2020 Democratic Nominee

[BradInATX 9,208]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure I did. Sorry you didn’t like the answer. I’ll be more succinct. Yes it is closer. Especially with Joe Biden as your torchbearer. What will the public option tell the poor people who can’t afford the public option Brad? What the public option will tell them will be closer to “let the poors die” than a guaranteed universal program.

 Every public option proposed by the non M4A candidates includes means testing the premiums so that those who can't afford it won't pay it. Look, I generally agree with what you say about Bernie. And the primary exists to understand whether the left is ready for him yet. He'll get, and he deserves his shot. But your "I'll stay home" stance is beyond childish. It's why Bernie's supporters, and perhaps, unfairly, Bernie, gets a bad rap. You should try to be a better steward of his cause. It's what he would want you to do.

[Message Board User 12,389]

Uh oh.

 

[Message Board User 12,389]

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Trump is strong and very popular among his base. He is going to turn out a HUGE number of voters. We are going to win on enthusiasm and voter turnout. We need the black vote to be at Obama levels again. We need young people to show up. We need the Hispanic vote. We need a coalition to fight the white tide.

So while I would agree that Joe is a safe-ish pick for simply winning the election, I am ~*cOnCeRnEd*~ about the complete lack of enthusiasm towards him from the populace. It just feels like he's a stagnant thing that won't be able to build real momentum and he'd be going up against an extremely dynamic personality and voter base in the general.

Are odds good that Joe could just hold the line and win a war of attrition against Donald? Yes
Are odds good that Joe will ignite a passionate wave of voter enthusiasm that will not only win the election but bring in the power necessary to Congress to enact real change? Ehhhhhhhhhh

[Jhawk 1,075]

Its weird to me that B_T believes there is no way for trump to win but then says blacks need to show up at the same rate they did for Obama. There is zero chance that happens and on top of that, Emerson, Marist, and rassmussen all have trump in the 30% or greater level of approval from African Americans.

the reason the Virginia polls are the way they are is because the dems have 100% control of the VA government and are threatening to make certain citizens felons on 1/20. They are organizing militias for fucks sake. You think those people aren’t ready to vote?? It is comical that someone said “moderates” are ruining the country. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Too far right got us a swing to the left. Certain states swinging left is getting hard push and enthusiasm from the right. Imagine that? If VA falls you can 100% put it on coonman and the dems and a policy (in this case 2A) that is not acceptable to the citizens. Push policies that aren’t wildly acceptable (M4A, guns confiscation, unabated immigration) and you will get push back. You will do one of two things:

1. Marginalize the middle and they don’t participate. 

2. Enthuse the opposition. 

When elections are won by 2-4% of the population then you can’t afford to do either of these items. You do both and you’re going to get smoked. 

But nawww trump doesn’t stand a chance. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

I've been high on Trump's electoral power since 2015 when he was drawing thousands of hooting fans to every rally and everyone was dismissing him as a joke. I probably watched 15+ of his rallies and told every Republican friend I had (all Cruz guys) that Trump was going to win their nomination and they couldn't believe it. (I was not surprised that he did well in the general, but shocked that he won.)

He has great odds to win. His fanbase is just as in love with him as ever, thousands of never-Trump Republicans have come home to daddy, and he's got the incumbency advantage.

Clinton won Virginia by 5.3%. If we're worried about Virginia then we're fucked.

Trump won EV 306-232

Here are the swings.

Michigan (16 EV) - Trump won by 0.3% (Clinton lost this state in the primaries)
New Hampshire (4 EV) - Clinton won by 0.4% (Clinton lost this state in the primaries)
Wisconsin (10 EV) - Trump won by 1% (Clinton lost this state in the primaries)
Pennsylvania (20 EV) - Trump won by 1.2%
Florida (29 EV) - Trump won by 1.2%

Blue Wall Reclamation Project:
Retake Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn: Trump 260, Dem 278

Other close states Trump won:
North Carolina (15 EV) - Trump won by 3.8%
Arizona (11 EV) - Trump won 3.9%

An interesting thing with Joe is that he could essentially use one base to win the primary (older blacks) and then abandon them to go after Obama->Trump whites in the Blue Wall. (Trump won South Carolina by 14.2%, but Joe is VERY strong there in the early primary and it's a firewall for him.)

