2020 Democratic Nominee

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

It's His Turn!

He’s earning votes, no one is gifting this nomination to Biden. Every week it looks more like your candidate doesn’t have a viable path to the nomination, so it’s reasonable to expect fellow Dems to expect support leading up to the general election. 
 

But you prefer being a smarmy asshole

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

37 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Short of Biden shitting his pants and dozing off behind the lectern

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bernie is going to end up being one of the most counterproductive “progressive” in American history and it’s mostly because of his ego and the clowns he hires to run his campaign.

[Huckleberry 33057]

7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

He’s earning votes, no one is gifting this nomination to Biden. Every week it looks more like your candidate doesn’t have a viable path to the nomination, so it’s reasonable to expect fellow Dems to expect support leading up to the general election. 
 

But you prefer being a smarmy asshole

 

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie is going to end up being one of the most counterproductive “progressive” in American history and it’s mostly because of his ego and the clowns he hires to run his campaign.

Joe Biden is going to win the nomination. This means Joe Biden needs Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for him in the general. It doesn't make a shit if Joe Biden supporters ever vote for Bernie Sanders.

The problem is that Biden and his supporters, including his new supporters, for some reason believe this means Sanders needs to be nice to him and to them. They've got that backwards.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13221]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

He’s earning votes, no one is gifting this nomination to Biden. Every week it looks more like your candidate doesn’t have a viable path to the nomination, so it’s reasonable to expect fellow Dems to expect support leading up to the general election. 

But you prefer being a smarmy asshole

I will vote for Joe Biden if he promises to not veto progressive legislation that makes it through Congress. This wasn't even an issue for me until he took the opportunity to say he'd veto M4A if it made it through Congress.

My position this entire time is that I was going to vote for any non-Bloomberg Dem who got the most delegates, because I (naively) assumed that all of them would at least follow the expressed will of the people regarding legislation.

All Joe has to say is, "if progressive legislation makes it through Congress, even if it's legislation I don't like, I'll sign it" and we're golden.

Is that unreasonable?

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie is going to end up being one of the most counterproductive “progressive” in American history and it’s mostly because of his ego and the clowns he hires to run his campaign.

Hugo, take a few steps back and look where Warren and every other non-Bernie-or-Biden candidate is right now.

You, a lifelong Libertarian who has temporarily joined a cult giving themselves holocaust tattoos of HEX codes of a candidate's pretty color, are in no position to discuss what is or is not wise for progressives.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Joe Biden is going to win the nomination. This means Joe Biden needs Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for him in the general. It doesn't make a shit if Joe Biden supporters ever vote for Bernie Sanders.

The problem is that Biden and his supporters, including his new supporters, for some reason believe this means Sanders needs to be nice to him and to them. They've got that backwards.

The possibility of a Trump second term skews this dynamic by a lot I imagine.  2020 is about firing Donald Trump from office.  The Sanders supporters can be all pissy but at the end of the day, turnout is going to jacked up to terminate Trump’s employment.  It’s an unfortunate byproduct of the Trump Era.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hugo, take a few steps back and look where Warren and every other non-Bernie-or-Biden candidate is right now.

You, a lifelong Libertarian who has temporarily joined a cult giving themselves holocaust tattoos of HEX codes of a candidate's pretty color, are in no position to discuss what is or is not wise for progressives

Build that coalition! 

[bad_teammate 13221]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The possibility of a Trump second term skews this dynamic by a lot I imagine.  2020 is about firing Donald Trump from office.  The Sanders supporters can be all pissy but at the end of the day, turnout is going to jacked up to terminate Trump’s employment.  It’s an unfortunate byproduct of the Trump Era.

You can define things however you like, my libertarian friend, but if you were to actually listen to the figurehead at the top of your personality cult you'd realize that the problems we face now aren't about Trump, but about the structures within our government that led to Trump.

Joe will do nothing to change any of it.

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Build that coalition! 

All the Warren phenomenon was ever about was highly educated white people validating their own sense of meritocratic superiority, and the second it collapsed they abandoned all pretense of caring about the needs of suffering people and they either disappeared (Hugo) or they deranged themselves entirely (holocaust HEX tattoo freaks). That's all it ever was, in the end. Friends tried to tell me over and over and I argued against them.

They were right, and I was wrong.

You should do whatever you think is best for the people you claim to care about, Hugo, regardless of how Internet people talk to you.

