2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13204]

Biden shadow government is a fun play.

[Neonmoon 38129]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Biden shadow government is a fun play.

Is it a shadow government if there isn't anything to cast a shadow?

[Ghost of LL 15531]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

English is hard. This tweet could easily be read to say that 19% of Sanders voters in Michigan wouldn't even vote for Sanders if he's the nominee.

Not to mention that I probably would have answered the same thing. I mean what if it still ends up as a brokered convention and Mike Bloomberg buys everyone off for the nomination? "Regardless of who it is" is a pretty wide statement. At this point couldn't they have just asked "will you vote for Biden in November if he wins the nomination"?

That's how I read it.  Michigan is an open primary.  And I suspect some large percentage of that 19% is Republicans voting in the Democratic primary for the candidate that they believe will be weaker in the general and/or cause more disruption in the primary process going forward.

4 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

there are a few different reasons candidates hold out for too long, and the implications and effects can be varied, on both their personal/political legacies, and what's best for the party and the upcoming general election.  more often than not, it's a result of ego, hurt feelings, denial, and the natural emotion of coming to terms with letting a "dream" die.

bernie is staying in, and my opinion is that it's for the best possible reasons imaginable.  judging from what we know about him and what he believes in, coupled with recent statements and today's press conference, my read is that he's got a plan, and i think it's a good one for all parties involved.

this isn't about ego or letting dreams die, this is about beating trump.  in the end, that's what bernie wants out of this cycle.  big picture, he has his policies, but this cycle, he knows the first step in healing the country is getting trump (and mcconnell) out of power.

so as much as it pains me, and it does, i will agree with what bt has said in this (and only this) quoted post.  he's not going to go negative or nasty.  he will give joe every opportunity to speak to 'bernie' issues, and to win over 'bernie's' progressive supporters.  he'll even tee up the veto question, and i can only assume joe's people will have an actual coherent answer for it - he has fucking 4 days to write two sentences down and memorize it.

this is bernie's compromise.  he will back joe and he will tell his people to back joe, if and only if, joe jumps through a series of very large and conveniently placed hoops.  he's making this as easy as possible to project unity moving forward over the following 8 months, starting likely in a week or so.  any bitterness, anger, resentment, or pettiness would only stoke the flames of an all-out twitter war among the dems.  nobody wants that.  bernie doesn't want that.

if you're rooting for trump to lose, this is the first step towards the best possible outcome.  if you're rooting for progressive policies, this is the first step towards the 2nd best possible outcome.  this is about the big picture, trump, and bernie's legacy.  he's a smart guy, he knows he's through.

Agree with all of this.

Joe could always fumble this.  But it is hopefully set up for him to answer Bernie's issues with some pleasant-sounding somewhat-noncommittal stuff that will be sufficient to satisfy the vast majority of Bernie's supporters.  

And frankly, if he does that, he cruises to victory in the general.

[Dbeasy 15052]

Somehow, "the Establishment" has become synonymous with "Trump-lite" to many progressives.  Biden needs to remind everyone that the last "Establishment" presidency included:
Affordable Care Act 
DACA
Nominations of Sotomayor and Kagan
The ending of the war in Iraq
Dodd-Frank
Repealing of "Dont Ask, Don't Tell" 
Iran Nuclear Deal
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Fair Pay Act of 2009
Marriage Equality (I know this was a Supreme Court decision, but Obama became a champion of the cause)
and obviously more.
I get that Bernie is your guy.  I get that Biden does not support every issue that is important to you.  I get that you feel alienated.  But when you compare the above list with what has gone on over the last three years, to view this as a "lesser of two evils" situation is fucking insane.  You might not get 100% of what is important to you with a Biden administration, but you'll get a hell of a lot closer.

Post of the day on Surly

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I get the feeling Biden doesn’t give a shit about policy and the best deal progressives could get is a Warren VP but we’re not going to get that because of all the bullshit excuses progressives make to not go for it.  

