2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hank Kingsley 21,001]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I don't recall candidates of that strength dropping out before super Tuesday. At risk of stoking the flames of the True Believers, I do think it was pretty obviously ordered from above with promises made.Keep in mind that purely policy wise I am much more in line with Joe/Amy/Pete than I am with Bernie, with the exception of our guillotining billionaires platform. So I'm not really coming from an agenda driven place. It just seems a bit dicey, especially given 2016.

 

 

To add, it feels like a "we prefer four more years of Trump to Bernie" move. They had to know the optics would suck. They just didn't care. The whole thing just seems mega greasy and I'm uncomfortable with it.

I guess that's one way to look at it. 

But Buttigieg dropped out before Super Tuesday because of the math. He's pretty analytical and knew his campaign was cooked after SC. So he graciously bowed out. 

Pete's message was always about unifying the party, and he thought this was the best move. So far he's been right. 

Here's what he said 10 days before Super Tuesday. 

 

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

We're in agreement that your tone is condescending, simplistic, and shitty. I'll respond to the last five paragraphs of your diatribe if you go and vacuum out all of the douche that you sprayed everywhere with it and make it palatable for people that don't have to listen to you jack yourself off because they're paying you to.

 

I'm sorry if my tone is condescending.

I just don't get it.  But I am happy to get an explanation to help me understand.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't think that triple-endorsement-in-one-night gambit happens without Obama making calls and pulling strings. I don't think that's very conspiratorial in its thinking, is it?

 

I think it's entirely possible that Obama made some calls.  But I also think it's possible that it happened without Obama's intervention.

It's an outcome that made sense for all parties.  And I think you give Biden and his team too little credit by assuming that they couldn't stage-manage it.

[LTtxfan 49,327]

2 hours ago, GoldAppleCorps said:

Selecting Elizabeth Warren out of the Senate removes a Dem seat from a state with a Republican governor. I don't know exactly what Mass's procedure is for replacing a Senator is, but that may need to be taken into account.

Bernie's state has a Republican Governor too.  Not sure if correct, but a reporter recently stated that if either Warren or Bernie were the Democratic nominee, their State's Governor would select their replacements... thereby helping the Republicans possibly keep their majority in the Senate.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

pete had been talking about the importance of down-ticket voting so consolidating with klobuchar and beto behind biden, in itself wasn't that surprising.  the speed in which it happened was.

with 4-5 candidates remaining in, everyone was projecting a brokered convention, with the leader (likely bernie) somewhere in the 26-34% range, and others following.  that would've been mayhem.  i don't think pete and amy needed a flashlight and a blueprint to figure out what the best move was if the ultimate goal is to unify the democratic party and to beat trump in the fall.

[BradInATX 9,208]

I think it's entirely possible that Obama made some calls.  But I also think it's possible that it happened without Obama's intervention.
It's an outcome that made sense for all parties.  And I think you give Biden and his team too little credit by assuming that they couldn't stage-manage it.

Yeah. I mean it was the right thing to do. I'm just not sure the strategy was right. And the (at least perceived) lack of strategy is a weird optic. It just feels to me like a "we prefer 4 more Trump years to the outsider", with very little apology involved. I get that that's how politics go, but I'm not sure 2020 was the year for such cynicism.
Either way, I'll vote for Biden with bells on.

[Hank Kingsley 21,001]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And we can agree that neither one had any money in the bank, right?  That information is far from transparent, but that's what I've been hearing consistently.  And it's consistent with the fact that Pete's (in particular) fundraising completely dried up.

Pete was struggling with money, but his fundraising pleas were pretty successful towards the end. 

He had enough $$ to continue for a while longer. Biden's blowout victory in SC, with Joe raking in a shit ton of black support (compared to everyone, not just Pete), was the decisive end to his narrow path. 

 

 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22,712]

It just feels to me like a "we prefer 4 more Trump years to the outsider", with very little apology involved.

You’ve dropped this line twice now and it’s been equally strange both times.

There’s no fucking way that either of them dropping out coincides with a belief that the move helps Trump. None. That may be how YOU view it, but there’s not a chance in hell that either Pete or Amy make that move if they think Bernie has a better chance to beat Trump than Biden.