There's no more manager to call, Karen.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You need a hug bro

[Huckleberry 33057]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The possibility of a Trump second term skews this dynamic by a lot I imagine.  2020 is about firing Donald Trump from office.  

That's what it's about to you and many others. That's not what it's about for them and many like them.

Those who believe like you (which includes me) need them to vote for Biden. They don't need you to support them. You need them, they don't need you, but your behavior doesn't indicate that you recognize that fact.

Long term they need you but only to implement policy. If you are telling them you're not going to implement those policies then you are declaring yourself literally worthless to them right when you need their votes. This election season has thrust the Democratic Party's tactical and strategic stupidity into the spotlight over and over again.

The GOP elected a far right populist windbag and he won the election. Why? Because the GOP voters closer to the middle could be counted on to loyally vote for the candidate with an R next to his name no matter what.

The Democratic response? To elect the nominee closer to the middle and expect the fringe of their party to loyally vote for the candidate with a D next to his name. About that, though: fringe voters are WAY less likely to make that vote out of pure party loyalty. This is exactly why I said Sanders was a surer bet to beat Trump a few weeks ago. You can say that's only because the fringe voters are emotional and less likely to be team players. And I say in response, "well no shit." That should have been part of the calculus the entire time.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Huckleberry

[WBT 20649]

31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Joe Biden is going to win the nomination. This means Joe Biden needs Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for him in the general. It doesn't make a shit if Joe Biden supporters ever vote for Bernie Sanders.

Who else are they going to vote for?  Going too far left to court them risks alienating moderates.  Biden should try to maximize Dem turnout.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's what it's about to you and many others. That's not what it's about for them and many like them.

Those who believe like you (which includes me) need them to vote for Biden. They don't need you to support them. You need them, they don't need you, but your behavior doesn't indicate that you recognize that fact.

Long term the need you but only to implement policy. If you are telling them you're not going to implement those policies then you are declaring yourself literally worthless to them right when you need their votes. This election season has thrust the Democratic Party's tactical and strategic stupidity into the spotlight over and over again.

The GOP elected a far right populist windbag and he won the election. Why? Because the GOP voters closer to the middle could be counted on to loyally vote for the candidate with an R next to his name no matter what.

The Democratic response? To elect the nominee closer to the middle and expect the fringe of their party to loyally vote for the candidate with a D next to his name. About that, though: fringe voters are WAY less likely to make that vote out of pure party loyalty. This is exactly why I said Sanders was a surer bet to beat Trump a few weeks ago. You can say that's only because the fringe voters are emotional and less likely to be team players. And I say in response, "well no shit." That should have been part of the calculus the entire time.

I’m with you here, Biden absolutely does need to reach out to progressives.  That would be the smart play.  But the democrats aren’t smart, they fold a winning hand every single time. 

[bad_teammate 13221]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You need a hug bro

Nah I just need a candidate who won't veto progressive legislation.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nah I just need a candidate who won't veto progressive legislation.

No one believes this.  You want a unicorn and anyone short of that is neoliberal shill cuck bought off by the establishment. 

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No one believes this. 

Probably not true, but whatever gets you through the night.

I was fully prepared to...
- Do zero work for Joe
- Donate zero dollars to Joe
- Expend zero effort convincing others to vote for Joe
- Vote for Joe in November

I still am. All he needs to do is say he won't veto progressive legislation.

[ndawg 1242]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m with you here, Biden absolutely does need to reach out to progressives.  That would be the smart play.  But the democrats aren’t smart, they fold a winning hand every single time. 

How is he supposed to reach out to progressives? Sanders built a commanding lead on a progressive platform that people took seriously. So much so, in fact, that the entire party coalesced behind Biden at a moment precisely timed to reverse Bernie's momentum. And I ain't even complaining about that, it's just politics. For instance, if the DNC thought Sanders couldn't beat Trump, it's not unreasonable to cut out Sanders at all cost. I'd argue their wrong in their premise, but I'd concede that they clearly arrived at a sound conclusion.

Either way, if Biden's surge is about stopping Sanders, I don't see any way he gets taken seriously by the Sanders camp. Assuming Biden wins the nomination, I'll obviously vote for Biden in November, but there is nothing he can offer beyond pandering and lip service, and nobody wants that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, ndawg said:

How is he supposed to reach out to progressives?

His VP pick is probably the easiest olive branch. A Warren or Harris selection would be progressive or at least perceived that way.  There’s also an enormous feminist movement we never talk about here that he should exploit.  But he’ll probably go with Pete Buttigieg or some dumb shit like that. 