And the reason that would be the best deal is it’s something concrete instead of future broken promises.  Warren would galvanize the feminist movement and work her ass off to win up and down the ballot in a leadership role.  But nah, b/c there would be a special election for her senate seat, so fuck that noise. Well get Harris and she’ll be a much riskier general election candidate in 2024 than Warren, assuming Biden serves one term.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

The goal is to win the WH and the senate. Nothing happens unless this occurs. Warren as VP would weaken Dem’s position in the senate. Is that not correct?

[bad_teammate 13204]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I get the feeling Biden doesn’t give a shit about policy and the best deal progressives could get is a Warren VP but we’re not going to get that because of all the bullshit excuses progressives make to not go for it.  

Can you explain how it would work that Joe would want to choose Warren as VP but then not do it because of Bernie Bros?

Is he a regular listener to Chapo Trap House or something? Is he all about Weird Twitter?

[bad_teammate 13204]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Yes, why won’t the front runner compromise by saying his competitor’s healthcare plan is better than his own.  That’s such a reasonable ask. 

To be fair, his wife already said it.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I get the feeling Biden doesn’t give a shit about policy and the best deal progressives could get is a Warren VP but we’re not going to get that because of all the bullshit excuses progressives make to not go for it.  

And the reason that would be the best deal is it’s something concrete instead of future broken promises.  Warren would galvanize the feminist movement and work her ass off to win up and down the ballot in a leadership role.  But nah, b/c there would be a special election for her senate seat, so fuck that noise. Well get Harris and she’ll be a much riskier general election candidate in 2024 than Warren, assuming Biden serves one term.

When would this special election take place and how many months would the dems lose if that cost them the majority? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The goal is to win the WH and the senate. Nothing happens unless this occurs. Warren as VP would weaken Dem’s position in the senate. Is that not correct?

There is a possibility it would If a Republican wins the special election but there’s also a possibility it wouldn’t fucking matter.  There’s a lot of calculation involved in the viability of a Biden/Harris vs Biden/Warren ticket.  That’s where the debate should be. If a Biden/Warren ticket is far and a way superior then the Senate seat debate shouldn’t matter b/c you’d likely flip the Senate anyway. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

When would this special election take place and how many months would the dems lose if that cost them the majority? 

Three months I believe.  Warren could resign in August and the special election would be at the time of the general election.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Also, goes without saying that there’s a slim chance Massachusetts elects a Republican to take Warren’s seat considering the other Senator is the father of the green new deal. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There is a possibility it would If a Republican wins the special election but there’s also a possibility it wouldn’t fucking matter.  There’s a lot of calculation involved in the viability of a Biden/Harris vs Biden/Warren ticket.  That’s where the debate should be. If a Biden/Warren ticket is far and a way superior then the Senate seat debate shouldn’t matter b/c you’d likely flip the Senate anyway. 

I imagine Chuck and Diamond Joe will make that calculation. But I thought she was off the table

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Three months I believe.  Warren could resign in August and the special election would be at the time of the general election.

I simply cannot see that happening but I guess we shall see. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Like I said, it’s not going to happen because progressives have already been flooded with stuff trying to prevent them from pushing for it. But that is exactly what they should push for. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

She is also available 

 

[bad_teammate 13204]

Could it be that Warren's decades-long hostility towards Joe Biden that might be preventing their unification?

No, probably a letter-writing campaign from Brooklyn podcasters. That makes more sense.

[washparkhorn 9939]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like I said, it’s not going to happen because progressives have already been flooded with stuff trying to prevent them from pushing for it. But that is exactly what they should push for. 

Appreciate the concern. The Patagonia Vote is minuscule and already voting for Biden. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by washparkhorn

[bad_teammate 13204]

[JBJ 3654]

Warren reaches far fewer voters than Kamala would.

Edited March 11, 2020 by JBJ
Haha. Still time to correct.

[bad_teammate 13204]

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

As much as I support Warren, I really don't think VP is in the cards.

 

Oh, and great post @Chuckie Finster.

