2020 Democratic Nominee

[Pancho 45,329]

49 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Biden has a female creeper problem, so IMO if he gets the nomination (don't think he will), he'll almost be forced to run with a female which will soften his issue up a lot.  Another white male on the ticket doesn't do a lot for Biden other than regionality.  I would guess Klobacher would be a name talked about for Biden if he wins.  She's from the North (they remember) and is politically a centrist like he is with a track record of working across the aisle.  It could be someone not in the race at all right now, like an Abrams but I doubt it's a Beto or Pete frankly.  Their best bets are Warren or Harris winning the nomination, IMO.

 

After what she launched today, I don’t see Abrams accepting a VP slot. 

[Patrick Bateman 3,933]

21 minutes ago, Pancho said:

After what she launched today, I don’t see Abrams accepting a VP slot. 

Probably not.  She's doing very important work but being but a heart attack away from being the leader of the free world (are we still?) of a guy who's close to 80 would probably make her listen.  My larger point was, it may be someone off the radar for now.  Finding a centrist woman for Biden would be the most obvious IMO.  Maybe it's Harris although recent events may not put her at the top of his list, although it could have some healing appeal.  Again, very theoretical as I don't think Biden eventually wins the nomination.

 

[RayDog 682]

I started thinking about what happens when we go from 2 to 3 candidates. 

If the final two are Biden and Warren, Warren gets Bernie's votes and wins.

If the final two are Biden and Bernie, Bernie gets Warren's votes and wins.

If the final two are Warren and Bernie, Warren gets Biden's votes and wins.

Warren is also well positioned to pick up Harris, Pete, Yang and Beto supporters even before that.

I don't see Biden getting to 50% under any scenario and Warren should be favored.

[Pancho 45,329]

10 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Probably not.  She's doing very important work but being but a heart attack away from being the leader of the free world (are we still?) of a guy who's close to 80 would probably make her listen.  My larger point was, it may be someone off the radar for now.  Finding a centrist woman for Biden would be the most obvious IMO.  Maybe it's Harris although recent events may not put her at the top of his list, although it could have some healing appeal.  Again, very theoretical as I don't think Biden eventually wins the nomination.

 

Looks like we both may be wrong on Abrams

 

[Js1 85,662]

I'm sure she's "open to it" but I think she REALLY wants to take on Kemp again in 2022.

It's very personal this time. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

I think she and Biden have an agreement from their meeting awhile back, and he's going to deploy it if he starts to drop in the polls. 

[Js1 85,662]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think she and Biden have an agreement from their meeting awhile back, and he's going to deploy it if he starts to drop in the polls. 

So if he starts to suck (more), he's going to go ahead and announce his VP pick? 

Such a thing has never backfired before in trying to save a campaign. Ever.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So if he starts to suck (more), he's going to go ahead and announce his VP pick? 

Such a thing has never backfired before in trying to save a campaign. Ever.

I don't think he'll formally announce it.  I think he'll tell people behind the scenes that she's who he'll pick.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

 

lol.  "So you're good luck?" is great.

[Pancho 45,329]

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

The impressive thing is that she's had no real spikes.   Just a slow and steady climb.  It makes her numbers more solid than most of the other candidates, IMO. 

[GSU&UT 1,798]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I'm sure she's "open to it" but I think she REALLY wants to take on Kemp again in 2022.

It's very personal this time. 

Probably not given that she really didn't want to run for Senate here despite Perdue being a lot easier to beat than Isakson.

[BradInATX 9,208]

From Bama Chick's link.

Are there any presidential candidates that you would be disappointed if they became the Democratic nominee?

Biden 22%
Bernie 20%
Harris 14%
Beto 12%
Pete 11%
Warren 9%

 

Voters are voting on electability over issues 64%/36%. And it's not the moderates, self-identified Democrats actually lean more to electability than independents do.

