2020 Democratic Nominee

[Dropout 355]

20 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What uncomfortable questions?  I haven't denied that it's code for white males.  That's the very basis for it being an accusation of sexism:   aggressively misogynistic frat dudes who wouldn't support Hillary simply because she's a woman.   It was a caricature pushed by Hillary PUMAs for political benefit.  That's what I've been saying. 

Do you even know what you're arguing against?   Because it doesn't resemble anything I've said. 

I know what I’m arguing. You’re the one changing positions mid argument.

I mean this is the first time you’ve said Bernie Bro is code for white males. Before it was about sexism against women. Don’t equate the two. Don’t hide behind sexism against women. The major player with the term Bernie Bro is white males who can be sexist. Not sexists who can be white males.

Uncomfortable questions that this rabbit hole began with. Bernie has the most diverse supporters. Warren has the least diverse. Why does Warren not get a similar label? Something that labels her supporters predominately white when that is indeed the case. In Bernie’s case it’s fucking fairy tales. Why do Warren supporters not merit the same attacks? Is it because Warren is preferable to the establishment than Bernie? Why is that when their platforms seem to be incredibly similar? Why should I trust Warren over Bernie? All this given that we both agree Bernie Bro is code for white males.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Dropout

[Fozzz 152]

Is that a serious question?  What the US does is not exactly a secret, the US press simply has no appetite on reporting on any of it as it's not a partisan issue and so it's never really brought up in media.  For instance, the US sanctions have killed around 40,000 Venezuelans since 2017.  When was the last time you saw that discussed in the US news? 

Quote

The sanctions reduced the public’s caloric intake, increased disease and mortality (for both adults and infants), and displaced millions of Venezuelans who fled the country as a result of the worsening economic depression and hyperinflation. They exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis and made it nearly impossible to stabilize the economy, contributing further to excess deaths. All of these impacts disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable Venezuelans.

Even more severe and destructive than the broad economic sanctions of August 2017 were the sanctions imposed by executive order on January 28, 2019 and subsequent executive orders this year; and the recognition of a parallel government, which as shown below, created a whole new set of financial and trade sanctions that are even more constricting than the executive orders themselves.

We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018; and that these sanctions would fit the definition of collective punishment of the civilian population as described in both the Geneva and Hague international conventions, to which the US is a signatory. They are also illegal under international law and treaties which the US has signed, and would appear to violate US law as well.

http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf

What reason do we have for murdering tens of thousands of Venezuelans?  You want to defend that mass-murder?  

[David Dennison 18651]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Is that a serious question?  What the US does is not exactly a secret, the US press simply has no appetite on reporting on any of it as it's not a partisan issue and so it's never really brought up in media.  For instance, the US sanctions have killed around 40,000 Venezuelans since 2017.  When was the last time you saw that discussed in the US news? 

http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf

What reason do we have for murdering tens of thousands of Venezuelans?  You want to defend that mass-murder?  

The reason is to pressure Venezuelans into producing a government and leadership more in line with the interests of the United States.

Is that a good reason? No. But that's the reason. Will it work? TBD.

Politics ain't bean bag.

Edited September 6, 2019 by David Dennison

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, Dropout said:

I know what I’m arguing. You’re the one changing positions mid argument.

I mean this is the first time you’ve said Bernie Bro is code for white males. Before it was about sexism against women. Don’t equate the two. Don’t hide behind sexism against women. The major player with the term Bernie Bro is white males who can be sexist. Not sexists who can be white males.

Uncomfortable questions that this rabbit hole began with. Bernie has the most diverse supporters. Warren has the least diverse. Why does Warren not get a similar label? Something that labels her supporters predominately white when that is indeed the case. In Bernie’s case it’s fucking fairy tales. Why do Warren supporters not merit the same attacks? Is it because Warren is preferable to the establishment than Bernie? Why is that when there’s platforms seem to be incredibly similar? Why should I trust Warren over Bernie? All this given that we both agree Bernie Bro is code for white males.

You're imagining things, just like you completely imagined that my argument was about sexual assault.   My engagement with you was, from the beginning, purely to point out that the "Bernie Bro" thing was a political narrative pushed by diehard Hillary supporters to diminish the legitimacy of Bernie's support.   Yes, it's code for white males, but a specific kind of white male:  bros, frat-boy types, guys who, as a caricature, are teeming with toxic masculinity.   The sexism and aggressiveness was the point. 