[bad_teammate 13221]

Biden: "I would veto..."

Biden campaign: "He did not say veto..."

DemTrump lol

[bad_teammate 13221]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A Warren or Harris selection would be progressive or at least perceived that way.

By whom?

[Zombie 284]

His VP pick is probably the easiest olive branch. A Warren or Harris selection would be progressive or at least perceived that way.  There’s also an enormous feminist movement we never talk about here that he should exploit.  But he’ll probably go with Pete Buttigieg or some dumb shit like that. 

I agree with Warren and would be happy with Harris, but is Harris really be a progressive choice? She strikes me as fairly establishment.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m with you here, Biden absolutely does need to reach out to progressives.  That would be the smart play.  But the democrats aren’t smart, they fold a winning hand every single time. 

This is true.  It's also true that it would be helpful to him if Bernie didn't keep labeling him as the establishment who wants to subvert the will of the people and hurt progressive causes.  In an effort to bring undecided voters into his fold, Bernie is essentially reinforcing the worst of the instincts of his most ardent supporters and putting it into their minds that they can't vote for Biden in November.  He can try to distinguish himself from Biden (it's not that difficult) while not torching the Democratic party in the process.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13516]

I can understand Bernie wanting to stay in. After all Biden basically came back from the dead within 1 week. However Biden was able to capitalize on people dropping out and other endorsements. The only new endorsement that I can Bernie getting recently is Jesse Jackson.  Bernie can't even convince Warren to endorse him, as it seems like she is just waiting to endorse the winner.

[ndawg 1242]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

His VP pick is probably the easiest olive branch. A Warren or Harris selection would be progressive or at least perceived that way.  There’s also an enormous feminist movement we never talk about here that he should exploit.  But he’ll probably go with Pete Buttigieg or some dumb shit like that. 

I guess. Without knowing much about Sanders' voting base, I can't say for sure, but my suspicion is that Sanders voters want a credible path to actual change. I can't be the only one who would find a VP nomination to be an empty gesture, regardless of the recipient. Warren can do more tangible good as a senator than stuffed away in a VP position.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Thank god Hugo is back. I need a revised list of all the Russian agents working to ummmm stop Hillary? Are they still doing that? I think they all work at Hulu now. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Zombie said:

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

His VP pick is probably the easiest olive branch. A Warren or Harris selection would be progressive or at least perceived that way.  There’s also an enormous feminist movement we never talk about here that he should exploit.  But he’ll probably go with Pete Buttigieg or some dumb shit like that. 

I agree with Warren and would be happy with Harris, but is Harris really be a progressive choice? She strikes me as fairly establishment.

Harris is progressive “enough” for most people but nowhere near as progressive as Warren.  Plus, the act of selecting a black woman as a running mate is progressive in itself. 
 

Warren was a very early backer of Harris in her Senate run which gives Kamala a little more progressive street cred.

Elizabeth Warren goes all in for Kamala Harris

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com/msnbc/elizabeth-warren-goes-all-kamala-harris/amp

[bad_teammate 13221]

5 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I guess. Without knowing much about Sanders' voting base, I can't say for sure, but my suspicion is that Sanders voters want a credible path to actual change. I can't be the only one who would find a VP nomination to be an empty gesture, regardless of the recipient. Warren can do more tangible good as a senator than stuffed away in a VP position.

This.

The "oooh who is the VP going to be?!" talk is meaningless horse-trading shit. It's like people talking about reality television. It means NOTHING.

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Thank god Hugo is back. I need a revised list of all the Russian agents working to ummmm stop Hillary? Are they still doing that? I think they all work at Hulu now. 

hulu has live sports. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

Let's be honest - Warren lost her opportunity to claim the progressive title. And her base is minuscule. She lost a lot of gravitas this election. But I do give her credit for taking out Bloomberg. 

I would love to have her voice in the battle as billionaires and corporations will be bailed out again and Main Street will be left with austerity. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This.

The "oooh who is the VP going to be?!" talk is meaningless horse-trading shit. It's like people talking about reality television. It means NOTHING.

vp means nothing as a bone to throw to progressives. otherwise, it means quite a bit. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Bernie can't even convince Warren to endorse him, as it seems like she is just waiting to endorse the winner.

There’s no good move for Warren except not to play.  If she endorses Bernie while the majority of black voters are going Biden, what will that say to black voters about where her priorities are?