 

Percent that think each candidate would beat Trump:
(keep in mind for these Trump's side of things stays around 48-50%, so these candidates are competing against "not sure")

Biden 35%
Bernie 29%
Warren 29%
Harris 24%
Pete 18%
Beto 17%

 

To me it looks like Warren's rise corresponds to the electorate becoming convinced she's electable. She's doing a really good job.

Edited August 14, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13,231]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

Warms my black heart.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

58 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

The Republican numbers in this poll are terrifying.  They’re full on Trump kool-aid drinkers.  

There’s also some good polling data on gun control legislation and women in politics.

[BradInATX 9,208]

This is interesting too

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Favorability and net favorability in the midwest:

Biden: 42%, +2% (17% don't know)
Bernie: 35%, -12%  (18%)
Warren: 33%, -5% (29%)
Pete: 29%,  -1% (41%)
Harris: 28%, -11% (34%)
Beto: 26%, -7% (39%)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Electability isn’t that interesting because no one knows who is more electable than someone else at this point in time.   You’re only measuring perception of electability which isn’t a real thing. 

Electability is a vector that gives artificial weight to candidates with already high name recognition and favorability numbers.   Hillary was more “electable” at this point in time in 2007 and 2015.   It was deceptive both times because Obama and Bernie were not as well known at this point in the race. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bolverk 29,781]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Republican numbers in this poll are terrifying.  They’re full on Trump kool-aid drinkers.  

There’s also some good polling data on gun control legislation and women in politics.

6/10 favor banning semi-automatic weapons; 3/10 oppose; & 1/10 not sure.

Excluding those pointy-headed dems, ebil libs, and the "coastal elites", this is what REAL AMERICANS think:

	Support	Oppose	Not Sure
Moderates	63%	27%	11%		STRONGLY FAVOR
Conservatives	40%	53%	7%		OPPOSED
Independents	49%	34%	17%		FAVOR
Republicans	45%	47%	8%		SPLIT
Midwest	58%	32%	10%		FAVOR
South	57%	32%	12%		FAVOR

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Another thing that irks me about these polls is there is never a measurement for the public’s concern regarding corruption.  

It’s always economy, immigration, environment, healthcare, terrorism but there is no variable for public corruption which, in my view, is the #1 issue that prevents any good faith political approach to the other issues Americans most care about. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hornius Emeritus 12,495]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Republican numbers in this poll are terrifying.  They’re full on Trump kool-aid drinkers.  

 

Terrifying to whom, Republicans or Democrats?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

8 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Terrifying to whom, Republicans or Democrats?

The free world. 

They think he’s honest, great on foreign policy and immigration. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Seeing some concern trolling from establishment dems (Harris/Biden folk) that they can’t trust Warren to not pick Bernie as her VP.  

This is the best they have against her and it’s funny/sad.

[bad_teammate 13,231]

57 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seeing some concern trolling from establishment dems (Harris/Biden folk) that they can’t trust Warren to not pick Bernie as her VP.  

This is the best they have against her and it’s funny/sad.

The hope of the centrist/shitlib is that Liz is lying when she says she wants big, structural change.

We must destroy those people.

[Js1 85,662]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seeing some concern trolling from establishment dems (Harris/Biden folk) that they can’t trust Warren to not pick Bernie as her VP.  

This is the best they have against her and it’s funny/sad.

Lol Warren/Bernie is a terrible ticket. Old, white and regional. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Lol Warren/Bernie is a terrible ticket. Old, white and regional. 

“Yeah, but she loves Bernie.”  

-standard concern troll reply

[Js1 85,662]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

So the Bernie Bros doxxed someone on twitter because one of their tweets ended up on MSNBC and was not nice to Bernie. 

Do I have this right? 

[Dropout 355]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So the Bernie Bros doxxed someone on twitter because one of their tweets ended up on MSNBC and was not nice to Bernie. 

Do I have this right? 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21,062]

I have zero issue with putting a name on the Hoarse Whisperer account. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Dropout said:

 

I understand the Bernie narrative and it’s not without merit but the Bros doxxing twitter accounts over a cheap shot tweet that ends up on cable news is taking it to another level. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I have zero issue with putting a name on the Hoarse Whisperer account. 