A hilarious irony would be for Biden to lose Michigan and Wisconsin to Bernie in 2020, win the nomination anyway, and then go on to lose those states to Trump again. 2016 REWIND for real

[henrygandorf 29,179]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

~*cOnCeRnEd*~

if i donate money to bernie, can you knock this 8th grade nonsense off?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

18 hours ago, Dropout said:

And the olds are ~38% leaving gen x to decide. Judging by this thread fuck me.

If the polls are underestimating anyone it’s Bernie. He is capable of winning 3/4 early states and picking up delegates in SC. He will win California. He is the only one in this race capable of being any sort of standard bearer for good. 

You come in here defending the honor of Joe Biden. One can only assume. Another thing I assumed you ask? You wouldn’t mention the name Bernie Sanders in front of your friends. So how could you convince them? You can barely convince yourself. It’s obvious from your post we come from two different worlds.

The moderate wing has been an accomplice to the decay of this country. The people stand between anyone ramming anything down our throats. I mean this is still America amirite?

Gen X leans left even if it isn't way left.  The real problem in the primary is that Warren and Bernie are going to cannibalize one another. No legit moderate has stepped up to take Biden votes away. I am kind of surprised Booker doesn't get more moderate traction though. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Buttigieg is first out of the gate with Q4 numbers.

$24.7M from 326k donors

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,359]

On 12/30/2019 at 10:36 PM, Brisketexan said:

You mean the significant enough percentage that either a) voted for Trump out of rage and protest, or b) votes for Jill Stein, or c) didn’t show up on Election Day to support the dem at all? When any one of those three groups was enough to turn the election in the crucial swing states?

This is our concern, dude. We the people have only two choices: nominate Bernie, and re-elect Trump because we won’t get any swing voters/moderates, or don’t nominate Bernie and re-elect Trump because enough Bernie bro’s will repeat their 2016 actions. Hell, I kinda like the guy, and appreciate what he adds to the conversation, but Bernie bros have made Bernie a poison pill that will kill the chances of a Dem president no matter what happens. That sucks. And yeah, BT will scream about how that’s not what happened or what will happen, when both are true.

I think Bernie can beat Trump but the negative consequences of his presidency could cripple the progressive movement in the Democratic Party and make lasting tangible policy wins more difficult to achieve simply because of petty bad blood and Bernie’s stubbornness. 

Bernie is a great activist/organizer but I have plenty of reasons to believe he would be an ineffective administrator.  I also think he would make appointments and inside hires based on loyalty to Bernie over qualifications/experience.  

Edited January 1, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Hugo, what is your impression of Bernie's operation as a representative in the House and Senate? Is he known as a stubborn person who refuses to work with others?

I think you guys, either purposefully or accidentally, confuse Bernie Sanders with people you don't like on Twitter who like Bernie Sanders.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,359]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hugo, what is your impression of Bernie's operation as a representative in the House and Senate? Is he known as a stubborn person who refuses to work with others?

I think you guys, either purposefully or accidentally, confuse Bernie Sanders with people you don't like on Twitter who like Bernie Sanders.

What is Bernie’s crowning achievement as a legislator other than opposing all the bad things?  

My assessment of Bernie could be wrong and he might make a fantastic president, it’s just not the vibe I get from the people he hires and the way he operates.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What is Bernie’s crowning achievement as a legislator other than opposing all the bad things?

That's a separate question.

You referenced "Bernie's stubbornness", and I don't know what you're referencing. I don't think you know what you're referencing, either.

Bernie is known as someone who works with others and who uses the process to get good things (including being the "amendment king" of the House, including 49 passed while it was controlled by Republicans).

He worked with McCain on veteran's affairs. He worked with Rand Paul on government surveillance. He worked with Mike Lee on the war in Yemen.

He's obviously not a non-partisan centrist, but the idea that he is incapable of effectively legislating due to stubbornness is unfounded.

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

... it’s just not the vibe I get ...

Our nation doesn't deserve better than what we have now.

[henrygandorf 29,179]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Buttigieg is first out of the gate with Q4 numbers.

$24.7M from 326k donors

wow, even after all the refunds?  this can't be right.

[Js1 85,115]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

wow, even after all the refunds?  this can't be right.

Billionaires weren’t asking for refunds 

[henrygandorf 29,179]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Billionaires weren’t asking for refunds 

billionaires are notoriously cheap.  you don't know them like i know them.

[workswithseed 2,037]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

billionaires are notoriously cheap.  you don't know them like i know them.

You a billionaire or something?

[BradInATX 9,208]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My assessment of Bernie could be wrong and he might make a fantastic president, it’s just not the vibe I get from the people he hires and the way he operates.  

Sounds like you're engaging in punditry.

[Dbeasy 14,970]

You a billionaire or something?

Yes, I am something.

[workswithseed 2,037]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Yes, I am something.

Hey, something. I'm workswithseed.

[ChiTownDoc 21,102]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

billionaires are notoriously cheap.  you don't know them like i know them.

Really?  I have yet to see any Warren Buffet types in real life.  They hate losing money for sure - at anything...but spend like crazy.  Full disclosure, not close friends but live with a few here and a few have units at our place in Miami.  From what I see, not much being cheap.  

Now if you're talking about negotiating fees on investments etc...yes, but cheap like tipping?  Not that kind of cheap.  I guess I'd go with shrewd.   

[henrygandorf 29,179]

it was really just a joke, because i'm a pete guy, but i'm enjoying the direction this is going.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

6 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I don’t think that is evidence of billionaires pumping up Pete for two reasons:

1. Those 326,000 donors averaged a $75 donation, and I don’t think those figures include PAC money so individual donations are capped anyway. 

2.   Pete isn’t going to win the nomination, he would probably lose to Trump the worst of all of them if he somehow did win the nomination, and billionaires don’t gain anything from buying access to the fucking mayor of South Bend, Indiana.  “Oh, even if he loses, it’s still worth the donation so he will owe me one if I ever want a building permit for a Dairy Queen.”

He's not the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. But he IS a young gun with huge exposure who will spend the next 50 years advocating corporatist policies within the Democratic party. He'll be a fantastic ally for the worst part of the Democratic party for decades to come.

[henrygandorf 29,179]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He's not the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. But he IS a young gun with huge exposure who will spend the next 50 years advocating corporatist policies within the Democratic party. He'll be a fantastic ally for the worst part of the Democratic party for decades to come.

hi, i'm bad teammate, and all my opinions are facts.  kthxbai.

[Message Board User 12,389]

 

[Js1 85,115]

 

 

[Js1 85,115]

$16.5m in Q4 for Yang

$34.5m in Q4 for Bernie

Santa was generous this Christmas 

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Bernie has over 5 million individual contributions as well, just crushing it.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

300k new donors for Bernie in Q4. I'm surprised, because I honestly expected this to just be the Bros selling bone marrow at this point.

[Js1 85,115]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

300k new donors for Bernie in Q4. I'm surprised, because I honestly expected this to just be the Bros selling bone marrow at this point.

Take the marrow from the back of my knees, I need to donate more! 

[Guest Lobo]

Sad to see Castro bow out, he was the only democrat in this race I donated to.  
 

booker will likely be out within 60 days leaving an extraordinarily white Democratic race since y’all won’t claim Yang as a Democrat because he’s too rich.  At least the GOP has the diversity to run a ticket of a person of color, albeit orange and a homosexual.  

[Js1 85,115]

We don’t claim Yang Bc he’s rich? Did you make that up in your head? 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Right-wingers trying to weaponize identity politics all over the place lately.

[Rougarou 594]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Right-wingers trying to weaponize identity politics all over the place lately.

I agree, but brushing that aside do you think that not having a minority in the top 5 (heck, top 10) of the Dem primary, in the year 2020, is not problematic? Or are you of the mind, win at all cost and then make the changes a la a "Land and Expand" model?

The most interesting aspect of identity politics to me is how little being a gay man matters in 2020. You'd think it would be a flag, no pun intended, to rally around for a lot of identity and politically aware, correct and woke people would get behind, but just being a gay man seems to be a nothing-burger if that is all you got going for you. I think that shows how much progress teh GLBT movement has made in America.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Rougarou

[RDCanecutter 26,284]

17 hours ago, workswithseed said:

You a billionaire or something?

Given some currencies in the world, sure.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, Rougarou said:

I agree, but brushing that aside do you think that not having a minority in the top 5 (heck, top 10) of the Dem primary, in the year 2020, is not problematic?

Only as it is representational of our historical oppression of minorities and their inability to get a foothold in power. In the specific point of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker not taking off, no, I don't think that really indicates anything problematic about the party or its voters beyond the general problematic nature of Americans in general. And this is the better half of Americans on race, by far.

I'm not an identity politics guy. I think the issues that impact minority communities are profoundly important and should be at the center of any candidate's platform. I prefer an old white Jew whose policy platform would materially and structurally benefit oppressed communities than a representative from those communities whose policy platform would benefit those communities less.

If either Booker or Harris had gained overwhelming black support, woke libs would've followed right along and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Black voters have tremendous power and the older ones choose Biden and the younger ones choose Bernie. Them's the breaks sometimes.

[workswithseed 2,037]

15 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I agree, but brushing that aside do you think that not having a minority in the top 5 (heck, top 10) of the Dem primary, in the year 2020, is not problematic? Or are you of the mind, win at all cost and then make the changes a la a "Land and Expand" model?

The most interesting aspect of identity politics to me is how little being a gay man matters in 2020. You'd think it would be a flag, no pun intended, to rally around for a lot of identity and politically aware, correct and woke people would get behind, but just being a gay man seems to be a nothing-burger if that is all you got going for you. I think that shows how much progress teh GLBT movement has made in America.

 

Not even most us right wingers care. Then again I'm in Portland, so it might be skewed, but I haven't heard anything said by my family or friends in Texas. 

It helps he's not bashing you over the head like a weapon, other when he attacked Pence out the of nowhere. Even though Pence never made a nasty comment about the man. 

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Only as it is representational of our historical oppression of minorities and their inability to get a foothold in power. In the specific point of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker not taking off, no, I don't think that really indicates anything problematic about the party or its voters beyond the general problematic nature of Americans in general. And this is the better half of Americans on race, by far.

I'm not an identity politics guy. I think the issues that impact minority communities are profoundly important and should be at the center of any candidate's platform. I prefer an old white Jew whose policy platform would materially and structurally benefit oppressed communities than a representative from those communities whose policy platform would benefit those communities less.

If either Booker or Harris had gained overwhelming black support, woke libs would've followed right along and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Black voters have tremendous power and the older ones choose Biden and the younger ones choose Bernie. Them's the breaks sometimes.

Word up.

[SimonBolivar 10,933]

32 days until Iowa. We're getting there and I may not like what happens in the primary season, but at least we'll be talking actual shit happening soon.

[henrygandorf 29,179]

according to cnn, bernie had 40,000 new donors on new year's eve alone.  that's awesome.

well done, new bro's.

[Js1 85,115]

Trump - 46.5mm

Dems announced so far - $78.9m

[RomaVicta 29,796]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Trump - 46.5mm

Dems announced so far - $78.9m

Two things:

Is there comparison stat with the opposite party field vs a president seeking reelection?

Is the Trump figure adjusted for how much will be illegally siphoned off for the family and paying off porn stars?

[Brisketexan 104,631]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Two things:

Is there comparison stat with the opposite party field vs a president seeking reelection?

Is the Trump figure adjusted for how much will be illegally siphoned off for the family and paying off porn stars?

The Trump figure does NOT include donations from foreign donors/governments to entities like the NRA, Liberty University, Prager U, and other advocacy groups that will spend millions on disseminating Trump propaganda in this election cycle.

Campaign donations are only where the action is if you're looking at people who aren't all-in on corruption.  Otherwise, campaign donations are a sideshow.  The real action is elsewhere.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Bernie has the "sitting alone on new year's eve" incel crowd on lock. 

Edited January 2, 2020 by BradInATX

[henrygandorf 29,179]

10 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Two things:

Is there comparison stat with the opposite party field vs a president seeking reelection?

Is the Trump figure adjusted for how much will be illegally siphoned off for the family and paying off porn stars?

there's also the rnc funds, which is basically creep.  that was something i always noted in all the president's men, when they were asking about creep and the money and the nixon whitehouse.  someone (maybe hugh sloan) was like, "you have to understand, the white house and creep are not independent operations.  the admin controlled the funds.  i'm sure it's much worse now, and everything on the red side of the aisle is completely accessible by trump's people.

that said, i know actblue and the dnc raises its own money (you can contribute to the committee itself, and they'll use it where it needs to be used i assume).  considering how trump will use his money, will the dnc have a warchest ready for whomever the nominee ends up being?  does that cross some sort of purity-test boundary for bernie/warren?  i really hope it doesn't, because we'll need all the help we can get in the general.

[RomaVicta 29,796]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

The Trump figure does NOT include donations from foreign donors/governments to entities like the NRA, Liberty University, Prager U, and other advocacy groups that will spend millions on disseminating Trump propaganda in this election cycle.

Campaign donations are only where the action is if you're looking at people who aren't all-in on corruption.  Otherwise, campaign donations are a sideshow.  The real action is elsewhere.

It's out of control. The electorate has been offered proof that it's out of control. Too few see it as even a bad thing. Just win baby!

Let's pat Greta Thunberg on her head and celebrate her efforts for two seconds and then back to the mac and cheese with the TV blaring a kid movie in the background. 

 

Without the GOP, the US could have taken the world lead in addressing world problems. Imagine, taking the lead through sound policy rather than waving the threats of tank battalions or incarceration at the evil brown people.

And the band plays on.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

16 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Bernie has the "sitting alone on new year's eve" incel crowd on lock. 

smol pp

[406W30th 1,111]

38 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

The most interesting aspect of identity politics to me is how little being a gay man matters in 2020. You'd think it would be a flag, no pun intended, to rally around for a lot of identity and politically aware, correct and woke people would get behind, but just being a gay man seems to be a nothing-burger if that is all you got going for you. I think that shows how much progress teh GLBT movement has made in America.

 

My queer friends don't see Pete as anything but a white, cisgender man who's never presented as queer, therefore they don't see him as an ally. That's not to say he hasn't had a harder life than many, given the hardship of internally struggling with one's sexuality – especially as someone whose image must be cultivated in order to achieve his ambitions of reaching elected office – but he's spent the majority of his life basically doing his best not to have his sexuality noticed. 

On top of that, his policies are Republican-lite and he's hardly been a champion for the oppressed. That's not going to get you support from the left. 

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

28 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

My queer friends don't see Pete as anything but a white, cisgender man who's never presented as queer, therefore they don't see him as an ally. That's not to say he hasn't had a harder life than many, given the hardship of internally struggling with one's sexuality – especially as someone whose image must be cultivated in order to achieve his ambitions of reaching elected office – but he's spent the majority of his life basically doing his best not to have his sexuality noticed. 

What a weird thing to be upset with him about.

[BradInATX 9,208]

31 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

 but he's spent the majority of his life basically doing his best not to have his sexuality noticed.