016, don’t you? You know he’s in the lead and is expected to walk in into the convention with the lead but not a majority, don’t you? Everyone on that stage said what was in their best interest. He’s a genuine guy but on this he wants to win, that’s all it was.

He didn’t have a different response. At no point in 2016 did Bernie Sanders argue that the candidate with the most delegates should not be the nominee. 

Yes I know he will have a plurality. Why I asked when is the last time someone had a plurality and was not the nominee.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It was kinda cool that Liz called her shot yesterday in this debate.

 

[Dropout 355]

28 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Also, no winning candidate has failed to win a majority of elected delegates since primaries went nationwide. If it happens this year, we will be treading on new turf. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Correct me if I’m wrong... Clinton did not have a majority of pledged delegates in 2016. Obama did not have a majority of pledged delegates in 2008. Have to go back to 2004 Kerry when someone had an outright majority.

[NWBuck 8552]

34 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

I can’t imagine Bloomberg getting out after spending half a billion on ads. He’ll probably spend some of that money on the best debate coach in the US. 

The true test of that man's investment in making America better will be if he uses his cash to continue to support Democratic candidates if he's not the nominee.

I'd love to see how his money would change the country if it landed on the side of the campaigns against McConnell and Graham.

[gmr548 16576]

Won't get there anyway. After super Tuesday, only one of Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Pete will be left. Establishment vote will consolidate in the remaining states. Game over. 

That's my gut prediction, but what could really throw a wrench in that is California. Recent polls show there's a chance Sanders could get all of the state's delegates. I don't know if that's surmoubtable for one of those four in that scenario.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Dropout said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Correct me if I’m wrong... Clinton did not have a majority of pledged delegates in 2016. Obama did not have a majority of pledged delegates in 2008. Have to go back to 2004 Kerry when someone had an outright majority.

You're wrong on both counts. Both Clinton 2016 and Obama 2008 had a majority of pledged delegates. Obama was close though, but he still had 51% of them.  Edwards took a handful of delegates from 3rd place in 08. Clinton beat Bernie 2271 to 1820 in pledged delegates. It was also a 2 horse race from the starting gate, so it was impossible for a winner to not have a majority of pledged delegates. 

The BS in both was about the potential for superdelegates to overturn an election. In neither case did that happen. They broke for the pledged delegate winner both times. Bernie just got beat. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

That's my gut prediction, but what could really throw a wrench in that is California. Recent polls show there's a chance Sanders could get all of the state's delegates. I don't know if that's surmoubtable for one of those four in that scenario.

Sure it is. Cuz Texas and the rest of super Tuesday, other than Vermont, aren't in Bernie's wheelhouse. I wish that CA voting a certain way meant the nation votes that way, but the Trump out front should tell you that isn't the truth. Sadly, the Dem primary path has long been paved by states that have zero chance of going Dem in the general. It's the Biden path. It was also the Obama and both Clinton's paths. 

And after super Tuesday, there isn't really any primary that favors Bernie with only one establishment competitor. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Dropout 355]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You're wrong on both counts. Both Clinton 2016 and Obama 2008 had a majority of pledged delegates. Obama was close though, but he still had 51% of them.  Edwards took a handful of delegates from 3rd place in 08.

From the wiki link above

Neither candidate received enough delegates from the state primaries and caucuses to achieve a majority without superdelegate votes.

Clinton beat Bernie 2271 to 1820 in pledged delegates. It was also a 2 horse race from the starting gate, so it was impossible for a winner to not have a majority of pledged delegates. 

Wut? Does majority in a primary not mean reaching a certain threshold? Not just majority like the most. The number was 2382 for a majority.

By the end of the race, Clinton had won 2,200 pledged delegates to Sanders' 1,831 pledged delegates, for a pledged delegate margin that was about six times larger than the margin that Barack Obama had won over her in 2008.^{[7][circular reference]}On June 6, the Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton had earned enough delegates to clinch the presidential nomination, including superdelegates.