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Well get Harris and she’ll be a much riskier general election candidate in 2024 than Warren, assuming Biden serves one term.

without this involving a new discussion about warren as a presidential candidate, why do you think kamala is a much riskier candidate in '24?

you think a 75 year-old warren is a slam dunk?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Uh, I watched Warren run a Presidential campaign and debate.  I feel confident in her abilities in a not 2020 Trump election.

Kamala is cool but not on the same level 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Ghost of LL 15531]

It's not going to be Kamala.  I would put money on that.  Kamala might be AG, but she's not going to be VP.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

22 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not going to be Kamala.  I would put money on that.  Kamala might be AG, but she's not going to be VP.

Now *that* is a great idea 

[USMCHorn 1369]

Kamala would be a solid AG pick for sure.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Warren could probably do any job in the executive branch and be good at it.

Warren AG would be crazy because she would be focused on white collar criminals and nazis.

She could probably pull off Secretary of Defense too and rework the military contracts.  

(Things that will never happen)

[6th Street 6411]

Gretchen Weiner from Michigan is going to be the pick 

[burntorangebongos 10719]

I would love Warren but I'm only half joking about the GoFundMe to whack him if he chooses her. I think she is too strong for Joe and I don't think they are a fit. But damn, if he did it...….YES!

I think he'll pick Stacy Abrams because she is a fucking Rockstar and she would totally bring in a lot of the black vote that Joe can't reach, meaning the young. I think she will also win over the latinx group. Maybe not the older latinos, but they love Joe so it won't hurt him if she can't expand his base here. I also think the white suburban women will love her. White old dudes won't but they like Joe so she won't hurt him too much with them.  She is like bringing in Babe Ruth for clean up, imo. Plus, she won't eclipse Joe, at least at first.  I think he'd want her on the ticket. She checks a lot of boxes, one being that she won't lose a dem senate seat. 

[BrazilHorn 6609]

8 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I would love Warren but I'm only half joking about the GoFundMe to whack him if he chooses her. I think she is too strong for Joe and I don't think they are a fit. But damn, if he did it...….YES!

I think he'll pick Stacy Abrams because she is a fucking Rockstar and she would totally bring in a lot of the black vote that Joe can't reach, meaning the young. I think she will also win over the latinx group. Maybe not the older latinos, but they love Joe so it won't hurt him if she can't expand his base here. I also think the white suburban women will love her. White old dudes won't but they like Joe so she won't hurt him too much with them.  She is like bringing in Babe Ruth for clean up, imo. Plus, she won't eclipse Joe, at least at first.  I think he'd want her on the ticket. She checks a lot of boxes, one being that she won't lose a dem senate seat. 

Put Warren as Sec Treasury. 

[TexasEd 8067]

56 minutes ago, USMCHorn said:

Kamala would be a solid AG pick for sure.

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said in an interview released Wednesday that if she wins the White House, her Justice Department “would have no choice” but to pursue an obstruction of justice case against Trump after he leaves office.

 

https://apnews.com/9f79c82810464250bccce9764458691f

[TexasEd 8067]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

To be fair, his wife already said it.

 

Yeah if your logic is  Bernie>Biden>>>>>>>Trump what do you do if Bernie is not on the ballot, not vote or pick the next best option?

 

[burntorangebongos 10719]

Apropos of nothing, I have to say that if Dr. Jill Biden had to act like Mrs. Woodrow Wilson did and be the secret president, I'm sure she would do a good job. But Joe couldn't hide like Wilson was able to back then. Still, I'm sure she'd do a decent job. So he has that going for him. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Ugg.  Abrams.

[bad_teammate 13204]

Bernie should bring this up at the debate and ask Joe why he supports this.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

All Biden needs to do to get my vote is say, "I won't veto legislation passed by a Democratic House and Senate."

Which is a rational thing to want from a Democratic presidential candidate.

I would hope that a Democratic candidate would be on board with legislation passed by a Democratic House and Senate, I would also hope that a President would work hard to help get other parties on board with legislation proposed by Democratic reps, too.

