2020 Democratic Nominee

[HenryJames 67137]

6 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Fair enough. One person's progressive is another person's reactionary. Cheers.

Aren’t you the same guy on Hornfas who spent the 2000s defending Bush?

[bad_teammate 13485]

An Elizabeth Amy ticket would not be inconsistent with their worldviews. An all-women ticket would be energizing for some. 

Maybe in some fantasy football sense, but that's not how they're thinking.

I guess it helps that the NYT editorial board isn' going to be doing rallies. Imagine AOC hopping between Warren and Sanders rallies. lol

Those people really didn't like Pete. I was shocked at how negative they were and I think he was, too. Familiarity breeds contempt, I think.

[Bozo_Casanova 26775]

How did that work out for Lawrence Summers when he tried to neutralize West for the Establishment?
West has a wide following. The humans protect him. That irritates neoliberal thought that champions the ubiquity of every person. Doesn’t work with West (or any human in real life). 
 
humans>corps or ai - irl

I don’t care about any of that. Real life? Cornel West is an academic who dabbles in the entertainment industry while advising premium-cable-tier baby boomer lefties to vote for Jill Stein.

[Fozzz 152]

Quote

Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.

lol.  I guess her constant lying is a plus then.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html

[bad_teammate 13485]

Warren actually won.

 

[Js1 87031]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

[Brisketexan 106693]

I remember my sisters crying when McGovern lost. We are well right of that point in time now. The move to conservative neoliberal economics in the late 70's killed  progressive politicians. We need that spirit of possibilities back - as a nation.
Apologies for Sanders supporters who come on too strong. They are enthusiastic and that can be overbearing. Their hearts are in the right place. 

Are they?
The GOP has gone full-on death cult. They’re tracking perfectly the “rise of fascism” playbook, with a healthy bit of tracking the fucking Book of Revelations.
And the Dem response? Self-immolation via unrealistic purity tests.
Trump is going to be re-elected. Easily. And when we wonder why, we can just go back and read this thread to see the kind of thinking that got us there.
I expected this, but hoped it wouldn’t be the case. I continue to demonstrate my stupidity and naïveté by continuing to periodically have hope. What a stupid, stupid waste of my emotional energy.
Evil wins. It always will. Because “good” spends all if its energy infighting and finger-pointing, while evil gets shit done.
Enjoy November, guys. I sure won’t.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Where is Yang? Apparently he was singing in a choir at a Waterloo church yesterday-they invited him to join them as they sang. (I don't know if he actually sang or not)

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

 

[bad_teammate 13485]

I love Tom's pathetic energy

 

[washparkhorn 9968]

When Variety understands politics better than the NYT Editorial writers - we have a problem in journalism:

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-new-york-times-made-for-tv-endorsement-missed-the-mark-column-1203473013/

At some point during the New York Times’s special endorsement episode of its branded series “The Weekly,” the paper’s editorial board muses on the manner in which Donald Trump has changed how we envision what a potential president could look like. After the brief and energetic snippet we’re shown of a visit from candidate Andrew Yang, the room discusses how the primary process seems more open as more candidates see themselves as possible heads of state. Timesman Brent Staples jokingly admits to having half-considered a run himself: “I’ve thought that several times myself. I’ve thought, shit, you know?”

Like so much else on “The Weekly,” it’s a made-for-TV moment that either is or is not what the Times newsroom is really like. And like much on “The Weekly,” it leaves one wondering whether one hopes it’s massaged — if Staples, in this case, is playing to camera — or if it’s genuinely spontaneous, and wondering which would be better. As with most else in this episode, if this banal half-understanding of the state of the race even after having been granted the most extreme sort of access is the real tenor of conversation at the Times when cameras aren’t there, it’s dismaying. And if this is truly just a pose put on for the TV show about the Times, it suggests that Staples and colleagues have envisioned themselves in a seat Trump held before his seat in the Oval Office: That of reality-TV arbiter, a decider with power to move hearts and minds through televised charisma. The Times editorial board seems to want less to be a traditional media force than to have the new-media power of a decade and a half ago, to decide which Democratic candidate will be “The Apprentice.”

