2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13484]

1 minute ago, Dertyberd said:

They're close to the historical norm, but those numbers don't add up the 3rd party candidates.  

All right, so were the 3rd party votes out of the norm?

Because at a certain point evidence is needed, right? It can't just be personal anecdotes and emotions, right? We should, in some way, be able to have something concrete and real to point to and say, "This is what happened and here is the evidence." It can't just be about who cries the loudest, can it?

Quote

The honorable thing was to work his ass off and use his clout to support the nominee.  He did neither.

Did Bernie do less work for Hillary than is normal for losing candidates to do for the winning candidate? Do you have any evidence on this of any kind?

Because, if I am not wrong in my numbers, I believe Bernie did 35+ campaign events for Hillary in 2016. On the other hand, Hillary did fewer than 15 for Obama in 2008.

If those numbers are real or even close, would you concede the point you are trying to make here? Or are you just so emotionally invested in it that reason and facts no longer matter?

Quote

 He continued to be a petulant bitch at the convention.

Well how can someone argue with this kind of reasoned analysis? So mature and thoughtful.

Quote

Those could've been stopped or cleaned up but the campaign made a choice to fester the anti Hillary bullshit.  

How does a campaign "clean up" outside groups? Be specific.

What candidate needs to come clean you and your garbage rage posting up? Which candidate is to be held responsible for you?

Quote

I don't know who you voted for, but you sure as shit spreading a dangerous line of thinking.

What is that? Be specific.

That the Clintons are terrible?

They are, my dude, and they aren't running for president.

Quote

Who do you think put that bug in Trumps ear to amplify the Bernie stuff.  It wasn't the stable genius himself.  

Ooooh, juicy... who was it?

[GSU&UT 1799]

nm, fuck Derty Berd looks like he's someone's sock. We've been through this a million times

Edited January 17, 2020 by GSU&UT

[bad_teammate 13484]

8 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

nm, fuck Derty Berd looks like he's someone's sock. We've been through this a million times

I live for doing the same arguments over and over. I don't care if it's Hugo's obvious Louisiana sock.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

‘Obvious Louisiana Sock’ would not be a good band name.  

[bad_teammate 13484]

I am a very real Bernie Bro from 2016 and I totally said, "Hey guys stop it!" and my fellow Bernie Bros who were also real said, "NO we are Russians and we hate minorities and women we will NOT stop being sexist."

I cried because of Cheeto Trump and they laughed and drew Communist swastikas on my eyelids while chanting, "Trump is GOOD, actually!"

And that's what I did on my summer vacation.

[washparkhorn 9968]

16 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

They're close to the historical norm, but those numbers don't add up the 3rd party candidates.  

The honorable thing was to work his ass off and use his clout to support the nominee.  He did neither.  He continued to be a petulant bitch at the convention.  His official groups, which I was invited on were run over by Russian bots and fanatics supporting Stein/Johnson etc.  Those could've been stopped or cleaned up but the campaign made a choice to fester the anti Hillary bullshit.  

I have yet to begin working yet as I have been out of the game for 2 years.  I'll let you know when I make my decision next week, but it won't be Bernie.

I don't know who you voted for, but you sure as shit spreading a dangerous line of thinking.  I never said 'you' did, but I saw your ilk infiltrate official forums, FB, and it worked.  The digital game is a lot more important than most realize, the Russians new it and exploited it.  Your type helped spread foreign bs throughout the last election and gave it a "legitimate" voice.   

The fact that no one has cleaned that up scares the shit out of me.  

Who do you think put that bug in Trumps ear to amplify the Bernie stuff.  It wasn't the stable genius himself.  

He did work his ass off for Clinton. Which makes me suspect you are not a close follower of Sanders. But I appreciate your opinion. Perhaps some research might help put you mind at ease. Cheers.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton

One of the many things that makes Donald Trump angry is that Bernie Sanders does not seem to hold grudges. In recent speeches, Trump has pointed to the information that has come out, through WikiLeaks’ disclosures of John Podesta’s e-mails, about the Clinton team’s attitude toward Sanders during the primaries: the slights (“doofus”), the schemes (“where would you stick the knife?”), and the eye-rolling (“socialist math”). Perhaps worst of all—at least from Trump’s point of view—was Donna Brazile’s passing along of debate questions. "Now, Bernie Sanders should be angry right? Shouldn’t he be angry?” Trump asked a crowd in Florida. He sounded a little bit puzzled—he would be so mad.

The truth is that Bernie Sanders is very, very angry—at Donald Trump. He is angry enough to have spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, speaking for her in union halls and arenas, to students and activists. When he talks, he is entirely Bernie—“We are going to fight for that democracy; we are not going to become an oligarchy”—and he hints strongly that he has done some negotiating with her before getting on the stage, and will continue to do so after, as he hopes, she is elected. When praising her positions, he often says “Secretary Clinton has told me” or “Secretary Clinton has promised,” as though he knows that it might not work, with the sort of swing audiences he is dispatched to persuade (students, working-class voters), simply to declare that taking these stands is in her nature. But he knows what he wants: for her to win. “This campaign is not a personality contest,” Sanders said near the beginning of a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Thursday night. “We’re not voting for high-school president. We’re voting for the most powerful leader in the entire world.” He had been introduced by Pharrell Williams, the musician, who was now sitting on the stage with Clinton herself, as if it were an actual high-school election. Statements like that serve to remind Sanders’s supporters that they don’t need to be charmed by Hillary Clinton—he is over it, and they ought to be, too. But, if personality doesn’t matter, the person does.

“There are many, many differences between Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump,” Sanders told the crowd. "But there is one that is very, very profound. Are you ready for a very radical thought right now? I don’t want anyone to faint! I think we have some paramedics here”—“paramedics here” is, it turns out, an excellent phrase for demonstrating a Brooklyn accent—“but I do want to make this announcement. Are you ready for it?” The crowd indicated that it was. "All right. Madam Secretary, you correct me if I’m wrong here; I don’t want to misspeak for you—Secretary Clinton believes in science!”

When the cheering had abated, Sanders continued, "I know I put her in a difficult position—2016, to believe in science, a little bit dangerous—but what the heck.” He then referred to her "very specific ideas” for combatting climate change, before turning to the mind of Donald Trump. “After years and years of studying the issue from a scientific perspective—I’m joking, I’m joking—he has concluded that climate change is a hoax emanating from China. Now, why he chose China and not Mexico or some Muslim country, I don’t know.”

That addendum, about Trump’s depiction of Mexicans and Muslims, is a reminder of why Sanders really isn’t joking; nor does he think that Trump is. One thing that Sanders saw, perhaps earlier than most people, is that Trump is both serious and dangerous. And he knows, from time spent with his own crowds, the strengths of the passions that Trump exploits when he talks about political corruption. Sanders is clearly outraged that a billionaire would try to be the spokesman for those grievances. It may also be that his historical perspective, which may give him too narrow a view in some areas, has left him distinctly well prepared to recognize the threat that Trump poses. Sanders does not treat a wealthy bully sowing divisions among the working class as a phenomenon entirely outside the tradition of our country’s politics—as the freak appearance of a buffoon. He does not look at Trump and wonder how someone so crass and demagogic could ever have disrupted the pageant of American society, which is and has always been great.

“I disagree with Donald Trump on virtually all of his policy positions,” Sanders said. "But what upsets me the most—what upsets me, it’s beyond disagreement—is we have struggled for so many years to overcome discrimination, and he is running his campaign, the cornerstone of which is bigotry. Now, as Americans we can disagree on many issues. But we have come too far—too many people have gone to jail, and too many have died in the struggle for equal rights. We are not going back to a bigoted society."

Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same. He made getting support for her his priority, putting aside any subtle, undermining gestures that might have better preserved his rebel-rock-star status. He has kept doing so despite other revelations in the Podesta e-mails, ones that are not about him personally but about issues that he believes in—for example, about money in politics, as exemplified by the Clinton team’s nurturing of donors. And he has earned the right to negotiate hard on such issues in the future.

As Sanders finished his speech in Raleigh—“We have to do everything that we can to elect Secretary Clinton!”—Clinton and Pharrell were on their feet, cheering. “Wow!” Clinton said, when she took to the rostrum. “Whew! I gotta say, after hearing from these two extraordinary men, I feel all fired up and ready to go for the next five days!” She knew what it was like to run against Sanders. Having him on her side was “a lot more fun.” A few hours later, Sanders was off on his own to Iowa. Trump is ahead in that state, in the latest average of polls, by about two and a half points. Sanders had three events scheduled for Friday—Cedar Falls, Iowa City, Davenport. On Saturday, there would be more.

Bernie Sanders Goes 'All In' for Hillary Clinton With an Eye Toward Post-Election Goals

 Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton stood side-by-side again Thursday at an event in Raleigh, North Carolina. They reminded the crowd of the long journey they’ve had -- sometime as competitors, sometimes as allies -- over this campaign.

“I’ve got to say,” Clinton said, turning to address Sanders. “This election’s been a lot more fun now that we’re on the same side.”

The independent Vermont senator smiled and bobbed his head. “I want to thank Bernie for everything he’s done,” she continued.

Sanders will campaign today for her in Iowa, the state that in many ways put him on the map during the primary race, where he came within a fraction of a point of beating her in their first-in-the-nation caucuses.

The stop is one of more than a dozen he has scheduled across the country this final week before the general election, from New Hampshire to Arizona, as he continues to rally support behind his former rival.

“No one can say he didn’t go all in, and if they do they are lying,” Pete D’Alessandro, Sanders former Iowa caucus director who is now working in behalf of the Democratic Party in the state, told ABC News. “It’s amazing what he’s doing.”

During the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this summer, D’Alessandro was one of many Sanders’ staffers who worked behind the scenes to temper emotions and disappointment felt by Sanders’ supporters and convince them, often one by one, to consider voting for Clinton.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-eye-post-election-goals/story?id=43300037

 

[bad_teammate 13484]

Great answer from Bernie on Trump's use of racism in the 2016 election and what he hopes for the 2020

"Do I think I'm going to win those people over? Nah, no way. But do I think we can get a sliver?"

[bad_teammate 13484]

Ladies and gentlemen, your unity candidate.

 

[bad_teammate 13484]

This story from unofficial Warren campaign spokesman Ryan Grim is an amazing case of burying the lead.

Headline: Bernie Sanders want(s/ed) to make Warren VP and treasury secretary at the same time.

Not surprising. Bernie has boosted Liz's political career from the beginning. He asked her to run in 2015. Blah blah we all know.

Now, Grim and other Warrenites like the Pod Save guys have been howling at the moon that we can't know that Warren leaked about their private conversation.

We can't know. We are assholes for saying it. How dare we, sirs!

But buried in this article...

Quote

NOT LONG AFTER meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it’s not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it’s rare.)

She's the one who leaked it.

Shocking, I know.

I think the most important takeaway here is the pervasive nature of access journalism and the rot that symbiotic relationship be between journalists and power players promotes.

This is the shit that makes normal Americans hate the media and politicians. This is the swamp.

Genius brains like the Pod Save Johns will laugh it off as naivete to expect anything different. If you argue it is bad, the genius brains will argue it is normal.

They aren't actually disagreeing, they're just wanting you to stop talking about it. It's their livelihood, so they need you to accept it.

We need to stop accepting this.

Edited January 18, 2020 by bad_teammate
Fucking Tapa

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bernie should never be president unless you want to see the Democratic Party turn into a Bernie cult.

[RayDog 682]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie should never be president unless you want to see the Democratic Party turn into a Bernie cult.

A Bernie cult is better than a right by wing corporatist Democrat cult.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

28 minutes ago, RayDog said:

A Bernie cult is better than a right by wing corporatist Democrat cult.

Nah. I’ll take Liz or Obama over Bernie any day.  I’d rather someone trying to improve the Dem party from the inside than someone trying to subvert it from the outside.   

[Zonahorn 8079]

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nah. I’ll take Liz or Obama over Bernie any day.  I’d rather someone trying to improve the Dem party from the inside than someone trying to subvert it from the outside.   

Oh, the irony coming from you.

[bad_teammate 13484]

1 hour ago, RayDog said:

A Bernie cult is better than a right by wing corporatist Democrat cult.

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nah. I’ll take Liz or Obama over Bernie any day.  I’d rather someone trying to improve the Dem party from the inside than someone trying to subvert it from the outside.   

 

[GSU&UT 1799]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Nah. I’ll take Liz or Obama over Bernie any day.  I’d rather someone trying to improve the Dem party from the inside than someone trying to subvert it from the outside.   

Love the extremely long history of the Democratic party really improving our lives with incrementalism. It's why DSA candidates aren't becoming more popular!

Edited January 18, 2020 by GSU&UT

[bad_teammate 13484]

The legacy of Obama is a bankrupt DNC and a decimation of Democratic power nationwide.

I can see why a libertarian like Hugo would be eager to see that continue.

[horncyclist 1391]

Love the extremely long history of the Democratic party really improving our lives with incrementalism. It's why DSA candidates aren't becoming more popular!

I don't see Liz an incrementalist and think she would get more change done than Bernie as President. Goals are not results.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[bad_teammate 13484]

I'd be interested to hear the full theory of change for each candidate from their boosters.

What, specifically, do you think Liz is going to bring to the table that will either break the gridlock in DC or remake the electorate?

[GSU&UT 1799]

4 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I don't see Liz an incrementalist and think she would get more change done than Bernie as President. Goals are not results.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

She's absolutely positioned herself as such, otherwise why start releasing plans where you're already set in a compromise of negotiating before even the first primary or caucus. At this point it's moot because unless polling is extremely inaccurate she doesn't have a chance.

If Bernie is antagonistic then that's fine, because a lot of us young people are tired of a party that refuses to adapt without someone from the outside mounting a tremendous amount of pressure on the party apparatus. He absolutely has a moment of behind him if you bother to look at any of his rallies or pulling among people who are less than 40.

Edited January 18, 2020 by GSU&UT

[washparkhorn 9968]

2 hours ago, RayDog said:

A Bernie cult is better than a right by wing corporatist Democrat cult.

Agree.  Even Milton Friedman understood the problem of corporatism .  .  . 

"One of the reasons I’m in favor of less government is because when you have more government, industrialists take it over and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer."
 

[David Dennison 19442]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'd be interested to hear the full theory of change for each candidate from their boosters.

What, specifically, do you think Liz is going to bring to the table that will either break the gridlock in DC or remake the electorate?

Gridlock will continue as long as the Senate has rules designed specifically to encourage compromise. They have to get rid of the filibuster. There is no political advantage to working across the aisle anymore.

[horncyclist 1391]

She's absolutely positioned herself as such, otherwise why start releasing plans where you're already set in a compromise of negotiating before even the first primary or caucus. At this point it's moot because unless polling is extremely inaccurate she doesn't have a chance.
If Bernie is antagonistic then that's fine, because a lot of us young people are tired of a party that refuses to adapt without someone from the outside mounting a tremendous amount of pressure on the party apparatus. He absolutely has a moment of behind him if you bother to look at any of his rallies or pulling among people who are less than 40.

This is wrong. She's rebounding in the poll averages. She's absolutely still in this. She needs to win Iowa.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[GSU&UT 1799]

Just now, horncyclist said:

This is wrong. She's rebounding in the poll averages. She's absolutely still in this. She needs to win Iowa.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

Lol okay dude

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

My #1 issue as a voter is the health of the DNC. #2 is kompromat. 

[bad_teammate 13484]

Gridlock will continue as long as the Senate has rules designed specifically to encourage compromise. They have to get rid of the filibuster. There is no political advantage to working across the aisle anymore.

So how does Warren get us to a place where the filibuster is gotten rid of?

[Bozo_Casanova 26775]

This story from unofficial Warren campaign spokesman Ryan Grim is an amazing case of burying the lead.
Headline: Bernie Sanders want(s/ed) to make Warren VP and treasury secretary at the same time.
Not surprising. Bernie has boosted Liz's political career from the beginning. He asked her to run in 2015. Blah blah we all know.
Now, Grim and other Warrenites like the Pod Save guys have been howling at the moon that we can't know that Warren leaked about their private conversation.
We can't know. We are assholes for saying it. How dare we, sirs!
But buried in this article...

NOT LONG AFTER meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it’s not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it’s rare.)

She's the one who leaked it.
Shocking, I know.
I think the most important takeaway here is the pervasive nature of access journalism and the rot that symbiotic relationship be between journalists and power players promotes.
This is the shit that makes normal Americans hate the media and politicians. This is the swamp.
Genius brains like the Pod Save Johns will laugh it off as naivete to expect anything different. If you argue it is bad, the genius brains will argue it is normal.
They aren't actually disagreeing, they're just wanting you to stop talking about it. It's their livelihood, so they need you to accept it.
We need to stop accepting this.

The two great gifts of the Trump administration to the American people are:
1) a reminder that civic participation is consequential
2) a major blow to access journalism and the return of an adversarial press

[washparkhorn 9968]

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

She's the one who leaked it.
Shocking, I know.
I think the most important takeaway here is the pervasive nature of access journalism and the rot that symbiotic relationship be between journalists and power players promotes.
This is the shit that makes normal Americans hate the media and politicians. This is the swamp.
Genius brains like the Pod Save Johns will laugh it off as naivete to expect anything different. If you argue it is bad, the genius brains will argue it is normal.
They aren't actually disagreeing, they're just wanting you to stop talking about it. It's their livelihood, so they need you to accept it.
We need to stop accepting this.

The two great gifts of the Trump administration to the American people are:
1) a reminder that civic participation is consequential
2) a major blow to access journalism and the return of an adversarial press

Well said.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20854]

I see that Bernie has at least been TRYING to make peace with Elizabeth.

https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-rejects-peace-pipe-offered-by-sanders


I hope she accepts his token offer.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I see that Bernie has at least been TRYING to make peace with Elizabeth.

https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-rejects-peace-pipe-offered-by-sanders


I hope she accepts his token offer.

A plausible explanation for the 2018 meeting is Warren met with Bernie in 2018 to look for his support and he told her something to the effect of, “I’m going to run because I’m not sure a woman could win.”  Not sure why that’s so hard to believe.

Bernie has been running a good cop (Bernie)  - bad cop (surrogates) campaign the whole time.  It doesn’t matter if she accepts anything.  She’s going to run her campaign and he his. 

I still think Bernie is selling snake oil just to be President.  He built his political career on railing against American institutions instead of improving them.  His pitch is basically,  “I can’t do government, I will need people to show up and intimidate lawmakers because, as my record shows, I’m terrible at building coalitions with lawmakers.”

But hey he’s still light years better than Trump and we’re probably fucked anyway so whatever. 

[henrygandorf 29223]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

This story from unofficial Warren campaign spokesman Ryan Grim is an amazing case of burying the lead.

lede. 

carry on. 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

lede. 

carry on. 

Point, henrygandorf. 15-0. 

[bad_teammate 13484]

I typed it out like that and changed it, thinking, Even I can't be this much of an asshole on purpose.

 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

The Bernie Liz stuff seems to be dying down a bit, let’s keep this train rolling. 

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I see that Bernie has at least been TRYING to make peace with Elizabeth.

https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-rejects-peace-pipe-offered-by-sanders


I hope she accepts his token offer.

ISWYDT

 

[bad_teammate 13484]

10 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

The Bernie Liz stuff seems to be dying down a bit...

Not if the liberal news media outlets can help it!

Can't wait for someone to bring on Miss Cleo to read a crystal ball to figure out just how dishonest Bernie is.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Surprising that Bernie hasn't taken a lie detector test on live TV administered by Jake Tapper and a former CIA operative on the board of Raytheon who has his own show on MSNBC where the only question they ask (in Russian) is "who do you hate more, women, minorities, or Democrats?" 

Pretty big misstep by his campaign. 

/Hugo'd

[bad_teammate 13484]

Here's my question:

Why hasn't Bernie gotten CNN and MSNBC to stop carrying this story forward?

Seems destructive on his part.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

The Bernie Liz stuff seems to be dying down a bit, let’s keep this train rolling. 

 

 

Funny because Warren’s speech was about advocating FOR the federal bankruptcy system which members of the Federalist Society were basically calling socializing failure.  She was defending a public institution that protects people and society from harm.

If you watch this and don’t come away with the conclusion that this lady is smart as fuck and on the side of protecting people from harm, I don’t know what to tell you.  She was there to educate them.

It’s cool that Bernie got arrested though. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not if the liberal news media outlets can help it!

Can't wait for someone to bring on Miss Cleo to read a crystal ball to figure out just how dishonest Bernie is.

This is some weird heinous shit. Won't be surprised if Reid jumps on the "he's an anti-semite" train soon. 

[bad_teammate 13484]

20 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This is some weird heinous shit. Won't be surprised if Reid jumps on the "he's an anti-semite" train soon. 

If Warren finishes like 4th in Iowa, Hugo is going to be posting excerpts from Protocols.

[bad_teammate 13484]

I would not give White House press credentials to any major media outlet that did not have a well-funded ombudsman. Shit like this would get networks put on probation and there would have to be some independent process to regain status.

Scum. Absolute scum.

Here's Joy Ann Reid lying out of her fucking ass about homophobic blog posts she wrote a long time ago. She blamed Russian fucking hackers. She says Russian hackers went deep into her blog archives and changed her posts.

Now MSNBC is paying her to bring on a witch doctor to analyze the (((body language))) of a presidential candidate.

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by bad_teammate

[David Dennison 19442]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Gridlock will continue as long as the Senate has rules designed specifically to encourage compromise. They have to get rid of the filibuster. There is no political advantage to working across the aisle anymore.

So how does Warren get us to a place where the filibuster is gotten rid of?

I don't think she does. I don't think any of them do. 

[bad_teammate 13484]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think she does. I don't think any of them do. 

Can you conceive of a way it could happen? Is it literally impossible for Democrats to retake the Senate?

[David Dennison 19442]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you conceive of a way it could happen? Is it literally impossible for Democrats to retake the Senate?

I think the Democrats can take back the Senate, but I don't see anywhere close to being enough public demand to get Democrats to change the rules of the Senate.

And that's a shame.

[henrygandorf 29223]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Even I can't be this much of an asshole on purpose.

yep, you really sidestepped that land mine. 

[bad_teammate 13484]

33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I think the Democrats can take back the Senate, but I don't see anywhere close to being enough public demand to get Democrats to change the rules of the Senate.

Why would public demand matter in this instance? It's not even legislation, it's just a Senate rules change.

Also, you're kind of side-stepping (👀) the larger question, which is about candidate theory of change. So there is a theoretical candidate that could help get a Dem Senate, is there a theoretical possibility that a candidate could motivate an upswell of "public demand"?

Like, what if there was a hypothetical candidate that motivated tremendous grassroots support across the entire nation and this hypothetical candidate ran his or her hypothetical campaign of being an organizing-focused president who would use his or her bully pulpit across the country for the express purpose of activating millions of Americans to progressive causes?

Theoretically.

Is that something that makes sense.

[David Dennison 19442]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why would public demand matter in this instance? It's not even legislation, it's just a Senate rules change.

Also, you're kind of side-stepping (👀) the larger question, which is about candidate theory of change. So there is a theoretical candidate that could help get a Dem Senate, is there a theoretical possibility that a candidate could motivate an upswell of "public demand"?

Like, what if there was a hypothetical candidate that motivated tremendous grassroots support across the entire nation and this hypothetical candidate ran his or her hypothetical campaign of being an organizing-focused president who would use his or her bully pulpit across the country for the express purpose of activating millions of Americans to progressive causes?

Theoretically.

Is that something that makes sense.

It makes sense, but there isn't a single candidate in the race capable of that. The closest thing we've seen in the last couple of generations was Barack Obama and you see how that turned out.

[bad_teammate 13484]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It makes sense, but there isn't a single candidate in the race capable of that. The closest thing we've seen in the last couple of generations was Barack Obama and you see how that turned out.

Obama was certainly capable, but he never ran on mass organization and mass mobilization as a part of his platform. In fact, he actively destroyed his own organizing team before the November 2008 elections by handing it all over to the DNC. Then he hung ACORN out to dry and let it die, as well.

His theory was that he was the guy. He was going to charm and charisma change into happening, and we fucking loved it and ate it up.

If he had tried, I think he would've gotten a lot more done.

But since you don't believe any candidate can actually do anything, what is your criteria for selection? Is it personal affinity or just kind of a gut feeling? Why are you even paying attention?

[David Dennison 19442]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Obama was certainly capable, but he never ran on mass organization and mass mobilization as a part of his platform. In fact, he actively destroyed his own organizing team before the November 2008 elections by handing it all over to the DNC. Then he hung ACORN out to dry and let it die, as well.

His theory was that he was the guy. He was going to charm and charisma change into happening, and we fucking loved it and ate it up.

If he had tried, I think he would've gotten a lot more done.

But since you don't believe any candidate can actually do anything, what is your criteria for selection? Is it personal affinity or just kind of a gut feeling? Why are you even paying attention?

I vote for the most liberal candidate that I like the most. I don't expect much from them legislatively as long as one or both houses are controlled by the other party.

In this case, I will vote for Warren unless it becomes apparent before the Texas primary that she has no shot at the nomination. In that case I will vote for Bernie.

In November, I will vote for Biden, unfortunately.

[bad_teammate 13484]

David's "Nothing Good Can Happen" view reminds me of this awesome Tweet from yesterday.