If she endorses Biden while Bernie is still in the race, it will be seen as a betrayal to the progressive movement.  Similar to Kamala waiting until Liz was out before endorsing Biden, Warren is going to wait until Bernie is out.  The Bernie people harassing Warren about not endorsing are mostly psychos.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pasken 1309]

Any anecdotal observations about turnout? I would think the virus scares might heel older voters at home.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This.

The "oooh who is the VP going to be?!" talk is meaningless horse-trading shit. It's like people talking about reality television. It means NOTHING.

And yet weren’t you posting about potential cabinet positions in a Biden administration? I agree that such articles at this stage amount to reality tv BS, but there you were a few hours ago freaking out about nothing 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

vp means nothing as a bone to throw to progressives. otherwise, it means quite a bit. 

The irony here is Biden was an Obama bone throw to working class whites that might have felt a little uncomfortable voting for a black man.

[bad_teammate 13221]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

And yet weren’t you posting about potential cabinet positions in a Biden administration?

Cabinet positions are far more meaningful than the VP slot.

[washparkhorn 9939]

4 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Any anecdotal observations about turnout? I would think the virus scares might heel older voters at home.

Michigan has a strange way of counting (votes are bucketed and then to claim a share of the bucket, each candidate must have 15%).

Voting in university/colleges up.

I don't think the coronavirus reality  has hit the upper midwest as it has in the West Coast. And I hope each voter who wanted to vote - votes. 

Too early from what I am seeing. 

[Zombie 284]

Any anecdotal observations about turnout? I would think the virus scares might heel older voters at home.

If it's still around in November, that's an interesting thought.

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The irony here is Biden was an Obama bone throw to working class whites that might have felt a little uncomfortable voting for a black man.

Obama ran as a progressive, got smacked in the face with a financial crisis, and governed as a moderate. His calmness compared to McCain in the campaign got him through the "fear of the black progressive" racism by white moderates.

[washparkhorn 9939]

2 minutes ago, Zombie said:

11 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Any anecdotal observations about turnout? I would think the virus scares might heel older voters at home.

If it's still around in November, that's an interesting thought.

That is a great point. By November the Corona Virus may have wiped out or debilitated a large chunk of the 70-90 year old voters. Trump voters will be there. The virus has made their cruise ship trips cheaper and they will be celebrating their guy. 

[Hank Kingsley 20999]

Michigan polls are all over the place. Have a feeling it will be closer than previously thought.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Cultivating allies = the Democratic Party keeps getting dragged to the right by the increasingly extremist GOP. I completely understand why the progressives aren't looking to join forces with the establishment. The better long term strategy for progressive policy supporters is to yank the nation back to the left. But the Democrats play scared. Always. Crazy outsider takes over GOP, uses populism to force everything way to the right. Democratic response is to try to capture those guys that used to be in the middle or close to it. The end result is that the GOP is way right of where it used to be and the Democrats are moderately right of where they used to be.

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous conclusion.  On whatever issue you want to identify--healthcare, immigration, guns--the Democrats are significantly to the left of where they were five or ten years ago.

Ten years ago, single-payor didn't have the support of a majority of Democrats.  Now it's considered to be the most moderate acceptable position that one can have as a Democratic officeholder.

Ten years ago, the Obama Administration was deporting more people than the Bush Administration (and touting it as a success).  The actions taken by the Obama Administration are now considered anathema.

Ten years ago, the notion of any meaningful gun control was a fringe position within the Democratic Party.  Now, it's virtually a requirement.  

And we can go further down the list on social and economic policy.  But I challenge you to find me a single issue on which the Overton Window of Democratic politics hasn't shifted markedly to the left. 

And that leftward shift is entirely why you're seeing Biden have to explain so many of his past positions.  It's not that Joe Biden was some sort of John Connelly Democrat.  It's that Biden was a reasonably mainstream Democrat, and the idea of what it is to be a mainstream Democrat has significantly changed over the last decade.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

His VP pick is probably the easiest olive branch. A Warren or Harris selection would be progressive or at least perceived that way.  There’s also an enormous feminist movement we never talk about here that he should exploit.  But he’ll probably go with Pete Buttigieg or some dumb shit like that. 

It’ll likely be a female and it won’t be Warren since the governor in Mass is a rep.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

12 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Let's be honest - Warren lost her opportunity to claim the progressive title. And her base is minuscule. She lost a lot of gravitas this election. But I do give her credit for taking out Bloomberg. 

