2020 Democratic Nominee

[henrygandorf 29225]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, but The Breakfast Club isn't mainstream media. That's a very specific audience and it's an audience Warren doesn't do well with in the first place.

I think what we're seeing is that many people who were waiting for Biden are becoming horrified of him being what he's always been (I don't know why they are surprised) and they need an alternative. All powerful establishment institutions and their paid mouthpieces hate Bernie, of course, so they need alternatives. Kamala was going to be the one, but she got zero traction. Beto lasted 10 seconds. Pete was the flavor for a minute, but he hasn't really taken over, so more boosting must be done.

I don't think it's an organized conspiracy against Bernie, it's just the way powerful forces move to advance their interest against opponents.

CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Vox, TheHill, etc...

In an overall strategic sense, I am EXTREMELY happy with Bernie having pulled the party so far left that Warren is considered an acceptable compromise by the establishment. If the shitlibs want to dunk on us Bernie Brocialists by nominating and fighting for Warren instead of Biden, then this is me:

Of course, I'll hoot and holler at Liz to move left if/when she beats Donald. (Especially on Medicare 4 All, the #1 beef I have with her is her absolute vagueness on universal healthcare.)

And if she doesn't beat Donald I might have a fucking aneurysm and become a Maoist third-worlder.

for use of the word "brocialists" you shall receive the most positive of reps.

[bad_teammate 13496]

Interesting to see Biden adopt Warren's economic rhetoric.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

As Biden slowly collapses like a flan in a cupboard (hat-tip Eddie Izzard), the corporate world would MUUUUUCH rather have Liz than Bernie. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie.

If I was corporate media I’d take Bernie over Warren all day.   Mainly because Bernie isn’t a great leader and his presidency would be inept and ineffective.   I say this because I don’t believe Bernie can galvanize strong enough a movement to force real change like Elizabeth Warren could.  

Bernie is unique and has always tried his hardest to do the right things for the right reasons but he’s missing something this time around.  Maybe he could be a better persuader or not be the weird angry old man insurgent candidate.  I don’t know but corporate media shouldn’t be afraid of Bernie Sanders.  

They shouldn’t be afraid of Elizabeth Warren either but she would be far more effective at working against their interests if she chose to do so.

JMO

Edited June 13, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13496]

What movements has Warren galvanized in the past that would lead you to believe she would be better at it than Bernie?

[Js1 87174]

Give me my god damn Warren/Beto ticket and 300+ Electoral College victory right stat now. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

The fucking debate stage will be hilarious as everyone falls over each other to slam knives into Joe as he grows increasingly confused/furious and begs all the beautiful women to come save him.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What movements has Warren galvanized in the past that would lead you to believe she would be better at it than Bernie?

One thing that comes to mind is that she's the reason there is a CFPB. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

One thing that comes to mind is that she's the reason there is a CFPB. 

Hell yes, but that's not really galvanizing a movement.

I'm not saying Liz would be unable to get shit done. I think she would. (Go to page 1 of this thread and read my comments there, from the beginning.)

I'm just curious as to what Hugo is talking about specifically with regard to movement creation. It's fruitless, of course, because he's a troll, but I am the eternal optimist.

[Fozzz 152]

Yeah, this is the person who's going to take the fight to the Republicans and Dem centrists upon taking office.  Fucking rubes.  lol.

Quote

But that's not exactly what Robert Wolf said after their rendezvous this summer. "I think Senator Warren's views are more pragmatic; I think she is very different in a conversation than when she's on the stump," he told the New York Times.

By Wolf's account, it sure sounds like Warren is courting potential donors to back her bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2020, a group that will almost inevitably include powerful actors in the financial sector.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-warren-is-hypocritically-meeting-with-wall-street-ceos

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hell yes, but that's not really galvanizing a movement.

I'm not saying Liz would be unable to get shit done. I think she would. (Go to page 1 of this thread and read my comments there, from the beginning.)

I'm just curious as to what Hugo is talking about specifically with regard to movement creation. It's fruitless, of course, because he's a troll, but I am the eternal optimist.