The BS in both was about the potential for superdelegates to overturn an election. In neither case did that happen. They broke for the pledged delegate winner both times. Bernie just got beat. 

Yes he got beat. Imagine the fucking meltdowns to be had if he tried to take it from Clinton.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Watching people try to forecast this is making my eyes bleed.  There has never been a primary even close to this one.  So many moving parts and during never ending Trump news cycles. The dynamics are unprecedented.  Any conventional wisdom or trying to use historical data is worthless talking head punditry.  The polls don’t even carry weight anymore.  All that matters is today and how many delegates you can get tomorrow.
 

[Pasken 1309]

Could you imagine if Warren won Nevada? Who knows what would happen after that.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well, she won big in money tonight.

[Napoleon 8663]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

You're wrong on both counts. Both Clinton 2016 and Obama 2008 had a majority of pledged delegates. Obama was close though, but he still had 51% of them.  Edwards took a handful of delegates from 3rd place in 08. Clinton beat Bernie 2271 to 1820 in pledged delegates. It was also a 2 horse race from the starting gate, so it was impossible for a winner to not have a majority of pledged delegates. 

The BS in both was about the potential for superdelegates to overturn an election. In neither case did that happen. They broke for the pledged delegate winner both times. Bernie just got beat. 

From the night of the stolen Iowa caucus, that had more video footage of cheating than all caucuses combined up until that night, every new outlet included Superdelegate votes when showing Hillary's delegate count.

It was repeated ad nauseum that Hillary had an insurmountable lead and that Bernie was unelectable by virtually every news organization, including PBS's News Hour, and many people just voted for who they were told was the front runner.

Add to that the wiping of Bernie campaign contributors from registered Democratic lists for primaries in several states, this happened to me in California just about 3 days after I had received my Voter Registration Card in the mail that showed that I had registered as a Democrat, there were primary voting clusterfucks in state after state that usually hurt Bernie's campaign and who most Bernie supporters assumed was coming from the Clinton campaign. (Looking back, it probably came about as a result of the hack on Bernie's campaign contributor list that could have been part of the Russian interference.) 

Hillary ultimate had more pledged delegates, but it was hardly a "Bernie just got beat." election and more of a "From Debbie Wasserman Schultz placing debates at odd times, including on the Saturday night of Thanksgiving weekend, to the head of the Iowa Democratic Party, who happened to also be the head of Hillary's Iowa campaign, to every talking head & news story marginalizing Bernie's army of donors to focus on Hillary vs Donald starting in ~November of 2015 to Donna Brazile also cheating for Hillary to swaths of voters being erased from Democratic lists which resulted in Official Voting Days being a complete clusterfuck in several states, which tended to disenfranchise young voters much more than old Democrats who voted early or by mail...

2016 was anything but clear.

 

NOTE: I'm not going to reread, so typos be damned!

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20392]

I am only about halfway through watching the debate right now but holy shit Bloomberg looks like he spent the last few months lighting 500 million dollars on fire.  This may be the most entertaining debate I've ever seen.

[Dbeasy 15042]

I sit in front of a Bloomberg terminal all day and would happily vote for him. It's an invaluable resource. 

Exactly! And since I love McDonalds hamburgers I’m here to announce that I’m voting for Ronald McDonald for President.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 hours ago, Pasken said:

Could you imagine if Warren won Nevada? Who knows what would happen after that.

With the early voting doing so well with respect to turnout, Sanders will maintain his lead/support so I would be surprised if Warren were to win there. She might, however, move up and that would be a positive.

[Aqua Buddha 14582]

I forget that Bern is an underrated debater.  Not flashy but he doesn't chase squirrels.  Always stays on topic.  

Warren is the best political athlete up there and the best life story.  Had she been more moderate instead of becoming a caricature of herself, she'd have won this.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I forget that Bern is an underrated debater.  Not flashy but he doesn't chase squirrels.  Always stays on topic. 