They think a unified coalition behind Biden is the best chance at winning. We can go back and forth on if that’s true, but there is not much more to it than that.

 

 

 

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

You’ve dropped this line twice now and it’s been equally strange both times.There’s no fucking way that either of them dropping out coincides with a belief that the move helps Trump. None. That may be how YOU view it, but there’s not a chance in hell that either Pete or Amy make that move if they think Bernie has a better chance to beat Trump than Biden.
They think a unified party behind Biden is the best chance at winning. We can go back and forth on if that’s true, but there is not much more to it than that.
 
 

Sure. I guess you're more than welcome to believe they did it out of pure benevolence.

[bad_teammate 13,221]

They can stage-manage all they want, but I would be interested to know of a historical precedent for a 3-headed endorsement like that on one night. Also, there were multiple reports of Obama stepping in, so it's not even really speculation that that's how it happened.

Pete is a machine animal, sure, but is Beto? Hell, is Amy to the same extent? Hey, Obama is Biden's #1 feature and I'm not bitter at him for using what he has to win. If Bernie had Obama in his back pocket I'd love for him to exploit that as much as possible.

A ~*~concern~*~ I would have going forward is just how many times can he go back to the Obama well. Is that a card he can play in the general to beat an ascendant Trump the way he could play it in the primary to beat an ascendant Sanders? Is it something he can lean on when trying to get a legislative agenda through?

 

[Huckleberry 33,057]

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

You’ve dropped this line twice now and it’s been equally strange both times.

There’s no fucking way that either of them dropping out coincides with a belief that the move helps Trump. None. That may be how YOU view it, but there’s not a chance in hell that either Pete or Amy make that move if they think Bernie has a better chance to beat Trump than Biden.

They think a unified coalition behind Biden is the best chance at winning. We can go back and forth on if that’s true, but there is not much more to it than that.

 

 

 

 

Buttigieg's statement in the Tweet above basically spells out that he would be willing to unify with Biden but not with Sanders. Yet Sanders and his supporters are the only ones who get accused of not being team players. It's a little strange. 

[David Dennison 18,941]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

They can stage-manage all they want, but I would be interested to know of a historical precedent for a 3-headed endorsement like that on one night. Also, there were multiple reports of Obama stepping in, so it's not even really speculation that that's how it happened.

Pete is a machine animal, sure, but is Beto? Hell, is Amy to the same extent? Hey, Obama is Biden's #1 feature and I'm not bitter at him for using what he has to win. If Bernie had Obama in his back pocket I'd love for him to exploit that as much as possible.

A ~*~concern~*~ I would have going forward is just how many times can he go back to the Obama well. Is that a card he can play in the general to beat an ascendant Trump the way he could play it in the primary to beat an ascendant Sanders? Is it something he can lean on when trying to get a legislative agenda through?

 

It was smart politics, that's for sure. 

[David Dennison 18,941]

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't think that triple-endorsement-in-one-night gambit happens without Obama making calls and pulling strings. I don't think that's very conspiratorial in its thinking, is it?

Not at all. I think the party would be more than happy to set up November as Obama v. Trump.

[BradInATX 9,208]

They can stage-manage all they want, but I would be interested to know of a historical precedent for a 3-headed endorsement like that on one night. Also, there were multiple reports of Obama stepping in, so it's not even really speculation that that's how it happened.
Pete is a machine animal, sure, but is Beto? Hell, is Amy to the same extent? Hey, Obama is Biden's #1 feature and I'm not bitter at him for using what he has to win. If Bernie had Obama in his back pocket I'd love for him to exploit that as much as possible.
A ~*~concern~*~ I would have going forward is just how many times can he go back to the Obama well. Is that a card he can play in the general to beat an ascendant Trump the way he could play it in the primary to beat an ascendant Sanders? Is it something he can lean on when trying to get a legislative agenda through?
 

Exactly. There's some real stupid tap dancing and "who, me?! Why I never!" happening in this thread. I'm not even going to engage in it if we're going to start the discussion from a place where we're not going to admit that what happened early this week was ordained by the Dem establishment.
I literally have no problem with the act of it. I just think the optics and timing were foolish.

[Hank Kingsley 21,001]

The optics and timing worked. Spectacularly. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

52 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

55 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Ok. Those all seem like very strange feelings imo.

I spent 6 months jousting with Bernie supporters then voted for him. I'm a strange guy.

 No worries. I've seen others express similar feelings.  

[burntorangebongos 10,750]

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Buttigieg's statement in the Tweet above basically spells out that he would be willing to unify with Biden but not with Sanders. Yet Sanders and his supporters are the only ones who get accused of not being team players. It's a little strange. 

I could be wrong, but I took it to mean who he would support a moderate during the primary process should his path get blocked. He is saying he is more aligned with someone like Joe and will help him to get the nomination to beat Trump because he thinks Bernie's chance is less. I don't know why that is strange. It's like, his opinion man.

[BradInATX 9,208]

It was smart politics, that's for sure. 

It was awful politics. Pete has been in the same situation for months. There was no logical reason for him to have continued on through the debates then just up and peace out on the eve of the eve of Super Tuesday. It feels like the ref ripping his shirt off to reveal an NWO shirt and hitting Bernie with a steel chair. People that think this wasn't an unbelievably cynical move are the same people that believe workswithseed, zavala, and that welfare scamming fuck head Chrispy don't jack off to Trump's picture during their evening prayer every night. It's symbolic of everything that actual people hate about politics. It sucks.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,221]

Bernie for a year: "The corporate and political establishment are working behind the scenes to stop us and this grassroots movement."

Liberals for a year: "You're paranoid and full of shit and toxic and awful."

lol

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The optics and timing worked. Spectacularly. 

For the purpose of propelling Joe Biden forward into the primary, sure.

Beyond that? ehhhh

[tantric superman 4,667]

Because of Pete's age he probably rightfully believed that many Biden supporters would pivot to him if Biden did poorly.  I'm not remotely surprised Pete stayed as long as he did.

[Chuckie Finster 22,712]

Sure. I guess you're more than welcome to believe they did it out of pure benevolence.

It wasn’t benevolence, it was strategy. And that strategy was “what do we think is the best course of action to get a Democrat in the White House?” Any thought that this was done with some weird “Trump > Bernie” logic is pretty out there, IMO.

[Hank Kingsley 21,001]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

It was awful politics. Pete has been in the same situation for months. There was no logical reason for him to have continued on through the debates then just up and peace out on the eve of the eve of Super Tuesday. It feels like the ref ripping his shirt off to reveal an NWO shirt and hitting Bernie with a steel chair. People that think this wasn't an unbelievably cynical move are the same people that believe workswithseed, zavala, and that welfare scamming fuck head Chrispy don't jack off to Trump's picture during their evening prayer every night. It's symbolic of everything that actual people hate about politics. It sucks.

 

 

IMO you're reading the situation completely wrong. 

Pete had great showings in IA and NH which kept his path alive. But it'd didn't turn into momentum for Nevada.

After SC, he knew is path was closed. His best case scenario for Super Tuesday was finishing 2nd in a few states, with 3rd and 4th place finishes in others. 

Are you saying the right move was for Buttigieg to keep going? To stay in the race just muck up the delegate situation? That doesn't make sense. 

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

Yeah. I mean it was the right thing to do. I'm just not sure the strategy was right. And the (at least perceived) lack of strategy is a weird optic. It just feels to me like a "we prefer 4 more Trump years to the outsider", with very little apology involved. I get that that's how politics go, but I'm not sure 2020 was the year for such cynicism.
Either way, I'll vote for Biden with bells on.

This is just a really weird take. You don’t think it’s more likely that they concluded that Biden would have a better chance against Trump?

And after all—it was Biden who spurred record turnout in places like Texas and Virginia. It’s Biden who is bringing out African-Americans and college-educated women—two demographics that we desperately need in November.

Sanders is banking on the youth vote. And as always, they don’t show up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huckleberry 33,057]

16 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I could be wrong, but I took it to mean who he would support a moderate during the primary process should his path get blocked. He is saying he is more aligned with someone like Joe and will help him to get the nomination to beat Trump because he thinks Bernie's chance is less. I don't know why that is strange. It's like, his opinion man.

I didn't say Buttigieg's holding that position is strange. I said the fact only Sanders and his supporters are criticized for that position is strange. 

[Rougarou 594]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

IMO you're reading the situation completely wrong. 

Pete had great showings in IA and NH which kept his path alive. But it'd didn't turn into momentum for Nevada.

After SC, he knew is path was closed. His best case scenario for Super Tuesday was finishing 2nd in a few states, with 3rd and 4th place finishes in others. 

Are you saying the right move was for Buttigieg to keep going? To stay in the race just muck up the delegate situation? That doesn't make sense. 

Also Pete is like 13. He made a name (and fortune) for himself politically and can write his own ticket for the next 2-4 years off the clout he created from a grindr app and some McKinsey PPT skills. He peaked and had he stayed too long, he would have dulled the shine a little bit and look like a never-really-was like Liz Warren looks now. He got out before having to damage his ceiling-- oh and he got to cut a deal with the eventual winner? smart and strategic and calculated and deftly executed, which is on brand for Pete the Rat.

[burntorangebongos 10,750]

There was a graph with the age groups that showed up to vote on here somewhere. I voted a progressive agenda because I thought that it was best for the young people and wanted the progressive movement to flow more smoothly than by great lurches that might be painful so I was willing to vote with them now. But they didn't show up in the numbers predicted for some reason! That should be studied and figured out.  

 

[Zavala 1,384]

6 hours ago, BradInATX said:

BTW anyone who believes Zavala or workswithseed voted anything but Trump in 2016 should be shot into the sun for being a gullible idiot.

Hey dummy, I vote for MICKY MOUSE in every election I've gotten to vote (2008-2016). I watch politics like I would watch world wrasslin federation. If you haven't noticed already, it's entertainment. 

I do notice what centrists and people who don't care do, they aren't swayed to one side or the other, they are driven away from the cringe side. Right now the woke left had taken over the Democraps and it's hilarious. Twitter and the MSM are complete idiots for thinking being this ridiculous would help their side. 

Trust me, the neocons on the right aren't my friend either. Look at 911. Then the Obama years was the Lone Wolf shooter or bomber every other week.

The Trump show so far has been mainly Twitter theatre and MSM twisting everything he says. Keeps the sides engaged and bickering at each other, but the crazies have settled down. 

Still wondering what that Las Vegas shooting was all about though, curious how that just faded away without any answers that made any sense.

[Zavala 1,384]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

There was a graph with the age groups that showed up to vote on here somewhere. I voted a progressive agenda because I thought that it was best for the young people and wanted the progressive movement to flow more smoothly than by great lurches that might be painful so I was willing to vote with them now. But they didn't show up in the numbers predicted for some reason! That should be studied and figured out.  

 

Here's your study bro

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Hey dummy, I vote for MICKY MOUSE in every election I've gotten to vote (2008-2016). I watch politics like I would watch world wrasslin federation. If you haven't noticed already, it's entertainment. 

I do notice what centrists and people who don't care do, they aren't swayed to one side or the other, they are driven away from the cringe side. Right now the woke left had taken over the Democraps and it's hilarious. Twitter and the MSM are complete idiots for thinking being this ridiculous would help their side. 

Trust me, the neocons on the right aren't my friend either. Look at 911. Then the Obama years was the Lone Wolf shooter or bomber every other week.

The Trump show so far has been mainly Twitter theatre and MSM twisting everything he says. Keeps the sides engaged and bickering at each other, but the crazies have settled down. 

Still wondering what that Las Vegas shooting was all about though, curious how that just faded away without any answers that made any sense.

Is this what they call genuine frontier gibberish? Can we get this in gif format instead?

[washparkhorn 9,939]

19 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

There was a graph with the age groups that showed up to vote on here somewhere. .  .That should be studied and figured out.  

 

We should talk about it after the nomination is decided. At this point, it isn't helpful to Job 1 for progressives to beat Trump and Job 2 for centrists to beat Trump. 

Job 1 for centrists was to block Sanders. They are still working on that one. Biden's new strategic person implemented a plan (no need to mention who that is because Repubs are watching - it wouldn't be helpful) and it was skillful.

Biden is now the frontrunner and Sanders is close behind. The debate will be telling if it is just Sanders and Biden. Warren has leverage to make that a 3 person debate. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Zavala 1,384]

51 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not at all. I think the party would be more than happy to set up November as Obama v. Trump.

Really are throwing all your acorns in the Obama basket huh?

Where has he been?

Also, has any former president ever jumped balls deep back in the public life like this? I thought Hillary bailed out the DNC for her nomination, why would he waste his time and money to potentially damage his reputation campaigning hard for sleepy Joe?

[BradInATX 9,208]

This is just a really weird take. You don’t think it’s more likely that they concluded that Biden would have a better chance against Trump?

And after all—it was Biden who spurred record turnout in places like Texas and Virginia. It’s Biden who is bringing out African-Americans and college-educated women—two demographics that we desperately need in November.

Sanders is banking on the youth vote. And as always, they don’t show up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. I don't think that two people who basically had zero chance ever at any point in time suddenly had a come to Jesus moment the night before Super Tuesday after participating in a debate a week prior.

Hank, it's very possible I'm misreading it. And I haven't been following closely lately, because life is in the way. But "disconnected" me is probably closer to the average voter than any of us on a normal day. And I have gotten texts from a few friends who are left of me that are pretty pissed off.

Right wrong or indifferent, it's not a super great look. I realize it's a rock and a hard place thing. But they picked probably the 2nd worst possible time to horse trade.

[Zavala 1,384]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Is this what they call genuine frontier gibberish? Can we get this in gif format instead?

Yeah, YER WASTING YOUR FRIZZLE FRAZZLE LIFE STRESSIN OUT BOUT TRUMP 24/7 JUST AS TPTB WANT

[BradInATX 9,208]

Hey dummy, I vote for MICKY MOUSE in every election

the Democraps

the MSM are complete idiots for thinking being this ridiculous would help their side. 

MSM twisting everything he says.

Literally there is not a single person on this board who believes you.

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

We should talk about it after the nomination is decided. At this point, it isn't helpful to Job 1 for progressives to beat Trump and Job 2 for centrists to beat Trump. 
Job 1 for centrists was to block Sanders. They are still working on that one. Biden's new strategic person implemented a plan (no need to mention who that is because Repubs are watching - it wouldn't be helpful) and it was skillful.
Biden is now the frontrunner and Sanders is close behind. The debate will be telling if it is just Sanders and Biden. Warren has leverage to make that a 3 person debate. 

No—Job 1 is to beat Trump.

It’s just that in order to beat Trump, Bernie is to be beaten first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bateshorn 9,928]

I’m reading a lot of stuff from Bernie supporters upset a couple of fading 2nd tier candidates dropped out in a way that damages their preferred choice.

Instead of staying in and causing the now leader to split his vote multiple directions and allow Bernie to keep a winners narrative. 
 

I mean politics is politics. Either Bernie is playing the game or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then shut the fuck up. Your complaining that the game Bernie willingly agreed to play in didn’t work out in his favor. It’s fucking politics.  
 

If Bernie doesn’t want to deal with conniving humans, then he should move back to Vermont and rescue dogs on a farm. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Bateshorn

[washparkhorn 9,939]

5 minutes ago, Zavala said:

 

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No—Job 1 is to beat Trump.

It’s just that in order to beat Trump, Bernie is to be beaten first.
 

So Step 1 - Beat Bernie.

Step 2 - Beat Trump. 

Isn't that what I said?

[bad_teammate 13,221]

I’m reading a lot of stuff from Bernie supporters upset a couple of fading 2nd tier candidates dropped out in a way that damages their preferred choice.
Instead of staying in and causing the now leader to split his vote multiple directions and allow Bernie to keep a winners narrative. 
 
I mean politics is politics. Either Bernie is playing the game or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then shut the fuck up.

Who are you talking to?

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

So Step 1 - Beat Bernie.
Step 2 - Beat Trump. 
Isn't that what I said?

No. It’s not. You said “Job 1,” was beating Bernie, which indicates prioritization.

That is false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bateshorn 9,928]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I’m reading a lot of stuff from Bernie supporters upset a couple of fading 2nd tier candidates dropped out in a way that damages their preferred choice.
Instead of staying in and causing the now leader to split his vote multiple directions and allow Bernie to keep a winners narrative. 
 
I mean politics is politics. Either Bernie is playing the game or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then shut the fuck up.

Read more  

Who are you talking to?

We can start with BradinATX.

[hpslugga 4,062]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No—Job 1 is to beat Trump.

It’s just that in order to beat Trump, Bernie is to be beaten first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ve got it precisely backwards.

The DNC would rather be beaten in the general by Trump than have one of their own primaried out by a Bernie.

Here’s a thought experiment: go to your nearest grocery story, buy a cake, go home and eat it, then see what’s left in the box.

[BradInATX 9,208]

We can start with BradinATX.

You must be new here

[Ghost of LL 15,539]

I don't think that triple-endorsement-in-one-night gambit happens without Obama making calls and pulling strings. I don't think that's very conspiratorial in its thinking, is it?
 

By the way—it’s a really weird look to be complaining about Obama stage-managing the endorsementpalooza for Biden at precisely the same time that Sanders is running ads that imply that Obama supports him.

You don’t think the former really undermines the latter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirk X West 772]

As another Bernie supporter, I don't really blame Biden and the other candidates for coordinating this.  It was a good move; it worked.  I think Beto is kinda worthless, but he's not "dead to me" because he endorsed Joe. 

I just wonder why they can come up with this stuff to beat Bernie, but this cold blooded strategizing is nowhere to be seen when it comes to beating an actual fucking Republican and winning an election.

[bad_teammate 13,221]

By the way—it’s a really weird look to be complaining about Obama stage-managing the endorsementpalooza for Biden at precisely the same time that Sanders is running ads that imply that Obama supports him.

You don’t think the former really undermines the latter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is complaining?

Is pointing out that it is happening complaining?

[washparkhorn 9,939]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

We can start with BradinATX.

Bullshit. BradinATX was a good faith questioner of why bernie. He and I went round and round, but he was always constructive. Keep up. Try to add to the conversation. How to keep progressives enthused if Bernie isn't the nominee is very important to beating Trump. The same will be the case if Biden slips up and Bernie is the nominee. This is an important discussion. Stop the sniping and the personal attacks. If anyone thought Bernie would do as well as he did in Texas before this election - they would be not telling the truth. Texas is turning blue. Celebrate that fact. 

[Bateshorn 9,928]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

We can start with BradinATX.

You must be new here

Just to be clear:  your aren’t/weren’t Bernie curious who now will reluctantly support Biden but seems confused/disturbed that Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out 2 days before Super Tuesday in a way that benefited Biden, and wished they had stayed in to fight it out?

[Bateshorn 9,928]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Bullshit. BradinATX was a good faith questioner of why bernie. He and I went round and round, but he was always constructive. Keep up. Try to add to the conversation. How to keep progressives enthused if Bernie isn't the nominee is very important to beating Trump. The same will be the case if Biden slips up and Bernie is the nominee. This is an important discussion. Stop the sniping and the personal attacks. If anyone thought Bernie would do as well as he did in Texas before this election - they would be not telling the truth. Texas is turning blue. Celebrate that fact. 

I’m not sniping.  I’m saying there seems to be a lot of people who are suddenly shocked, SHOCKED there is politics going on in this establishment. 

[Bateshorn 9,928]

5 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

As another Bernie supporter, I don't really blame Biden and the other candidates for coordinating this.  It was a good move; it worked.  I think Beto is kinda worthless, but he's not "dead to me" because he endorsed Joe. 

I just wonder why they can come up with this stuff to beat Bernie, but this cold blooded strategizing is nowhere to be seen when it comes to beating an actual fucking Republican and winning an election.

This is actually a much more salient point. 

[bad_teammate 13,221]

If you want a hot take it's not that I think it's unfair or cheating. I think it makes everyone involved look weak.

Bernie didn't get knocked out. Bernie is still standing.

And Joe couldn't even do it on his own power. They were put up against the ropes by a democratic socialist hated by every lever of power.

The veneer of "oh it was for electability reasons" is a joke. First off, electability is a myth and they know it. Secondly, if Joe can't even beat Bernie straight up, why such rock solid confidence in his ability to beat Trump?

[gmr548 16,590]

8 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

I just wonder why they can come up with this stuff to beat Bernie, but this cold blooded strategizing is nowhere to be seen when it comes to beating an actual fucking Republican and winning an election.

Right? The bumbling, incompetent fucks in the Democratic Party finally conceived and executed a sound political strategy that caught their opponent by surprise and delivered a resounding victory... In a fucking primary.