It stuck to some degree with Bernie versus Hillary not because it was fair, but because there is an inherent vulnerability on sexism in a modern Dem primary for a male running against the first strong female candidate for president.  Before Bernie, it was the Obama Boys, though that didn't stick as well because Obama's candidacy had its own historic nature.    It's not happening to Warren because she doesn't have a vulnerability to an attack on sexism grounds, for obvious reasons.   And, sure, her supporters are mostly white, but a white person who loves Liz Warren doesn't fit the frat-boy stereotype behind the Bernie Bros narrative either. 

That you don't understand why Warren Bros isn't a thing should cause you to question your own reasoning, but you seem to be more comfortable with your false assumptions and the seeming unfairness of something you can't explain.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Oh, and Warren doesn't have the "least diverse" supporters.   Where are you getting that from? 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Oh, and Warren doesn't have the "least diverse" supporters.   Where are you getting that from? 

71% of her supporters are white compared to 59% for Harris, 56% for Biden, and 49% for Sanders.  The Mayonnaise Candidate.

https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/16/most-democrats-are-excited-by-several-2020-candidates-not-just-their-top-choice/pp_2019-08-16_2020-democratic-candidates_0-06-2/

[bad_teammate 13132]

It's an imperfect science, but there is a very strong consistency regarding the demographics of Warren's base (so far).

All subject to change,  of course. It's very early in the process.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

There are more than four candidates.   What is Mayor Pete's breakdown in support by race, like 95% white? 

[bad_teammate 13132]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

There are more than four candidates.

Sure, but... are there really?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Sure, when you're throwing around terms like "least." 

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Who are these fucking rubes whose support for M4A makes them more likely to support Warren? lmao. Same for those who stress adopting clean and renewable energy by 2035.  lol like the market is gonna solve that problem. 

[Dropout 355]

42 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You're imagining things, just like you completely imagined that my argument was about sexual assault.   

Sexism against women. I misspoke and corrected this when pointed out no problem. Really has no bearing on the argument on either side anyway. No crutch for you.

42 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

My engagement with you was, from the beginning, purely to point out that the "Bernie Bro" thing was a political narrative pushed by diehard Hillary supporters to diminish the legitimacy of Bernie's support.   Yes, it's code for white males, but a specific kind of white male:  bros, frat-boy types, guys who, as a caricature, are teeming with toxic masculinity.   The sexism and aggressiveness was the point. 

I agree w your first sentence. Your imagination and cover starts with the rest of that paragraph. Again it starts with white male. It doesn’t start w sexist. I mean the article it started with even said so. Every Bernie Bro is a white guy. Not every Bernie Bro is a sexist.

42 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It stuck to some degree with Bernie versus Hillary not because it was fair, but because there is an inherent vulnerability on sexism in a modern Dem primary for a male running against the first strong female candidate for president.  Before Bernie, it was the Obama Boys, though that didn't stick as well because Obama's candidacy had its own historic nature.    It's not happening to Warren because she doesn't have a vulnerability to an attack on sexism grounds, for obvious reasons.   And, sure, her supporters are mostly white, but a white person who loves Liz Warren doesn't fit the frat-boy stereotype behind the Bernie Bros narrative either. 

 

It stuck with Bernie bc it’s constantly regurgitated. It stuck w Bernie bc he has enemies in high places and for good reason. There is no stereotype that fits a Bernie supporter. There is one that fits a Warren supporter. Definitely more so than a Bernie supporter. Even then it’s definitely possible to just fucking make something up. You know?

42 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That you don't understand why Warren Bros isn't a thing should cause you to question your own reasoning, but you seem to be more comfortable with your false assumptions and the seeming unfairness of something you can't explain.

I understand why Warren Bros is not a thing very clearly. It’s one set of rules for one candidate and entirely different set for everyone else. One of us is comfortable with false assumptions that’s for sure.

20 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Sure, when you're throwing around terms like "least." 

Nah

[bad_teammate 13132]

27 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Sure, when you're throwing around terms like "least." 

I mean I'd guess Marianne Williamson probably has a whiter base than anyone, but once you get down into the <5% crew you're wasting a lot of synapse firings on analyzing irrelevancies.

Pete might happen later, but he's not happening now.

I have no idea what the path forward is for him. I have no idea who his audience is. Warren is eating up the post-grad whites and there are only so many of them to go around.

[Zombie 284]

In the event Warren wins the nomination, who would make the most sense in the general as a VP? I like the idea of Buttigieg because then you have two highly intelligent and educated people standing in contrast to the idiocy of Trump. But would two white people on the ticket suppress minority enthusiasm when there were solid minority options like Harris, Booker, and Castro available?

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Pete might happen later, but he's not happening now.