Only because you want to know who it is.  This is a slippery slope that deserves a conversation. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,062]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Only because you want to know who it is.  This is a slippery slope that deserves a conversation. 

The slippery slope is allowing an anonymous Twitter account to have any influence or respect from the MSM. 

What if he was Russian, Hugo? 

 

[Dropout 355]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I understand the Bernie narrative and it’s not without merit but the Bros doxxing twitter accounts over a cheap shot tweet that ends up on cable news is taking it to another level. 

And the news station that has incredible influence over a gullible population airing an anonymous troll account lobbyist tweet isn’t a level above that?

Edited August 15, 2019 by Dropout
Who will reach a wider audience and who is not being factual?

[Hank Kingsley 21,062]

 

The Stephanie Ruhle tweets are enough to realize Hoarse Whisperer should be identified. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

The slippery slope is allowing an anonymous Twitter account to have any influence or respect from the MSM. 

What if he was Russian, Hugo? 

If he was Russian then he would be the greatest Russian troll of all time and should be awarded a medal.  The democratization and anonymity of social media makes us vulnerable to foreign influence but it also makes more powerful if we use it to advance our values.  There is a large segment of our population that is scared or forbidden from weighing in on politics publicly. Anonymous twitter gives people an outlet to express themselves and defend their country from foreign attacks with the little protection of anonymity.  Doxxing folks because of something innocuous they said on twitter ended up on cable news is bush league IMO.  

1 minute ago, Dropout said:

And the news station that has incredible influence over a gullible population airing an anonymous troll account lobbyist tweet isn’t a level above that?

He’s only a troll account to you because that fits your narrative.  I don’t agree with many things the hoarse says but that doesn’t mean he can’t be insightful or add value to conversations.  MSNBC was irresponsible broadcasting that tweet.  Fox News does that shit all the time too.  Trump also retweets anonymous conspiracy accounts.  Should we doxx all of them too? I dunno. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Nah. The National Press Secretary for a top candidate for president should not be encouraging his supporters to doxx someone.

Plenty of random Twitter users who support other Democratic candidates are pushing the bullshit narratives about other candidates and those tweets influence media coverage.

Bernie isn’t special in that regard.

His campaign staff should not be promoting that kind of behavior.

[Chooky 13,321]

MSNBC needs to do an entire segment on the FartSoundboard69-420  Twitter account.  Admittedly, 99% of the content is just flatulence sounds, but there are also pictures of Chuck Schumer accompanied with different fart sounds and I think that's social commentary worthy of thorough recognition.

[Chooky 13,321]

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

The Stephanie Ruhle tweets are enough to realize Hoarse Whisperer should be identified. 

Chuck Todd is the Political Director for NBC News.

[Dropout 355]

6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Nah. The National Press Secretary for a top candidate for president should not be encouraging his supporters to doxx someone.

Plenty of random Twitter users who support other Democratic candidates are pushing the bullshit narratives about other candidates and those tweets influence media coverage.

Bernie isn’t special in that regard.

His campaign staff should not be promoting that kind of behavior.
 

Bernie is special in regards to it getting aired on fucking MSNBC. Who reaches a wider audience? Some person on twitter or the news station?

As GSU asked... show me one single example of a news network airing an anonymous tweet aimed at smearing a candidate. I’ll wait.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Not going to argue with anyone, but the HW account was a long time troll that seemed to have no problem talking about having questionable sexual contact with a woman.

[Dropout 355]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He’s only a troll account to you because that fits your narrative.  I don’t agree with many things the hoarse says but that doesn’t mean he can’t be insightful or add value to conversations.  MSNBC was irresponsible broadcasting that tweet.  Fox News does that shit all the time too.  Trump also retweets anonymous conspiracy accounts.  Should we doxx all of them too? I dunno. 