But back to your comment on your vote. February 11, the debate (in a thread by  @Biff Tannen) was over what folks would do if a preferred candidate didn't get the nod and one of your responses was this:

Quote

I will vote for whichever candidate is chosen by the voters with a plurality or majority of the pledged delegates via the primary process.

Pete wins the most pledged delegates? I vote Pete. Joe, Liz, Bernie? Great.

Not voting for Bloomberg in any circumstance.

I will not vote for an oligarch and I will not vote for a candidate selected against the will of the primary voters.

So, if Joe is chosen by the voters are you going to vote for him?

I cannot vote for Trump. I will not sit this one out even though Biden is not my pick--neither is Bernie but I am now part of the minority (of voters) and I will support the candidate.

This isn't over yet, and I think(?) I understand why Sanders is staying in the race but once the dust has settled, what are you going to do if Joe Biden is chosen by voters?

[bad_teammate 13204]

Look at the post you just quoted and think about what the throughline is: Democracy.

I will never vote for a billionaire/oligarch. Why? Because billionaires with their wealth and power subvert democracy.
I will never vote for someone chosen by the party insiders over the will of the people. Why? Because it is a subversion of democracy.

I will not vote for a man who says he will veto legislation passed through tremendous popular effort by his own party. Why? Because it is a subversion of democracy.

And specific to the case of Joe Biden threatening to veto M4A, it is a subversion of democracy not based on higher principle, but a lifetime of being bought and paid for by wealthy capital interests in finance and health insurance.

I said that with the false belief that Joe would not actively subvert the democratic will of the people. All I require is Joe saying he won't do that. I don't need him to join the DSA. I don't even need him to say M4A is great and he loves it. All I need is for him to say that he will not veto it (or other progressive legislation) if a nationwide grassroots movement of progressives does the unbelievably hard work of pushing it through Congress.

If you can make an argument as to how that's too much for me to ask, then let's have that discussion.

But if all you're seriously going to do is act like a child who was promised Disneyland before dad got fired and say, "BUT YOU PROMISED!" while ignoring what I've already said (and just repeated) then it's not going to be a good discussion.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

It wasn't a 'but you promised' question. You are rather sensitive about that. I follow all the threads as much as I'm able, but one does miss nuance when skimming, so I will ask you to now stop acting like a child" in kind.

Your first five sentences after the word, 'Democracy' are your answer. Thanks.

[bad_teammate 13204]

Apologies, Whiggins. I have about 10 people a day here trying to start fights with me so it's dicey.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

No sweat. I like clarity. Your answer was clear. We're good.

[bad_teammate 13204]

Fear

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

On 3/11/2020 at 4:57 PM, Ghost of LL said:

It's not going to be Kamala.  I would put money on that.  Kamala might be AG, but she's not going to be VP.

Sounds a lot like "Trump can never win" shit from Republicans during the 2016 nomination and Hillary in the 2016 General. 

I hope you are right. Kamala would be a terrible choice for Biden's VP. 

Please stop predicting. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

47 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Fear

 

Another LOUD Republican for Biden. She, Frum and Morning Joe need to zip it. They are terrible at politics. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

Republican Jennifer Rubin is advocating for what McCain did in the 2008 financial crisis. 

How did that work out for McCain.

STOP listening to Republicans. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

Why didn’t Bernie come out with a corona virus task force or whatever like Biden did?  Seems like good and easy press. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why didn’t Bernie come out with a corona virus task force or whatever like Biden did?  Seems like good and easy press. 

Interesting. Biden has the ability to pull people together, get endorsements, make deals, and listen to experts. That all is exactly what a potus needs to do. We know trump isn’t able to do that and look at the consequences. Plus many trump supporters see those things as weaknesses. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why didn’t Bernie come out with a corona virus task force or whatever like Biden did?  Seems like good and easy press. 

He laid out his ideas in a press conference held the same day. Tbh, if the CDC had kept the original global health initiative set up, America would be in better shape so much of what either Biden or Sanders might find best would be to restore that. It essentially mobilized the CDC in large numbers to fan out and assist the local/state health authorities who are on the front lines.