Spoiler

This was, an onscreen chyron informed us, the first of the Times’s endorsement processes to have been anything other than “private and off-the-record”; notably, it’s not described as transparent. What’s left in of the candidates seems as often to work toward whatever idea of them exists in the culture already: Yang, for instance, is asked softball questions about “what government secret” he’d like to know and which other candidate “understands the internet” by the board, a gentle prelude to the board dismissing him as unserious despite praising his “amazing energy.” (Fair enough! But why invite him at all only to broadcast Yang’s most surface-level observations.) Such light questioning can be used to gently roast — as when potentially valuable airtime is consumed in the explanation of the “Mayo Pete” meme to Pete Buttigieg — or to baste in adulatory light — as when Amy Klobuchar, randomly asked if she owns a smart speaker, explains, relatably if you already relate to her, that she used to play Christmas music on one but the Bluetooth made it hard to take calls from other senators. (“I don’t feel excited by him, there’s this block,” said the “Mayo Pete” interlocutor of Buttigieg. Even a Buttigieg detractor might find their way to thinking the candidate, like the rest of the field, deserved more serious consideration before an on-camera dismissal.)

Whether questions like “Do you own a smart speaker?” could find their way home to having somehow been germane when choosing a candidate is up for debate. But it seems apparent that the Times was more interested in producing an hour of television — one that depicted its journalists as plugged-in to something, if not the Democratic primary in 2020 — than an endorsement. To wit: After dishing about each candidate at some length after their appearance, the Times did not in fact choose a candidate at the end of their hour’s worth of entertainment, instead — in a twist! — picking two, representing two fairly different versions of power and of policy. The split decision between Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren makes literal the feeling in the air that the Times’s endorsement directs no one’s vote: In this case, it’d be impossible to vote for the Times’s slate without casting two ballots. The value of a Times endorsement, perhaps, redounds solely to the Times, reflecting its vision of itself and how it wants to be seen.

And in 2020, that seems to be in every different way, all at once, and — crucially — as much as possible. The Times is the paper whose journalists ask deadening trending-topic questions about memes and Bluetooth technology in place of anything more probing; it’s also the place where editorial board members of a slightly less bleeding-edge cast of mind suggest, in internal conversations, that a woman might be a risky endorsement because men don’t like to listen to them. It’s, indeed, a place where the likelihood that a candidate will do well takes almost supreme precedence in conversations about who ought to do well. And it’s a place whose decision-making process deserves to take up an hour of a news consumer’s time, even when the process goes significantly less deep even than this season’s debates and when the decision made is no decision at all.

Bless, in a way, the Times’s honesty in leaning into the sheer corn of it all; gathering up paper ballots and reading them to generate a “final four” — a term of art familiar, among other venues, from that other paper-ballot reality show “Survivor” — or asking candidates “who has broken your heart” in a manner that felt worthy of “The Bachelor.” (Both Cory Booker and Joe Biden gave serious and considered answers entirely tangent to this question.)

But “The Weekly” couldn’t keep up a tone of high-spiritedness for too long without jeopardizing the brand, and so defaults to what it does most, if not best — conversations between Times employees about the value and import of what they do. What no one on the show seems to get is that by booking every major presidential candidate and giving them equal time to the business of the Times newsroom, they reveal an editorial process that seems unbalanced, tipping over into a solipsism that feels worthy of reality TV but not of the newsgathering process.

 

[Fozzz 152]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Are they?
The GOP has gone full-on death cult. They’re tracking perfectly the “rise of fascism” playbook, with a healthy bit of tracking the fucking Book of Revelations.
And the Dem response? Self-immolation via unrealistic purity tests.
Trump is going to be re-elected. Easily. And when we wonder why, we can just go back and read this thread to see the kind of thinking that got us there.
I expected this, but hoped it wouldn’t be the case. I continue to demonstrate my stupidity and naïveté by continuing to periodically have hope. What a stupid, stupid waste of my emotional energy.
Evil wins. It always will. Because “good” spends all if its energy infighting and finger-pointing, while evil gets shit done.
Enjoy November, guys. I sure won’t.

Yeah, there was definitely no infighting or finger-pointing during the 2016 Republican nomination.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

@washparkhorn that was an interesting take from behind the scenes, thanks for posting it.

No longer in the race but a fun few minute scroll is this thread by Cory Booker's photographer from the campaign:

 

[washparkhorn 9968]

Booker remains a force for good.

[Brisketexan 106693]

Yeah, there was definitely no infighting or finger-pointing during the 2016 Republican nomination.  