I have no idea what the path forward is for him. I have no idea who his audience is. Warren is eating up the post-grad whites and there are only so many of them to go around.

Obviously a lot has to go right for Buttigieg. 

- The first and most realistic goal is to jump in front of Kamala. A lot of MSM is just focusing on the top 4, and if he can bump up a spot that will get him more attention. I also think he'll have solid numbers in the next Iowa/NH polls which should help.

- He needs Biden to freefall in the polls

- Clearly the minority vote is the biggest issue and he might never overcome it. The longer he's in the race the more viable he will look to POC, but he'll need a viral moment or two to gain any momentum.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

According to the link above, Warren has the 4th highest support among blacks and 3rd highest support among Hispanics, and the biggest group in both demographics is undecided.  That isn't remotely comparable to the bottom-feeding candidates, and is better than most of the candidates who qualified for the 3rd debate.    Calling her support the "least diverse" is completely disingenuous. 

[Js1 85095]

2 minutes ago, Zombie said:

In the event Warren wins the nomination, who would make the most sense in the general as a VP? I like the idea of Buttigieg because then you have two highly intelligent and educated people standing in contrast to the idiocy of Trump. But would two white people on the ticket suppress minority enthusiasm when there were solid minority options like Harris, Booker, and Castro available?

Warren-Castro is a great ticket

[Dropout 355]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

According to the link above, Warren has the 4th highest support among blacks and 3rd highest support among Hispanics, and the biggest group in both demographics is undecided.  That isn't remotely comparable to the bottom-feeding candidates, and is better than most of the candidates who qualified for the 3rd debate.    Calling her support the "least diverse" is completely disingenuous. 

And there’s like 3 or 4 people legitimately running for the democratic nomination. Assuming undecideds will not follow their respective trends is disingenuous. I’ll get back to you in a few months.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

Warren-Castro is a great ticket

Agree

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

According to the link above, Warren has the 4th highest support among blacks and 3rd highest support among Hispanics, and the biggest group in both demographics is undecided.  That isn't remotely comparable to the bottom-feeding candidates, and is better than most of the candidates who qualified for the 3rd debate.    Calling her support the "least diverse" is completely disingenuous. 

Least diverse among the candidates who are currently in a position to be taken seriously and worth thinking about.

Better?

I figured it was a given that we wouldn't be folding in the Wayne Messams and Steve Bullocks.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Least diverse among the candidates who are currently in a position to be taken seriously and worth thinking about.

Better?

I figured it was a given that we wouldn't be folding in the Wayne Messams and Steve Bullocks.

Not really.   Pete, Booker, and Beto are all in a position to be taken seriously and worth thinking about.   And it's a misleading comparison anyway.   Bernie's base is the "most diverse" by percentage within his supporters, but he's essentially tied for 2nd place among blacks (with Harris) and Hispanics (with Warren).   The reality is that Biden has by far the biggest support among Blacks and Hispanics, and Bernie, Harris, and Warren round out the group with a higher percentage of both demographics than the rest of the field combined.   Those are the four candidates with significant minority support, which is part of why they are the top 4 overall.   To suggest that Warren is the "least diverse" by further subdividing that group is, again, disingenuous. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Warren: 20% whites, 4% blacks

Dude, calm down.

Whites are only 17% Don't Know/Refuse
Blacks? 45%
(See also: "Mods/Cons" and "HS or Less")

If the current demographic breakdown holds even vaguely as the process moves and people start deciding and paying attention, Warren's ceiling is fast approaching. It all might change, and it would be awesome if something happened to make black voters abandon Biden for Bernie and Warren.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren: 20% whites, 4% blacks

Dude, calm down.

Whites are only 17% Don't Know/Refuse
Blacks? 45%
(See also: "Mods/Cons" and "HS or Less")

If the current demographic breakdown holds even vaguely as the process moves and people start deciding and paying attention, Warren's ceiling is fast approaching. It all might change, and it would be awesome if something happened to make black voters abandon Biden for Bernie and Warren.

 

In any event, that's just one poll.   This Q poll from Aug. 28 has Warren tied with Sanders for second place among blacks at 10%:  

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638

[Celery Man 20882]

I don't think Buttigieg does anything as a VP for anyone.  Maybe Kamala.  Nope, nevermind.

I'd be happy with Castro, and I hope he gets a cabinet position or something.  I'm not impartial given that I do just like Beto as a dude, but I think he would bring a lot as a VP for the right (Warren or Harris) candidate.  Of the people who are definitely not going to get the nomination, I like what he's doing right now, and he would bring a lot to the campaign trail.  Especially as no longer an opponent of other dems.