His post is confusing.   I agree that Bernie is a great movement leader.  Hard to imagine how anyone could argue otherwise.   Hugo also indicates that he doesn't think he can translate that into an effective presidency.  I'm not sure whether or not that is true, but I do think Warren is more likely to get positive shit done (than any other candidate).  If she does, Bernie will certainly deserve a big chunk of the credit for moving the party and country into a place where she could have that chance, as you say. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What movements has Warren galvanized in the past that would lead you to believe she would be better at it than Bernie?

Well, Bernie has been a political thought leader and elected official for how long?  His entire life?   

10 years ago Elizabeth Warren was none of those things, no one outside of policy junkies knew her name.  She’s only run for public office twice in her entire life and look at how much ground she has gained at the grassroots level nationwide.  As someone that has studied closely how candidates lead transformational movements to the presidency, I can tell you the empirical evidence suggests they don’t come from people who ran for Mayor, then for Congress, then for Senate over a 30 year period.  

No, the real movements are driven by leaders that catapult themselves onto the national political scene.  Leaders like Obama and the Clintons circa 1992.  

Bernie had a strong run in 2016 by basically being the alternative to Hillary Clinton.  I don’t want to take away from his success there but not being Hillary Clinton in 2016 is some low hanging fruit as far as inspiring a insurgent movement. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Well, Bernie has been a political thought leader and elected official for how long?  His entire life?   

10 years ago Elizabeth Warren was none of those things, no one outside of policy junkies knew her name.  She’s only run for public office twice in her entire life and look at how much ground she has gained at the grassroots level nationwide.  As someone that has studied closely how candidates lead transformational movements to the presidency, I can tell you the empirical evidence suggests they don’t come from people who ran for Mayor, then for Congress, then for Senate over a 30 year period.  

No, the real movements are driven by leaders that catapult themselves onto the national political scene.  Leaders like Obama and the Clintons circa 1992.  

Bernie had a strong run in 2016 by basically being the alternative to Hillary Clinton.  I don’t want to take away from his success there but not being Hillary Clinton in 2016 is some low hanging fruit as far as inspiring a insurgent movement. 

Bernie is a big reason for the wave of candidates like AOC last election. Vets of the Bernie campaign, and Bernie himself, were behind all of that.   And Bernie almost single-handedly brought a number of major progressive ideas into the mainstream.   I agree that Hillary's awfulness gave Bernie an opening — but Bernie took full advantage of that opening to launch a movement that endures. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Bernie is a big reason for the wave of candidates like AOC last election. Vets of the Bernie campaign, and Bernie himself, were behind all of that.   And Bernie almost single-handedly brought a number of major progressive ideas into the mainstream.   I agree that Hillary's awfulness gave Bernie an opening — but Bernie took full advantage of that opening to launch a movement that endures. 

Thank you, this is the positive byproduct of the Bernie movement my post was missing.   Bernie is a good campaigner and inspiring figure that capitalized on the horror of 2016 to advance his ideas.   My skepticism with Bernie is his ability to be an effective administrator, especially against the confidence I have in Warren to be a superb administrator. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

43 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If I was corporate media I’d take Bernie over Warren all day.   Mainly because Bernie isn’t a great leader and his presidency would be inept and ineffective.   I say this because I don’t believe Bernie can galvanize strong enough a movement to force real change like Elizabeth Warren could.  

Bernie is unique and has always tried his hardest to do the right things for the right reasons but he’s missing something this time around.  Maybe he could be a better persuader or not be the weird angry old man insurgent candidate.  I don’t know but corporate media shouldn’t be afraid of Bernie Sanders.  

They shouldn’t be afraid of Elizabeth Warren either but she would be far more effective at working against their interests if she chose to do so.

JMO

he's missing the ability to have hillary clinton as his opponent.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

25 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Yeah, this is the person who's going to take the fight to the Republicans and Dem centrists upon taking office.  Fucking rubes.  lol.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-warren-is-hypocritically-meeting-with-wall-street-ceos

It would be so fucking metal if she took tons of Wall Street cash, gets elected, and then regulates the fucking shit out of the financial sector. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

crap, i was behind.  hugo, looks like you already basically said this ^^^.

[bad_teammate 13496]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm not sure whether or not that is true, but I do think Warren is more likely to get positive shit done (than any other candidate).

But how, though?

- Biden says Republicans will see the light and become good people because Americans will America Americanishly.
- Bernie says we need a massive political revolution in which millions and millions of now-inactive Americans actively agitate for necessary change.

What does Liz say? What does Pete say? What does Kamala say? Regardless of what that mechanical plan is, what history do any of these candidates have of making that happen?

There has to be a mechanism, otherwise we have Obama again; a central figure we have decided to like and no political movement behind him/her and no cross-aisle credibility.

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie had a strong run in 2016 by basically being the alternative to Hillary Clinton.  I don’t want to take away from his success there but not being Hillary Clinton in 2016 is some low hanging fruit as far as inspiring a insurgent movement. 

Cool, where was Warren in 2016? Where has she been? She is 69 years old (nice).

I'll ask this again, and you won't answer, because you're a troll: 

What movements has Warren galvanized in the past that would lead you to believe she would be better at it than Bernie?

[bad_teammate 13496]

Absolute fucking savagery.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

But how, though?

- Biden says Republicans will see the light and become good people because Americans will America Americanishly.
- Bernie says we need a massive political revolution in which millions and millions of now-inactive Americans actively agitate for necessary change.

What does Liz say? What does Pete say? What does Kamala say? Regardless of what that mechanical plan is, what history do any of these candidates have of making that happen?

There has to be a mechanism, otherwise we have Obama again; a central figure we have decided to like and no political movement behind him/her and no cross-aisle credibility.

Warren says she is going to play hardball with all of her Executive power, push to eliminate the legislative filibuster, and, more broadly, push for corruption reforms that will remove some of the obstacles to change:  https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/6/12/18652215/elizabeth-warren-interview-2020-democratic-primary-policies

[Js1 87174]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Absolute fucking savagery.

 

Omg

Suspend your campaigns.  This is embarrassing. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Warren says she is going to play hardball with all of her Executive power, push to eliminate the legislative filibuster, and, more broadly, push for corruption reforms that will remove some of the obstacles to change:  https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/6/12/18652215/elizabeth-warren-interview-2020-democratic-primary-policies

- use executive power (Obama, check)

- eliminate the filibuster (cool, but requires a movement of Dem voters large enough to swing the Senate)

- "corruption reforms" (can't pass these without Congress)

So she's on the "we mobilize a huge mass of voters to sweep left(ish) power into Congress" track, right? Good, because that's my jam.

If I'm asked which candidate is most likely to execute that? It's pretty obvious.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- use executive power (Obama, check)

- eliminate the filibuster (cool, but requires a movement of Dem voters large enough to swing the Senate)

- "corruption reforms" (can't pass these without Congress)

So she's on the "we mobilize a huge mass of voters to sweep left(ish) power into Congress" track, right? Good, because that's my jam.

If I'm asked which candidate is most likely to execute that? It's pretty obvious.

Obama didn't mobilize Executive power nearly enough.   He let the GOP work him for years while he tried to persuade them with the force of his personality and reason.   Warren won't make that mistake.  She's going to go LBJ on Congress's ass, IMO. 

And Trump is the candidate most likely to mobilize the left in 2020.   He was in 2018 and nobody was on the ballot for president.  I think that'll hold true with any good Dem at the top of the ticket. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Obama didn't mobilize Executive power nearly enough. 

Obama was very expansive with his use of Executive power, especially after he realized Congress wasn't going to do anything.

Quote

She's going to go LBJ on Congress's ass, IMO. 

It's a nice idea, but... uh... is there any evidence she can actually do that?

Quote

And Trump is the candidate most likely to mobilize the left in 2020.   He was in 2018 and nobody was on the ballot for president.  I think that'll hold true with any good Dem at the top of the ticket. 

You can guarantee getting a lot of "OH MY GOD TRUMP IS SO BAD!" voters, but that's not the same as getting people who want the fundamental structural changes that Warren wants. It makes me nervous. I'd like to see a larger grassroots movement building up around her. I'd like to see younger politicians championing her and getting into politics because of her. It's possible. I'm optimistic that we can get that going once the center gives up on Joe. If she can grab those centrists then she's doing us all a HUGE favor.

If she wins, Bernie is going to stump his ass off for her and the Bernie Bros will fall in line. Also, Bernie is going to keep pushing, so that's encouraging.

She's my #2 for sure, and there isn't a close #3.

[henrygandorf 29225]

the way things are right now, i can't say with any confidence that any of these candidates, once they win, will be able to institute real change in washington.  hopefully we take back the senate so there's not outright stonewalling of anything and everything.  shit, it's gonna take president whomever most of his/her first term just to clean up/roll back the trump mess.

i think the broader question i'm more curious about, is "who is better for washington right now, someone with 'radical' far left, super progressive 'shock the system' policy, or someone closer to the center?"  i think the ignorant perception is the latter, but i'm betting good money on the former.  get in there, make some noise, and get after it.

assuming that "slow, eventual smart progress" or "everyone pulling in the same direction" is the way to fix things is naive as shit.  may as well call that "the biden doctrine" and get it over with.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Obama was very expansive with his use of Executive power, especially after he realized Congress wasn't going to do anything.

It's a nice idea, but... uh... is there any evidence she can actually do that?

You can guarantee getting a lot of "OH MY GOD TRUMP IS SO BAD!" voters, but that's not the same as getting people who want the fundamental structural changes that Warren wants. It makes me nervous. I'd like to see a larger grassroots movement building up around her. I'd like to see younger politicians championing her and getting into politics because of her. It's possible. I'm optimistic that we can get that going once the center gives up on Joe. If she can grab those centrists then she's doing us all a HUGE favor.

If she wins, Bernie is going to stump his ass off for her and the Bernie Bros will fall in line. Also, Bernie is going to keep pushing, so that's encouraging.

She's my #2 for sure, and there isn't a close #3.

Obama eventually started using administrative routes, but it took him years.   And he never effectively used his power to force legislation through Congress.   The president has enormous power to single-handedly set an agenda and get concessions from Congress, if he or she has the guts to use it.   Hell, Trump has shown that; he's just too stupid and mentally ill to take the win (like when he turned down the immigration deal that Schumer was willing to agree to).   We need someone to play real hardball, which is the main reason I can't get behind Mayor Pete for  more than Veep. 

Will Warren actually do it?  I don't know. She's one of the few candidates who has pushed extremely hard for something and gotten it done (CFPB).  Who else has done something like that? And she's at least running on the promise that she'll fight tooth and nail.   I believe her, but you never know. 

[Hank Kingsley 21752]

Feels like we have a pretty solid top 5 right now heading into the debates: Biden, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris

My prediction/forecast on who has the best chance to win the nomination based on current trends:

1. Warren

2. Buttigieg

3. Sanders

4. Biden

5. Harris

6. Beto

 

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Js1 87174]

Bullock, Moulton, Messam and Gravel will NOT be in the first debate sessions (6/28-29).  Everyone else has been declared eligible. 

Lineup announced tomorrow! 10 on each stage. 

[Hank Kingsley 21752]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Lineup announced tomorrow! 10 on each stage. 

giggity

[Doc Sam Beckett 5901]

19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Bullock, Moulton, Messam and Gravel will NOT be in the first debate sessions (6/28-29).  Everyone else has been declared eligible. 

Lineup announced tomorrow! 10 on each stage. 

 

38 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Feels like we have a pretty solid top 5 right now heading into the debates: Biden, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris

My prediction/forecast on who has the best chance to win the nomination based on current trends:

1. Warren 

2. Buttigieg 

3. Sanders 

4. Biden 

5. Harris 

6. Beto 

 

 

 

1. Warren - stage 1

2. Buttigieg - stage 1

3. Sanders - stage 1

4. Biden - stage 2

5. Harris - stage 1

6. Beto - stage 1

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Feels like we have a pretty solid top 5 right now heading into the debates: Biden, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris

My prediction/forecast on who has the best chance to win the nomination based on current trends:

1. Warren

2. Buttigieg

3. Sanders

4. Biden

5. Harris

6. Beto

 

 

I hope you’re right.  I’m not counting Biden out. As long as Bernie and Warren are both pulling double digits, Biden is my front runner.  Should Bernie or Warren drop off, I expect their support to move to Buttigieg or Harris and not Biden.  

This first debate might as well be the sacrifice of Joe Biden because the knives will be out for him and not necessarily from Bernie, Pete, or Warren.  Candidates like Klobuchar, Beto, Harris, Booker, and Gillibrand are the ones that need the biggest swings.  They are on the outside looking in and among the most ambitious campaigns.  

Biden will keep the focus on Trump, who is a distraction. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I hope you’re right.  I’m not counting Biden out. As long as Bernie and Warren are both pulling double digits, Biden is my front runner.  Should Bernie or Warren drop off, I expect their support to move to Buttigieg or Harris and not Biden.  

This first debate might as well be the sacrifice of Joe Biden because the knives will be out for him and not necessarily from Bernie, Pete, or Warren.  Candidates like Klobuchar, Beto, Harris, Booker, and Gillibrand are the ones that need the biggest swings.  They are on the outside looking in and among the most ambitious campaigns.  

Biden will keep the focus on Trump, who is a distraction. 

I dunno. Any dem candidate who spends his/her precious limited debate time with 16 people on the stage attacking another dem instead of trump in my opinion is making a big mistake. 

If you’re not Biden the goal in the beginning is to initially get in the top 3, not win the entire thing at first. You don’t do that attacking dems, you do that attacking trump.  Then once you’re the last 2 to 3 standing, then you go after the others by showing how you are different and better. 

That’ll be 9.95 please. Thx. 

[UTDD 362]

Speaking from someone in the "I'm doing fine in this economy and life is good camp" I am MUCH more nervous about Warren than anyone else because I believe she is competent, smart, and maybe the only candidate that would actually try and make significant changes to the country in a way that is more strategic versus over the top politically.  Maybe they would be good changes, and I am certainly open to that so it's both a good nervous and bad nervous, but anything that might severely rock the boat is always an unknown that makes me a little nervous because I am generally happy and satisfied in life overall for my family, etc.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

44 minutes ago, UTDD said:

Speaking from someone in the "I'm doing fine in this economy and life is good camp" I am MUCH more nervous about Warren than anyone else because I believe she is competent, smart, and maybe the only candidate that would actually try and make significant changes to the country in a way that is more strategic versus over the top politically.  Maybe they would be good changes, and I am certainly open to that so it's both a good nervous and bad nervous, but anything that might severely rock the boat is always an unknown that makes me a little nervous because I am generally happy and satisfied in life overall for my family, etc.

Elizabeth Warren vs Hillary Clinton. 

Who are you taking as president?  

Because Hillary was the ultimate “will not rock the boat” candidate.  Trump was the opposite.  The boat has capsized.  If the boat isn’t rocked back after Trump, we will continue to take on water and slowly sink. 

[UTDD 362]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Elizabeth Warren vs Hillary Clinton. 

Who are you taking as president?  

Because Hillary was the ultimate “will not rock the boat” candidate.  Trump was the opposite.  The boat has capsized.  If the boat isn’t rocked back after Trump, we will continue to take on water and slowly sink. 

I didn't mind Hillary's politics all that much, it was her character and honesty I questioned.  Even now I don't regret not voting for her as I think that poorly of her in terms of her character.  As for Trump, even he hasn't done anything so far that has severely impacted my own life negatively, but of course I recognize his character as extremely suspect to say the least and absolutely I am worried he will rock the boat further in such a way as to have severe negative impact.  So I'd probably vote for any current Dem candidate over Trump but even now I am not sure I would vote Hillary over Trump, that's how much I don't like her and it has nothing to do with politics.  I suspect my stance on Hillary was likely shared by enough people to possibly have made a difference in the 2016 election, but I really don't know that for sure.  I'd easily take Warren over Hillary on character alone before even getting to political issues at all.

[henrygandorf 29225]

14 minutes ago, UTDD said:

I didn't mind Hillary's politics all that much, it was her character and honesty I questioned.  Even now I don't regret not voting for her as I think that poorly of her in terms of her character.  As for Trump, even he hasn't done anything so far that has severely impacted my own life negatively, but of course I recognize his character as extremely suspect to say the least and absolutely I am worried he will rock the boat further in such a way as to have severe negative impact.  So I'd probably vote for any current Dem candidate over Trump but even now I am not sure I would vote Hillary over Trump, that's how much I don't like her and it has nothing to do with politics.  I suspect my stance on Hillary was likely shared by enough people to possibly have made a difference in the 2016 election, but I really don't know that for sure.  I'd easily take Warren over Hillary on character alone before even getting to political issues at all.