Idk the whisperer outside of this tweet. It’s a troll account based on the outright lie it’s perpetuating in order to stifle Bernie. That’s not my narrative. That’s what actually happened. And Fox News is now the benchmark on what a news station should be? Who gives a shit what Fox News does? Comparing MSNBC to Trump rounds out your argument. Idgaf if some racist conspiracy theorist Trump account gets doxxed Mr. Stiglitz. Friendlier than shooting them in their Nazi balls.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

14 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Idk the whisperer outside of this tweet. It’s a troll account based on the outright lie it’s perpetuating in order to stifle Bernie. That’s not my narrative. That’s what actually happened. And Fox News is now the benchmark on what a news station should be? Who gives a shit what Fox News does? Comparing MSNBC to Trump rounds out your argument. Idgaf if some racist conspiracy theorist Trump account gets doxxed Mr. Stiglitz. Friendlier than shooting them in their Nazi balls.

I have no qualms about doxxing self proclaimed Nazis that spread racism and hate speech online.

That’s not what happened here. 

The hoarse whisper has always been anti-Bernie for many reasons I don’t agree with. I also get the temptation from the Berners to out him but going down that road has a price everyone pays by setting a precedent. 

Again, it was MSNBC that was in the wrong here by broadcasting a viewpoint from an unidentifiable source. They should be called out for that more than the hoarse. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dropout 355]

I agree. It’s on MSNBC assuming they have no connection w each other. That’s a 50 50 proposition given this has never really happened before.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The hoarse’s views align with corporate America and the hoarse has a history of working for corporate America.  Similar to many Trump/Russia conspiracists (myself included), the Berners have prematurely made the fallacious leap, without evidence, that corporate America is paying the hoarse to espouse those views anonymously on Twitter to sabotage Bernie. 

The more logical explanation is a life in corporate America has shaped the hoarse’s worldview to align with their interests.

[Dropout 355]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The hoarse’s views align with corporate America and the hoarse has a history of working for corporate America.  Similar to many Trump/Russia conspiracists (myself included), the Berners have prematurely made the fallacious leap, without evidence, that corporate America is paying the hoarse to espouse those views anonymously on Twitter to sabotage Bernie. 

The more logical explanation is a life in corporate America has shaped the hoarse’s worldview to align with their interests.

I mean I’m at your logical explanation. Where has anyone said he’s getting paid by corporate America to post on Twitter to smear Bernie? That is what he chooses to post all on his own. He seems to be or have been a corporate lobbyist and made vast sums of money doing that work. They’ve already paid him prior to his twitter posting and it’s why he’s spouting the nonsense he does. He doesn’t like Bernie bc Bernie puts a target on his back and others like him. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

15 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Where has anyone said he’s getting paid by corporate America to post on Twitter to smear Bernie? 

That’s the implication being peddled elsewhere online because it fits the narrative. Just look at the replies to any of the hoarse’s recent tweets... or your own words here:

15 minutes ago, Dropout said:

They’ve already paid him prior to his twitter posting and it’s why he’s spouting the nonsense he does.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dropout 355]

I have not seen the he’s getting paid right now to post on Twitter narrative. Not saying it’s not there idk not much of a tweeter. But don’t equate the two. My words you quoted are no different than yours here.

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The more logical explanation is a life in corporate America has shaped the hoarse’s worldview to align with their interests.

A life in corporate America where one has made vast sums of money that of course leads to a different worldview than say Bernie Sanders.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

14 minutes ago, Dropout said:

I have not seen the he’s getting paid right now to post on Twitter narrative. Not saying it’s not there idk not much of a tweeter. But don’t equate the two. My words you quoted are no different than yours here.

A life in corporate America where one has made vast sums of money that of course leads to a different worldview than say Bernie Sanders.

Your perspective assumes his views have been formed solely based from his own financial gain.  My alternative explanation is the culture where he earned his living shaped his worldview and it’s not just because of money.  

I don’t agree with my boss politically but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop selling my labor to him.  I am still going to speak out online to promote my values.  Doing it anonymously protects me from my boss holding it against me.   That has value and it can be destroyed by doxxing dissidents.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz