2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13569]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes, a simplistic analogy used to discuss a complex scenario.  It's an analogy.  That's how they work.

Analogies can be well-constructed or poorly-constructed.

3 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I've been through too many election cycles where I don't get my way to be too bothered if Bernie loses.

Yep. If Bernie just straight up loses the votes then there's nothing to be mad about. Even with this coalescing around Joe that "feels" unfair to many, if that's how the people actually go in the booth and vote then that's democracy in action. We can be mad about how the voters should decide better things, but the process will be the process.

[LTtxfan 50039]

Siap... Heard on talk radio recently that Democrats may have erred in having scheduled the 2020 California Democratic Primary so early.

Thoughts??

[Brisketexan 107048]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Yep. If Bernie just straight up loses the votes then there's nothing to be mad about. Even with this coalescing around Joe that "feels" unfair to many, if that's how the people actually go in the booth and vote then that's democracy in action. We can be mad about how the voters should decide better things, but the process will be the process.

And....that's all I'm looking for.  The voters will vote.  If Bernie wins, it's because his amazing grassroots candidacy reaches sufficient critical mass and appeals to the most primary voters.  If Biden wins, it's because the "safe" candidate appeals to more voters in a time of incredible political turmoil and threats to our system of government.  I can see the appeal of each.  If one or the other wins, it's not because "it was rigged by the DNC" or because "online Russian bots drove the Bernie narrative" - it will be because that's what a majority of primary voters chose.

I think that Bernie's biggest hurdle will be the sizable number of Dem primary voters who are moderate to strong "not Bernie" people.

I think that Biden's biggest hurdle is that he's utterly uninspiring -- he's the safe choice, in both every good and every bad way.

May the least-bad candidate win.

[bad_teammate 13569]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

If one or the other wins, it's not because "it was rigged by the DNC" or because "online Russian bots drove the Bernie narrative" - it will be because that's what a majority of primary voters chose.

 

If one goes into the 1st round with the most votes but doesn't come out of the convention with the nomination then that will explicitly be against what a majority of primary voters chose.

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[bad_teammate 13569]

4 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Siap... Heard on talk radio recently that Democrats may have erred in having scheduled the 2020 California Democratic Primary so early.

Thoughts??

It's primarily up to the states how this goes. The national Dems have some influence (they can unseat delegates at the national level or withhold support/funds from the state parties), but the states are fairly autonomous.

But if the national party was setting this up to be a Biden coronation (weird... sounds familiar) then they would've given more time and space to South Carolina for the inevitable boost. You'd put a bunch of Southern states up front and let Biden enjoy the leads from that before letting the more Dem-representative states have their say.

[Brisketexan 107048]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

If one goes into the 1st round with the most votes but doesn't come out of the convention with the nomination then that will explicitly be against what a majority of primary voters chose.

The definition of "plurality" would like a word with you:

Quote

: a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast

You've tried this narrative repeatedly.  Math says "fuck you."

[bad_teammate 13569]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The definition of "plurality" would like a word with you:

You've tried this narrative repeatedly.  Math says "fuck you."

The semantic distinction between majority and plurality doesn't change the argument. If the person with the most votes going in doesn't get the nomination then the will of the people as expressed via democratic processes (voting) has been usurped.

You can feel OK with that usurpation if you want, it's a free country and you can muster all kinds of arguments as to why anti-democratic practices are good.

Not everyone is obligated (either by compulsion or ethics) to feel similarly OK with anti-democratic processes.

Many of us lose respect for supposed leaders whose entire purpose now is to subvert the expressed will of voters. Some of you guys love it. We'll see who wins.

I hope it's us.

[Dbeasy 15613]

The lack of enthusiasm for Warren combined with Kamala (and Booker to a lesser extent) never gaining any traction will be something historians study for years to come.  There were so many solid potential "compromise" candidates, yet here we are.

Warren went too far left. She only has herself to blame.

[Brisketexan 107048]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The semantic distinction between majority and plurality doesn't change the argument. If the person with the most votes going in doesn't get the nomination then the will of the people as expressed via democratic processes (voting) has been usurped.

That's not fucking semantic at all.

There have been hundreds of runoff elections where the person who got the most votes in the first round didn't win the runoff election.  That's not "the will of the people as expressed via democratic processes being usurped."  The process for the Democratic party is that, in the event that nobody wins round one outright, they have a "runoff" -- that's done in the convention process.  And it does include delegates, who represent voters in the primary.

By your statement, in a 5 person race, with one progressive vs. 4 centrists, if the progressive gets 21% of the vote, and each of the centrists get 19.something%, then any process that ends up choosing one of the centrists is "undemocratic."  Even though 79% of the voters chose a centrist candidate instead of a progressive one.