That is accurate. He was in the catbird seat last night, and played that very well. He won't lose anyone to Warren, but some of the other candidates might. She had herself a night, and no matter how it ends, I was glad she got to talk policy here and there.

That, and create a new orifice in Mike Bloomberg where one had never before existed.

[GRHorn 105]

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

No they don't. They keep working at the convenience store for minimum wage just like they were doing before. They might also have to deal with a bunch of Texas O and G folks moving in and driving up the cost of living, while still making minimum wage. 

Bernie's message should be strong for them. It won't be though, because they like being slaves for the guy that has happened to own all the land around their town for generations. But it should be. 

That’s not exactly true.  Busier convenience store etc equals job security in downtrodden areas. More customers at retail, restaurants etc equals more money. In construction, building hotels for workers. Some eventually work in the industry. 

[GRHorn 105]

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Should have done that already, no?  And hired the world's best actors to play the roles of other candidates in a mock debate. Looks like he didn't spend all his money wisely. For his investment, he should have seen most of this debate coming and had a serviceable reply ready. 

You’d think so and think with his career in public speaking he would be better prepared.  Then again, I bet at his position in life, he almost never is verbally challenged like that. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You’d think so and think with his career in public speaking he would be better prepared.  Then again, I bet at his position in life, he almost never is verbally challenged like that. 

Bingo.

[TexEx15 17509]

It’s immoral for someone to have 3 houses including a > $500K vacation cabin with lakefront property when hundreds of thousands of people are sleeping on the street.

Did I do that right?

[troph 24781]

Yeah that’s where Bernie starts to lose me. If you pay your employees both above a living wage and at or above market for their position then there is nothing immoral about standing last in line for profits and reaping them handsomely. I’ve gone without too many times in lean years or when customers slow play. Owners are not defacto bad simply because they’ve accumulated a lot of wealth. Risk taking deserves the possibility of high rewards.

[Incredulity 11654]

15 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

It’s immoral for someone to have 3 houses including a > $500K vacation cabin with lakefront property when hundreds of thousands of people are sleeping on the street.

Did I do that right?

His wealth and comfort isn’t the question.  It’s those other guys over there.

Some animals are more equal than others on animal farm.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Incredulity

[bad_teammate 13192]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

Yeah that’s where Bernie starts to lose me. If you pay your employees both above a living wage and at or above market for their position then there is nothing immoral about standing last in line for profits and reaping them handsomely. I’ve gone without too many times in lean years or when customers slow play. Owners are not defacto bad simply because they’ve accumulated a lot of wealth. Risk taking deserves the possibility of high rewards.

 

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Owners can make as much money as they want within reason, Bloomberg spending damn near half a billion dollars and him basically earning that back within a year or less is grotesque inequality and what Bernie constantly talks about.

[bad_teammate 13192]

If you can't honestly tell the difference between a 78-year-old with $2.5M in assets and someone with $60B (or even $1B) in assets, you might be too stupid to have a rational conversation with. I don't think that's actually true of you guys, I think you're just so used to operating in bad faith on this larger question that you don't even realize you're doing it.

Bernie's Vermont home, where he spends half the year:

Built in 1981. In the driveway is his little red Chevy Spark (MSRP $13k). Looks like a Ford Escape (MSRP $25k) next to it?

Here is Bernie's DC home (where he is as a US Senator):

1 bedroom, 2 bathrooms. It's the bright white one.

Here is Bernie's summer home:

Enjoy being unpaid FOXNews talking heads, I guess, but I'm going to mock you mercilessly for your abject stupidity on this every time.

[Anastasis 23463]

Bernie made his money from writing books.  Biden said he made his money writing a book. Warren made a sizable chunk of her money from book deals.

 

It's no wonder politicians are so comfortable printing money. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Anastasis

[bad_teammate 13192]

The current average net worth of an American household is $69k (nice)

Let's do some math...

Michael Bloomberg ($60B) / Bernie Sanders ($2.5M) = 24,000

Bloomberg is 24,000 times richer than Bernie Sanders

The wealth of someone that far below Bernie?

$104

Bloomberg is 24,000 times richer than Bernie
Bernie is 36 times richer than the average American household

 

[bad_teammate 13192]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Bernie made his money from writing books.  Biden said he made his money writing a book. Warren made a sizable chunk of her money from book deals.

 

It's no wonder politicians are so comfortable printing money. 

damn boy you should see if they'll resurrect this show for you

[Aqua Buddha 14582]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

You’d think so and think with his career in public speaking he would be better prepared.  Then again, I bet at his position in life, he almost never is verbally challenged like that. 

Most of the billionaire set are surrounded by yes men staff.  For the last 20 years, Bloomberg prolly sat around and said “You know what the problem with the Mexicans and the blacks....” and everyone around him would nod and say “You are correct, sir.  Brilliant observation.”

[bolverk 29656]

33 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

His wealth and comfort isn’t the question.  It’s those other guys over there.

Some animals are more equal than others on animal farm.

This really isn't a fair comparison. The degree of Bloomberg's wealth is unimaginable for most people - certainly it is to me. If Bernie's figure was correct that Bloomberg's wealth is equal to the bottom 125,000,000 Americans combined, there is absolutely something wrong with our system.

According to Forbes, this is the net worth of each of the candidates that was on the stage last night:

https://www.businessinsider.com/estimated-net-worth-wealth-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-2019-4

Look, I buy into the argument that -- to a degree -- that too high of a taxation can discourage work or investment, but I also understand that the accumulation of too much wealth is a danger to our overall democracy. Hence, Bloomberg coming out the gate and spending $500,000,000 in just ten weeks in ad spending and suddenly skyrocketing up the polls with very little effort, and his winning the nomination would demonstrate to me, you, and the general public that our entire sociopolitical and economic system is completely rigged. Historically, that leads to a crowds-with-pitchfork situation.

[Huckleberry 32848]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The current average net worth of an American household is $69k (nice)

Let's do some math...

Michael Bloomberg ($60B) / Bernie Sanders ($2.5M) = 24,000

Bloomberg is 24,000 times richer than Bernie Sanders

The wealth of someone that far below Bernie?

$104

Bloomberg is 24,000 times richer than Bernie
Bernie is 36 times richer than the average American household

 

This is important to actually write out for people. Most people have very little concept of how much a billion is. Humans don't just naturally comprehend numbers that large.

On a percentage basis, Bloomberg's wealth looks at Sanders's wealth the same way the average American's wealth looks at a guy who has $2.88 to his name. That's not a typo. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

To just put it into perspective, you could earn $5000 a day starting in 1492 and still not have a billion dollars.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

To just put it into perspective, you could earn $5000 a day starting in 1492 and still not have a billion dollars.

JFC

[GopherRock 1765]

Question for those of you who remember the 2015 GOP primary debates: Did anyone go after Trump in the debates the way Warren went after Bloomberg last night? IIRC no one did until it was too late in the process. 

[gmr548 16576]

Sure it is. Cuz Texas and the rest of super Tuesday, other than Vermont, aren't in Bernie's wheelhouse. I wish that CA voting a certain way meant the nation votes that way, but the Trump out front should tell you that isn't the truth. Sadly, the Dem primary path has long been paved by states that have zero chance of going Dem in the general. It's the Biden path. It was also the Obama and both Clinton's paths. 
And after super Tuesday, there isn't really any primary that favors Bernie with only one establishment competitor. 

Sanders led the most recent TX poll. The Texas Democratic electorate trends younger and significantly more Latino than most places. Who knows if he'll win the state outright but he's not going to get run off the field here.

In general I think you're underselling the lead Sanders has opened up in polls. He's at or right near the top everywhere.

[SydneyCarton 48062]

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

It’s immoral for someone to have 3 houses including a > $500K vacation cabin with lakefront property when hundreds of thousands of people are sleeping on the street.

Did I do that right?

God this article is so fucking stupid. I'm sure the numbers are factual, but I'd love to see his net worth up against literally every member of the house and senate laid bare, and I'd bet heavy he's in damn near the lowest tier, even compared to many dipshits new to politics and in their early 40's. And now they're writing this, acting like an 80 year old man with a net worth of 2.5 million dollars is some kind of amazing achievement, or scandalous secret? And that's his net worth, not his fucking paper worth. He's 80 years old, guess what, that's enough time to fucking pay off and keep 2-3 homes without extending yourself. And lets not ignore the fact that most of that wealth came extremely late in life. What was his net worth 10 years ago? 

I'm hardly a Bernie Bro, and I get that there are so many people with less privilege in this world, but the guy was relatively poor most of his life as a public servant. Living to 80 and having a net worth of a couple million dollars is so far from this guy being in a privileged class it's absurd. He's finished his life well by writing. Articles like this are fucking disingenuous and do nothing but stoke problems. 

[SydneyCarton 48062]

43 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This really isn't a fair comparison. The degree of Bloomberg's wealth is unimaginable for most people - certainly it is to me. If Bernie's figure was correct that Bloomberg's wealth is equal to the bottom 125,000,000 Americans combined, there is absolutely something wrong with our system.

According to Forbes, this is the net worth of each of the candidates that was on the stage last night:

https://www.businessinsider.com/estimated-net-worth-wealth-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-2019-4

Look, I buy into the argument that -- to a degree -- that too high of a taxation can discourage work or investment, but I also understand that the accumulation of too much wealth is a danger to our overall democracy. Hence, Bloomberg coming out the gate and spending $500,000,000 in just ten weeks in ad spending and suddenly skyrocketing up the polls with very little effort, and his winning the nomination would demonstrate to me, you, and the general public that our entire sociopolitical and economic system is completely rigged. Historically, that leads to a crowds-with-pitchfork situation.

This chart, and the numbers from the politico article are wildly different except LITERALLY for Bernie Sanders:

[Pato del Muerto 52486]

9 hours ago, NWBuck said:

The true test of that man's investment in making America better will be if he uses his cash to continue to support Democratic candidates if he's not the nominee.

I'd love to see how his money would change the country if it landed on the side of the campaigns against McConnell and Graham.

Isn’t this the type of campaign finance people want done away with?  Billionaires bankrolling candidates?

[SydneyCarton 48062]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Isn’t this the type of campaign finance people want done away with?  Billionaires bankrolling candidates?

I'd love to defund super-pacs. Taking the money out of politics is the best way to fix much of what ails this country. But until that happens, why would anyone bring a rubber knife to a gun fight based on their principles? That's how you lose and change never happens. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

God this article is so fucking stupid.

I agree with your perspective on this; the opponents throw it at him but forget about the convenient uber wealthy (Sanders is not a member of that class) who have looted and pillaged their way to the top and then give to a little charity as an example of good works. (Provided they don't loot that too). Charity is good works, but Sanders proposes that one omit the looting and pillaging while earning one's fortune thus reducing the need for too little too late donations. Not all wealthy individuals fall into the ruthless class, there have been some who propose that they are willing to pay more as citizens, but the 'FUIGM' as a mantra has been growing in this country and with ill effect.

[bonnieblue 542]

I'm not sure what the break down is, but it's likely that half of his NW could just be from his equity in these homes. He probably purchased at least 1-2 of them on the relative "cheap" prior to this real estate market rocket ship that we've been on.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

lmao 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14582]

42 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is important to actually write out for people. Most people have very little concept of how much a billion is. Humans don't just naturally comprehend numbers that large.

On a percentage basis, Bloomberg's wealth looks at Sanders's wealth the same way the average American's wealth looks at a guy who has $2.88 to his name. That's not a typo. 

Netflix’s “Explained” has a most excellent episode about billionaires and what that really means.  (Cuban and Bern are in it.). To your point, people don’t realize what a billion really means.  Cuban even jokes about being worth $5B and running into people who are far richer than him.

If the average American really understood how the real billionaires live, there would be a riot in the streets.