Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't understand the conspiracy theorizing about the debate lineup. Looks random to me.

[edit]

But Night #2 is the one to watch, obviously. Yang, Williamson, Bernie, and Biden is going to be good.

The draw for the groups of 10 was random, but I read that the choice of which group goes on which night was made by the DNC after the groups were set.   And it was the right choice; there would have been a huge viewership drop off after debate 1 if the groups were reversed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20918

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Super Tuesday will show you where Biden really is. He can survive losing Iowa, NH, and even South Carolina.

No, he can't.  The ONLY reason the majority of people would vote for Biden is if he was considered the favorite. If he loses those 3 states his candidacy would be in a total freefall. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Super Tuesday will show you where Biden really is. He can survive losing Iowa, NH, and even South Carolina.

Because Biden has a history of coming from behind when he runs for president.

Nothing about Biden has changed.  He’s still the same empty suit with a great smile.  People are going to figure this out.   His people need to keep him away from the cameras and questions.  He won’t be doing any CNN town halls until he is behind in the polls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because Biden has a history of coming from behind when he runs for president.

Nothing about Biden has changed.  He’s still the same empty suit with a great smile.  People are going to figure this out.   His people need to keep him away from the cameras and questions.  He won’t be doing any CNN town halls until he is behind in the polls. 

Who said anything about him coming from behind? He might, he might not. He might also win Iowa, NH, and South Carolina. Democrats should prepare for that. A lot of Democratic voters are going to vote for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

No, he can't.  The ONLY reason the majority of people would vote for Biden is if he was considered the favorite. If he loses those 3 states his candidacy would be in a total freefall. 

 

He doesn't need the majority of Democrats to vote for him. He only needs a plurality and right now, he has more of that than any other Democrat in the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)

Biden’s biggest flaw is he’s entirely defining his campaign through the lens of Donald Trump.   Thanks Uncle Joe, we really need to be reminded of how awful Trump is every day.  How would we know without you?   Is this going to be what your presidency will look like?  How exciting.  The Biden campaign is borderline insulting to the intelligence of reasonably informed citizens, so it’s no surprise he’s the early front runner. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26444

Posted
Posted

The problem with that analysis, Hugo, is that stopping Donald Trump (which can also be reframed as credibly offering a return to normalcy) is the single issue that delivers the largest constituency, and policy details beyond that chip away at that coalition.

It’s not enough by itself in a general election, but it’s the fundamental organizing principle of this primary field the same way stopping Obama was in 2012. And Biden dominates it at this moment.

 

So he’s got a very high floor.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The problem with that analysis, Hugo, is that stopping Donald Trump (which can also be reframed as credibly offering a return to normalcy) is the single issue that delivers the largest constituency, and policy details beyond that chip away at that coalition.

It’s not enough by itself in a general election, but it’s the fundamental organizing principle of this primary field the same way stopping Obama was in 2012. And Biden dominates it at this moment.

So he’s got a very high floor.

I understand why the Biden campaign is running the strategy, it’s probably the best one they’re capable of running.  

However, the strategy depends on the electorate believing Trump might win unless Biden is the nominee.  The polls are driving that perception.  The polls can also destroy that perception should Biden get passed in the polls by an actual  political movement.  Trump is the kind of threat that galvanizes movements.  The Joe Biden movement?  Is that a real thing?  I don’t see it.  

Once more people believe anyone can beat Trump, Biden is finished.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29189

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

this analysis/predictor may very well be prove accurate, but i think it's foolish to act like this is just business as usual in american politics.

what's happened before has little to do with what's going to happen in the future.

20 years ago, any one thing that trump's done in the past 2-3 years would've absolutely dismantled a presidential campaign.  now it barely makes the news.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14588

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

I was actually saying this to my wife yesterday about why this year is different for Biden. What used to qualify as a gaffe no longer registers.

 

This is correct.  The old rule book no longer applies.

What will be funny is watching Republicans obsess over every little gaffe and made up scandal while still thinking it matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26444

Posted
Posted

If you were to go back to the shag and look you would see that In 2014 Austin had a transit bond election and the route that most transit advocates and urbanists preferred North of the river was the same Congress-Guadalupe-Lamar alignment west of the UT campus that failed narrowly in 2000.