You're pretty funny.  You've crafted your demanded outcome, and you can come up with an excuse for any scenario that doesn't involve him being the nominee.  It's pretty interesting to watch, actually.

[bad_teammate 13569]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

There have been hundreds of runoff elections where the person who got the most votes in the first round didn't win the runoff election.  That's not "the will of the people as expressed via democratic processes being usurped."  The process for the Democratic party is that, in the event that nobody wins round one outright, they have a "runoff" -- that's done in the convention process.  And it does include delegates, who represent voters in the primary.

Can you think of another example of a "runoff" election where the actual voters aren't involved in the "runoff" portion?

The usage of the word "runoff" here is not from the rules of the convention, it's a dishonest attempt to conflate the normal democratic process of a runoff (where voters get a 2nd shot at the vote) with the undemocratic process outlined in the DNC rules.

"Runoff" isn't what they call it. It's what apologists call it, and it doesn't describe what's happening.

Just own it. Embrace the reality and truth of what is happening. Be proud of who you are and where you stand.

Quote

By your statement, in a 5 person race, with one progressive vs. 4 centrists, if the progressive gets 21% of the vote, and each of the centrists get 19.something%, then any process that ends up choosing one of the centrists is "undemocratic."  Even though 79% of the voters chose a centrist candidate instead of a progressive one.

Would Elizabeth Warren call herself a "centrist"? Would Buttigieg? Hell, would Biden? Before he even entered the race he said he was the most progressive one in the race (before he was ever in the race).

That's a pundit's categorization and one you're using to try to fit your desired outcome (or because you're too dim to see through the punditry you're sold via mass media).

[bad_teammate 13569]

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Warren went too far left. She only has herself to blame.

She blew up on "I'm with Bernie on this" and she collapsed when she waffled.

[Brisketexan 107048]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

and one you're using to try to fit your desired outcome

Oh...the fucking irony.  

 

Man, I don't care -- I really don't.  My preferred candidate is Warren.  If it goes to a brokered convention because nobody has a majority, the process (one that was known and existed before anyone filed their papers) will go forward, and a nominee will emerge.  If it's Bernie, groovy.  If it's someone else, groovy.

The only thing funnier than how unhinged your are is that you are completely tone-deaf to how unhinged you are.  

EDIT: oh, and I don't care what a candidate calls him/herself.  Progressive v. Centrist is a function of where their support comes from.  And relatively speaking, Warren and Pete both draw/drew support from the spectrum of voters that is "right" of Bernie on the scale.  "Centrism" is relative.  But you knew that.  You're just flailing now.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Message Board User 12409]

Get ready for the return of....Hunter Biden!  Where's Hunter?!?!?!?!?

 

[Fozzz 152]

Warren has no chance of emerging as the nominee at the convention.  I would put it at 55/30/15 between Biden, Sanders, and Bloomberg at the convention.  With that in mind, it's hard to see why Liz is so dead set on trying to block Sanders from a first ballot victory unless she's angling for a cabinet position in a Biden/Bloomberg administration.  

[mchookem 16797]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You know, the "the party is out to get Bernie" shit gets kind of old.  Bernie is a pretty polarizing, stand-alone candidate -- he gets the young, very progressive vote.  But there are a lot of people (people, not some sinister behind-the-scenes machine) who have voted "not Bernie."

Not Bernie got 60% in Nevada.  Nationwide, "Not Bernie" is polling at over 65% among Dem primary voters.  As the field winnows, we're going to find out how many of the "Not Bernie" voters become "ok, Bernie" voters.  But that will almost certainly be a function of people voting, not some secret plot hatched by the ebil DNC in a volcanic lair.  The Bernie crowd is already prepping their sour grapes, as well as their narrative for why the DNC is bad and evil, and darnit, we'll just have to stay home to punish them (and thus help re-elect Trump).  Indeed, the Bernie crowd is following the predicted script pretty well thus far.

i mean...yeah, if democratic VOTERS, including most of the biggest chunk of the base that is older African Americans, vote 'not Bernie' and he doesn't win outright... who's to blame? older middle class black folks, instead of liberal white elites that some have been railing against for months? 

i don't argue that Bernie doesn't have a diverse coalition, and he absolutely has the kids excited... but are they as reliable a voting block as older AA voters? history says no, right?  Just seems there are some demographics besides us 'classist liberal snobs" (lol) that may not be feeling the Bern so much either. 

if that happens...Bernie bros are gonna have to blame those traditional dem voters, not interlopers, neocons, and the DNC.

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

Get ready for the return of....Hunter Biden!  Where's Hunter?!?!?!?!?

 

If Biden gets the nomination the general election will be all about Biden's corruption and the fact that he probably doesn't even remember his own fucking name half the time.  Trump will be merciless and he can force the networks to cover those issues relentlessly.  

[bad_teammate 13569]

So everyone to Bernie's right is a "centrist"?

[bad_teammate 13569]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

If Biden gets the nomination the general election will be all about Biden's corruption and the fact that he probably doesn't even remember his own fucking name half the time.  Trump will be merciless and he can force the networks to cover those issues relentlessly.  

And he'll lose because no one actually cares enough to fight for him.

Half of the posts in this forum during the Biden v Trump general election will be about how mean and nasty Bernie supporters are.

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i mean...yeah, if democratic VOTERS, including most of the biggest chunk of the base that is older African Americans, vote 'not Bernie' and he doesn't win outright... who's to blame? older middle class black folks, instead of liberal white elites that some have been railing against for months? 

i don't argue that Bernie doesn't have a diverse coalition, and he absolutely has the kids excited... but are they as reliable a voting block as older AA voters? history says no, right?  Just seems there are some demographics besides us 'classist liberal snobs" (lol) that may not be feeling the Bern so much either. 

if that happens...Bernie bros are gonna have to blame those traditional dem voters, not interlopers, neocons, and the DNC.

lol HIllary won those same voters in a much more convincing fashion (Bernie beats Biden for AAs in nationwide polls) and she lost to a racist game show host with extremely bad unfavorables.

[Brisketexan 107048]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

If Biden gets the nomination the general election will be all about Biden's corruption and the fact that he probably doesn't even remember his own fucking name half the time.  Trump will be merciless and he can force the networks to cover those issues relentlessly.  

And the narrative against Bernie will be "socialilst/communist Fidel Castro fan."  We know these things.  They're baked in.  They are also why I am not overly thrilled about either one, because in the current idiocracy, those counter-narratives will be effective.

[washparkhorn 9974]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh...the fucking irony.  

The only thing funnier than how unhinged your are is that you are completely tone-deaf to how unhinged you are.  

Sure lil buddy.

 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

And the narrative against Bernie will be "socialilst/communist Fidel Castro fan."  We know these things.  They're baked in.  They are also why I am not overly thrilled about either one, because in the current idiocracy, those counter-narratives will be effective.

Republicans convinced a majority of voters that Hussein Obama was a socialist and that did not stop him from winning in 2012.  

[Biff Tannen 46212]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

And the narrative against Bernie will be "socialilst/communist Fidel Castro fan."  We know these things.  They're baked in.  They are also why I am not overly thrilled about either one, because in the current idiocracy, those counter-narratives will be effective.

Yep.  The only ones I see that would actually concern the dotard in a debate are Warren and Pete.  I don't think he would have debated had the nominee been one of those two.  As it stands, I think he will come out to debate Bernie or Biden and I don't think they have the chops to hold up to his idiocy.

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Sure lil buddy.

 

Trump can redbait all he likes but if Bernie wins you can bet he'll be relentlessly on message about how Trump wants to take away your social security, something that Biden can't credibly argue given his own record of trying to do the same.  Biden's only argument will the be same as Hillary's in 2016 that Trump's bad, and this time Biden will be facing an incumbent.  

Edited March 2, 2020 by Fozzz

[Brisketexan 107048]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Republicans convinced a majority of voters that Hussein Obama was a socialist and that did not stop him from winning in 2012.  

It didn't....in large part because the opposing nominee was a bowl of uninspiring unflavored gelatin.  That ain't the case here.  

[washparkhorn 9974]

Love Marisa Franco and her work . . . 

 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

It didn't....in large part because the opposing nominee was a bowl of uninspiring unflavored gelatin.  That ain't the case here.  

Romney did better in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.  Hillary lost because she was an exceptionally shitty candidate who ran an awful campaign, not because Trump was hard to beat.

Quote

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney.

The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election, leading many analysts to reach the conclusion that America had become too diverse for Republicans to win without making major inroads among voters of color. Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent with the excess going third party.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

[mchookem 16797]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lol HIllary won those same voters in a much more convincing fashion (Bernie beats Biden for AAs in nationwide polls) and she lost to a racist game show host with extremely bad unfavorables.

not my point, and i'm talking about the nomination not the general election anyway.

i'm just saying as the primaries continue, the bros may need to start ranting about old black folks rather than us white liberal classists. 

if Bernie dominates Biden with that key demo, then yay! he should have no problem winning outright, in which case i'm 100% onboard the Bernie train.

shit's just got to play out, man.

[washparkhorn 9974]

 

[bad_teammate 13569]

Are you ready for THUNDERDOME!?

 

[washparkhorn 9974]

 

[washparkhorn 9974]

 

[Fozzz 152]

I have a hard time seeing Biden do that well in ST.  His campaign went all in on SC and got the endorsements he needed to win big there, and hasn't focused at all on the ST states.  He's going to get crushed in California and the latest DMN poll has Sanders up 10 points over Biden in Texas.  