[bad_teammate 13132]

VPs do not matter. It is completely useless in every way.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the sense that Pence reassured the religious right about Trump and Biden helped Obama in 2008 with a segment of the Dems who would later vote Trump too. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

If the current demographic breakdown holds

You are looking at numbers that are over a month old.  

Which makes this:

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren's ceiling is fast approaching.

 pure speculative conjecture 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

VPs do not matter. It is completely useless in every way.

Mostly true.  People vote for the top of the ticket, not the undercard.  The VP has been more of a liability than an asset over the past 20 years.   See also Sara Palin, Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Tim Kaine, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards. 

However, Mike Pence was the perfect fit for Trump.  We can all thank Paul Manafort for that. 

[bolverk 29397]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mostly true.  People vote for the top of the ticket, not the undercard.  The VP has been more of a liability than an asset over the past 20 years.   See also Sara Palin, Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Tim Kaine, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards. 

However, Mike Pence was the perfect fit for Trump.  We can all thank Paul Manafort for that. 

I don't think that Cheney (2000), Edwards (2004), Biden (2008), or Ryan (2012) were seen by the general public as liabilities at the time those elections occurred. Cheney was seen as bringing gravitas and experience to Bush's ticket. Edwards was seen (before the scandals) as a moderate, southern Dem to complement a liberal Yankee. Biden provided white Dems with the cover they needed to vote for a black president. Ryan was viewed as a smart conservative who had policy chops. At least, those are my recollections of the media narratives during those elections.

I'll certainly give you Palin and Lieberman as liabilities and Kaine as a complete non-factor.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

And that’s a fair assessment 

[bad_teammate 13132]

40 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You are looking at numbers that are over a month old.  

Which makes this:

 pure speculative conjecture 

Wait, you're telling me that a sentence I started with "If" and followed up with a sentence starting with "It all might change" is conjecture!?!?

Nothing gets past you, Hugo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Steyer has spent something like $3.3 million in Iowa

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

From Tulsi’s lips to Trump’s ear

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I’ve noticed Pete is currently on a media blitz. 

Over the past two days I’ve seen him on the CNN and MSNBC morning shows, Colbert last night, and Van Jones tomorrow.  Looks like he’s going back to the well for what worked for him early on. 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

He’s entered “phase 3” of his campaign after Labor Day and hitting the TV circuit while opening 20 offices in Iowa and 12 in NH. Also just put a TV ad in Iowa earlier today. Putting his Q2 fundraising money to use.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I’m glad he’s in the race.  He makes the other candidates have to step up their game. 

[triplehorn 2664]

I’d like to see Mayor Pete as VP candidate if only to see him debate Pence, and watch for Pence to glow again trading leathery palm skin with an openly gay man.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

On 9/3/2019 at 6:48 PM, RDCanecutter said:

Biden is not counting on white people. Biden is waiting for a state where there are lots of black people. It's like in the second Lord of the Rings movie (not book) where the Elves show up to help (again, movie not book.) Head Elf dude says they fought side by side in the past, why not do it again. For Joe, Black People = Elves, and South Carolina = Lothlorien.

Why do we care if this aging has the support of the Elves of Lothlorien? Lothlorien's vote = zero electoral votes. Is it supposed to show that the Elves of Lothlorien will march in lockstep with their kindred in the Northern Battlegrounds like Valinor, Rivendell, and Tirion where the Dark and Frozen One carried the day in 2016? Biden is a foolish mortal; such thought avails him naught. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Edited September 7, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

This event is live on CSPAN.  Kamala is up talking now.

[Guest Lobo]

Worst ACL lineup ever.  

[Prepuce of Doom 20983]

It'll be interesting (or not...) to see any contrast between this and Trump's mocking spastic imitation. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

Analysis: Neither camp wants to talk about it, but the two women have recently grown closer.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warren-clinton-talk-behind-scenes-2020-race-intensifies-n1049701

[Js1 85095]

15 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

It'll be interesting (or not...) to see any contrast between this and Trump's mocking spastic imitation. 

Well he is mentally retarded. But the GOP will call it offensive regardless. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Warren and Clinton

fucking LOL

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

 

[horncyclist 1385]

7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Pete's good. This isn't his time but I think there's a reasonable likelihood of President Buttigieg in our future. Imagine a run of 8 years of Warren followed by 8 years of Pete? That is if Trump doesn't fuck it all up beyond repair in the next 17 months.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Pete is one of those guys that would be good at anything he decides to do.  I must say though, I do not like his connection to Zuckerberg who I consider one of the biggest pieces of shit on earth.