Nevertheless, the project team chose a Highland ACC-Brack-DT alignment that would run East of UT and build to where growth was going. The reasons are complicated and some are legit, but it’s worth mentioning that, as the City Demographer said during a hearing that in making their case for the Highland Route “the data were cooked.”

So anyhow, the grassroots transit advocate community were so furious that they aligned with the road-only faction to oppose the rail bond, despite being warned that if they did, the politics around it would make a rail bond toxic for the rest of the decade. They scoffed at that, and said it would be easy to put together a winning coalition for G/L rail in 2016. It is now 2019. No rail is under construction and while a transit bond is in the planning stages for 2020 and seems to prioritize a G/L alignment, it’s highly unlikely to include rail and the Mayor among others has indicated that any plan that dedicates even one lane exclusively to mass transit is a non-starter.

There’s a lesson in here for progressive maximalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26444

Posted
Posted
Huh? I'd never vote for a third party candidate. I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination. I wasn't happy about voting for Hillary Clinton.

Nobody was, and it held down turnout. And since people thought Clinton’s victory was a fait accompli some lefties voted for Johnson or Jill Stein. Enough to make Trump President, it turns out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

progressive maximalists.

There aren’t many of these.  The democrats don’t have an astroturfed tea party faction trying to burn everything down.   The Tea Party won in the end too.  What does that tell you about the power of sweeping movements? 

It looks like Bernie planted the seeds and Warren is going to take the harvest to market.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13194

Posted
Posted

There are two candidates worth considering if you actually give a shit about real change: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Everyone else is a waste of time.

Now, if you don't actually give a shit about change, you've got a very wide range of personalities and identities to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26411

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There are two candidates worth considering if you actually give a shit about real change: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Three, you left out Trump.

Sure, he'll have global-warming-displaced Nazi polar bears trained to chase non-Norwegians through our streets, but that's still change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13194

Posted
Posted

To be fair to the field, Warren raised a ton of money for her 2018 reelection from Wall Street donors and then rolled that into her presidential campaign, so while she's not actively courting them right now, her current warchest contains millions of Wall Street/donor class dollars.

So basically it's just Bernie.

But... of course that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
On 6/14/2019 at 11:39 AM, Fozzz said:

Tulsi gonna peg Beta onstage.  

 

Would you like the number to the suicide prevention hotline now or closer to when Tulsi realizes she's irrelevant in this contest and drops out?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

To be fair to the field, Warren raised a ton of money for her 2018 reelection from Wall Street donors and then rolled that into her presidential campaign, so while she's not actively courting them right now, her current warchest contains millions of Wall Street/donor class dollars.

So basically it's just Bernie.

But... of course that's the case.

Where in that article does it say Elizabeth Warren courted Wall Street donors? 

Oh, there was a Nasdaq guy at one of the events.  Something tells me “Crooked Elizabeth” isn’t going to work. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13194

Posted
Posted

"Wall Street/donor class"

Quote

Something tells me “Crooked Elizabeth” isn’t going to work. 

Warren's warchest is stocked with a lot of donor class money. That's inarguably true. Is she "crooked"? I don't think so.

She transferred $10.4M from her Senate re-election campaign, money raised with PACs that accepted lobbyist money and held fundraisers with Wall Street/donor class audiences.

So when someone like Pete starts a campaign, it's easier to make him look like an asshole for raising money from the Wall Street/donor classes while Warren eschews it, because Warren got that work done ahead of time. Which is why I started with "To be fair to the field...".

She's absolutely more of-the-people than the vast majority of the other candidates (including Pete), which is part of why she is (in my estimation) 10 miles ahead of the peloton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12395

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

There are two candidates worth considering if you actually give a shit about real change: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Everyone else is a waste of time.

Now, if you don't actually give a shit about change, you've got a very wide range of personalities and identities to choose from.

If real change means:

Free college for everyone

Medicare for All

Expanding SCOTUS

Infanticide Partial birth abortion

Reparations

and Open borders

 

Fuck that noise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...