I would love to have her voice in the battle as billionaires and corporations will be bailed out again and Main Street will be left with austerity. 

Warren will not be VP. I don't see either Biden nor Sanders selecting her. She doesn't have to endorse anyone.

With respect to 'claim the progressive title,' she is not a progressive, really. She is a centrist in a party that is leaning too far to the right, IMO. Bernie was a true progressive with his platform of how labor should be compensated, etc. Having a wealth tax such as Warren's (again IMO) is putting the tax burden back where it used to be--on everyone who labors or profits from it. Biden et al are Democrats, but I wouldn't call them centrists when their platforms are viewed in light of just how far to the right the GOP is.

Some young woman getting a horrible tattoo doesn't change my mind about Warren, nor does it speak for me and my vote any more than Bad Teammate's constant drum banging makes me turn for or against Bernie Sanders. None of them are Trump and that counts for quite a lot.

 

Apologies if this doesn't make sense, very incoherent today.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous conclusion.  On whatever issue you want to identify--healthcare, immigration, guns--the Democrats are significantly to the left of where they were five or ten years ago.

Ten years ago, single-payor didn't have the support of a majority of Democrats.  Now it's considered to be the most moderate acceptable position that one can have as a Democratic officeholder.

Ten years ago, the Obama Administration was deporting more people than the Bush Administration (and touting it as a success).  The actions taken by the Obama Administration are now considered anathema.

Ten years ago, the notion of any meaningful gun control was a fringe position within the Democratic Party.  Now, it's virtually a requirement.  

And we can go further down the list on social and economic policy.  But I challenge you to find me a single issue on which the Overton Window of Democratic politics hasn't shifted markedly to the left. 

And that leftward shift is entirely why you're seeing Biden have to explain so many of his past positions.  It's not that Joe Biden was some sort of John Connelly Democrat.  It's that Biden was a reasonably mainstream Democrat, and the idea of what it is to be a mainstream Democrat has significantly changed over the last decade.

Guess you posted while I was composing. Diann Feinstein was able to author the ban on assault weapons bill back in '94, but it was another Democrat, Texan Jack Brooks that tried to get it removed from the Act so Democrats have been arguing policy for quite awhile with respect to gun control.

I'm wondering if I'm suffering from the pendulum effect. It seems it swings back and forth between presidents and parties--in my mind it swings much farther right, but perhaps I am biased and going off of gut feelings and not fact.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

 

[Huckleberry 33057]

28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous conclusion.  On whatever issue you want to identify--healthcare, immigration, guns--the Democrats are significantly to the left of where they were five or ten years ago.

Ten years ago, single-payor didn't have the support of a majority of Democrats.  Now it's considered to be the most moderate acceptable position that one can have as a Democratic officeholder.

Ten years ago, the Obama Administration was deporting more people than the Bush Administration (and touting it as a success).  The actions taken by the Obama Administration are now considered anathema.

Ten years ago, the notion of any meaningful gun control was a fringe position within the Democratic Party.  Now, it's virtually a requirement.  

And we can go further down the list on social and economic policy.  But I challenge you to find me a single issue on which the Overton Window of Democratic politics hasn't shifted markedly to the left. 

And that leftward shift is entirely why you're seeing Biden have to explain so many of his past positions.  It's not that Joe Biden was some sort of John Connelly Democrat.  It's that Biden was a reasonably mainstream Democrat, and the idea of what it is to be a mainstream Democrat has significantly changed over the last decade.

This is a long reply that is completely non-responsive to my assertion.

My assertion was quite clearly targeted at 3-4 years ago, tops, considering it is based on the election of Donald Trump and the Democratic response since then. 2018 was a surge for progressive behavior but now that we are at the next Presidential nomination, Joe Biden is the nominee. Nothing about Joe Biden's nomination indicates any leftward movement from 2016 in response to Trump's election.

My opening was a brief explanation of progressives' fears, it was not intended as a summary of the last five decades of Democratic policy positions. I do see how it could have been interpreted like that.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Chuckie Finster 22712]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

In theory, "Never Trumpers" are Centrist Republicans.  It's not weird at all that Centrist Democrats would relate more to Centrist Republicans.

I mean fuck, b_t is posting MAGA memes now.

[Pancho 44905]

 

[DanTheHorn 4939]

29 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Michigan polls are all over the place. Have a feeling it will be closer than previously thought.

Link?

[Hank Kingsley 20999]

3 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Link?