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[mchookem 16797]

i don't think he's really wrong? 

there are some issues - climate in particular - that are more critical for today's young people. particularly bc time is running short on fixing that issue and those currently in charge don't seem to care. 

but...i've told my 18yoa niece that honestly today's politics are nothing compared to the 60s...a war with a MUCH higher weekly body count, riots in multiple cities, lynchings and other horrors in the south for civil rights, literal assassinations on the reg...

i mean yeah, Trump is a fucking disaster but generally, by comparison, it's not nearly the worst it's ever been. i would say it's the most ridiculous and disgusting. 

and i wasn't even alive in the 60s 

Edited March 2, 2020 by mchookem

[Hank Kingsley 21817]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I have a hard time seeing Biden do that well in ST.  His campaign went all in on SC and got the endorsements he needed to win big there, and hasn't focused at all on the ST states.  He's going to get crushed in California and the latest DMN poll has Sanders up 10 points over Biden in Texas.  

It will be a good opportunity to see if Bernie's organization really pays off. 

Not nearly as much retail politics going on with Super Tuesday states (compared to IA NH NV SC), and I don't think these voters have really been that engaged in the primary process so far. I'm not sure polls can keep up with how fast the process is moving right now. This has only become a true Bernie-Biden race for a couple of days

Bernie is going to do extremely well in CA obviously. Will be interesting to see how Texas actually plays out. 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14810]

[Hank Kingsley 21817]

Here we go 

 

[David Dennison 19571]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Here we go 

 

That is a meaningless poll at this juncture.

[washparkhorn 9974]

17 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i don't think he's really wrong? 

there are some issues - climate in particular - that are more critical for today's young people. particularly bc time is running short on fixing that issue and those currently in charge don't seem to care. 

but...i've told my 18yoa niece that honestly today's politics are nothing compared to the 60s...a war with a MUCH higher weekly body count, riots in multiple cities, lynchings and other horrors in the south for civil rights, literal assassinations on the reg...

i mean yeah, Trump is a fucking disaster but generally, by comparison, it's not nearly the worst it's ever been. i would say it's the most ridiculous and disgusting. 

and i wasn't even alive in the 60s 

Listen to your 18 year old niece with an open mind - she will inherit this mess. 

And yes - economic insecurity is MUCH worse now than it was in the 1960's. The 1980's Boomers broke it. 

[Hank Kingsley 21817]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That is a meaningless poll at this juncture.

Why? 

Unless you believe all polls are meaningless. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21817]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21817]

 

[Ghost of LL 15705]

On 2/25/2020 at 11:25 PM, Ghost of LL said:

I’m going to call my shot here—you’re going to be surprised by how fast the moderate lane coalesces around Biden over the next couple weeks.

I’m not thrilled with it, but I just see it coming.
 

This post is aging really, really well.

And I'm sorry to the Bros that the Democratic Party isn't quite as big a shitshow as the GOP.  But really, wasn't that always their only play (and remains their only play)?

Four years ago, when faced with a candidate who (1) has been a member of the party for about five minutes, (2) holds positions that are contrary to the party's traditional orthodoxy and contrary to the (erstwhile) opinions of most members, and (3) promises to cause widespread down-ballot destruction over the next few election cycles, the GOP couldn't coalesce behind an alternative.  They split their vote between Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, and John Kasich (who I don't think even ever merited a nickname.

The Democrats look as though they are going to avoid that fate.

[David Dennison 19571]

39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are you ready for THUNDERDOME!?

 

That is a great outlook for Uncle Joe. This will get him the nomination.

Edited March 2, 2020 by David Dennison

[washparkhorn 9974]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

This post is aging really, really well.

And I'm sorry to the Bros that the Democratic Party isn't quite as big a shitshow as the GOP.  But really, wasn't that always their only play (and remains their only play)?

Four years ago, when faced with a candidate who (1) has been a member of the party for about five minutes, (2) holds positions that are contrary to the party's traditional orthodoxy and contrary to the (erstwhile) opinions of most members, and (3) promises to cause widespread down-ballot destruction over the next few election cycles, the GOP couldn't coalesce behind an alternative.  They split their vote between Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, and John Kasich (who I don't think even ever merited a nickname.

The Democrats look as though they are going to avoid that fate.

okay boomer

Edited March 2, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Message Board User 12409]

 

[bad_teammate 13569]

Bernie tried to keep Big Pharma from gouging. Biden opposed those efforts.

 

[Message Board User 12409]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie tried to keep Big Pharma from gouging. Biden opposed those efforts.

 

Bringing up votes from 20 years ago?  ffs.