i had/have an extreme dislike for hillary, and i think your statement is most likely accurate.  one of my least favorite things about this administration, and there's a ton to choose from, is every time someone is insulting them, they insist it's just bitter people bent out of shape because of the 2016 election (not because of their actual behavior/actions).

i could see how unlikable she was, and the results didn't shock me that much.  there were plenty of people that felt like voting trump over hillary was choosing the devil they didn't know...and so forth.  most people did not see this shitshow coming.  i know i didn't.

people will not make that mistake again.

[JimmyJames 12271]

18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i had/have an extreme dislike for hillary, and i think your statement is most likely accurate.  one of my least favorite things about this administration, and there's a ton to choose from, is every time someone is insulting them, they insist it's just bitter people bent out of shape because of the 2016 election (not because of their actual behavior/actions).

i could see how unlikable she was, and the results didn't shock me that much.  there were plenty of people that felt like voting trump over hillary was choosing the devil they didn't know...and so forth.  most people did not see this shitshow coming.  i know i didn't.

people will not make that mistake again.

This is exactly correct and the reason why trump will lose. 

Hell even Dave Chappell said on national TV he’d give trump a chance. Hell even I did. My eternal optimism got the best of me. 

Hes been even worse than my worse nightmare could have imagined. The only thing holding him back is the institutions put in place centuries ago that he fights every day to destroy. 

I didn’t vote for trump, but more importantly, there are actually good people who normally vote R who won’t next time, the Johnny sacks of the world excluded.

But even more important than that is the millennios who are going to slaughter him in 2020, with an assist from my fellow generation x. 

This to shall pass. 

[zork 629]

imgur>

 

Spoiler

imgur>

 

 

[horncyclist 1391]

2 hours ago, zork said:

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

And he was only able to get that crowd by disguising the venue as a Luby's.

[Js1 87174]

Harris gets her moment against the grandpas. Either she’ll be forgotten or she will look way better than both  

Warren owns her stage 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

And the orange group is the first night.

Interesting split.

[henrygandorf 29225]

4 of top 5 grouped together.  could be a terrible night for biden (hope hope).

[Fozzz 152]

Tulsi gonna peg Beta onstage.  

[Js1 87174]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

4 of top 5 grouped together.  could be a terrible night for biden (hope hope).

Beto attacks Biden, immediately gets pushed into the other group.  Okay, NBC. 

[Js1 87174]

32 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And the orange group is the first night.

Interesting split.

Warren gets the chance to set the narrative and shine the first night

Harris and Pete get to contrast themselves against Bernie/Biden; Warren sits back hoping Harris/Pete/Bernie try and destroy Biden and she sits above the fray (probably writing her 77th plan for something)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Really couldn’t have worked out better for Warren.  Very pleased with the draw.

[henrygandorf 29225]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Really couldn’t have worked out better for Warren.  Very pleased with the draw.

for her it'll be about the expectation game.  she should dominate, and if she doesn't, that will be the story.  (i think she almost certainly will dominate)

unfortunately, there are 9 people in her debate that need to make moves in the worst way.  that could get annoying.

thursday night on nbc will be must-see tv, as per usual.

with 3 of the other top 4, nobody can accuse the dnc of making this easy for biden.  yang being there won't help either.  would love to see pete and yang get into a nerd-a-thon, but there will be too much other shit flying around.

i'm hoping joe public who only really knows biden/bernie will tune in and get to see pete for the first time.

[Js1 87174]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Really couldn’t have worked out better for Warren.  Very pleased with the draw.

It's funny that they picked which group was going first based on who would draw an audience.  They think pretty highly of her as the marquee member of that first night group. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's funny that they picked which group was going first based on who would draw an audience.  They think pretty highly of her as the marquee member of that first night group. 

are you saying they picked that group to go first because you think it's the bigger draw?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

are you saying they picked that group to go first because you think it's the bigger draw?

They want people to watch both nights.  That dictated the order. 

[Hank Kingsley 21752]

Right.  They put the heavyweight bout on the 2nd night as they know 1st night will get good ratings no matter what.