Not among the base, there wasn’t. That’s what the Dems have yet to realize. They aren’t going up against a candidate, they’re up against a cult and its followers.
Meanwhile, the Dems destroy themselves and their candidates arguing about the intricacies about how to properly finance healthcare (seriously, they’re the equivalent of 500 different Protestant denominations, each condemning the other as heretical demons because they believe that preacher’s stoles should be floor length vs knee length) all while the GOP is charging full speed ahead on their platform of destroying the Republic.
Evil will win, because good is dumb.

[washparkhorn 9968]

The base of the Republican Party was despised by the legions of NeverTrumpers in 2016. That fired the base up even more. I appreciate your point and it will take a unified effort to beat Trump. The Trump base this election is fired up about impeachment. They will vote in record numbers.

The question for the Democratic nomination process is who will fire up the base and bring in new voters, in my humble opinion. There is only one candidate with that sort of passion behind him right now in the Democratic field. I am not sure any of the other candidates can tap in to that passion. Disregard them and the turnout will not be there. All need to start talking to younger Americans. They will inherit the future (and take care of you (or not) as the Silver Tsunami rolls in and all of the boomers, GenXers and even Millenials look to them for dignity in  your older years). They want to do the right thing. They have the passion to do the right thing. Time to step back and listen. 

[Message Board User 12405]

 

[Brisketexan 106693]

31 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The base of the Republican Party was despised by the legions of NeverTrumpers in 2016. That fired the base up even more. I appreciate your point and it will take a unified effort to beat Trump. The Trump base this election is fired up about impeachment. They will vote in record numbers.

The question for the Democratic nomination process is who will fire up the base and bring in new voters, in my humble opinion. There is only one candidate with that sort of passion behind him right now in the Democratic field. I am not sure any of the other candidates can tap in to that passion. Disregard them and the turnout will not be there. All need to start talking to younger Americans. They will inherit the future (and take care of you (or not) as the Silver Tsunami rolls in and all of the boomers, GenXers and even Millenials look to them for dignity in  your older years). They want to do the right thing. They have the passion to do the right thing. Time to step back and listen. 

Indeed.  And realize that not all of Gen-Z and Millenials are Bernie Bros.  

But who am I kidding?  There's only one candidate who will be accepted by the true believers -- anyone but Bernie will be an utter betrayal, and will be punished by votes for Jill Stein and such, guaranteeing us a second Trump term.  

I don't much care for having my vote courted by threat, and that's exactly what we're getting -- vote for Bernie or else.  This is how we lose.  It's always been how we were going to lose, and we're following the script perfectly.  The GOP doesn't need to do a thing, other than continue to suppress votes and enrage their base to amp up enthusiasm.  The rest of us?  We'll neuter ourselves on our own.

[bad_teammate 13485]

39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not among the base, there wasn’t.

Brisket, I know you have a gimmick to maintain, but this is one of the dumbest fucking things ever written.

Trump won the primary with something like 45% of the vote. Entire social media networks sprang up with the specific purpose of trolling cuckservatives. MAGA kids would literally stand outside Jeb! and Cruz rallies with signs and yell at Cruz supporters. You can go on YouTube right now and find video of Trump supporters goading Ted Cruz himself (not just supporters) into arguments and fights.

You're sitting on the ledge with a bunch of other conservative men specifically because of the war on your side and you're acting like there isn't a war.

Fuck off back to the ledge. Absolutely worthless insight.

[washparkhorn 9968]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Indeed.  And realize that not all of Gen-Z and Millenials are Bernie Bros.  

But who am I kidding?  There's only one candidate who will be accepted by the true believers -- anyone but Bernie will be an utter betrayal, and will be punished by votes for Jill Stein and such, guaranteeing us a second Trump term.  

Agree on young votes split. 

I am not sure the Bernie supporters are unreachable.

Remember more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary supporters voting for Obama in 2008. Hillary supporters who did not vote for Obama in 2008 were more "centrist" and believed Obama was too radical. And remember the rumors they started about Obama.

Both scenarios should cause concern (progressives voting for a centrist and centrists voting for a progressive) as Trump again has a passionate base. 

If passion is key to beating Trump, the Democrats would be better off voting for the more progressive candidate, as they did in 2008. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by washparkhorn

[henrygandorf 29223]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Remember more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary supporters voting for Obama in 2008.

you guys love that stat.  not sure it's relevant now.

hillary is not bernie, and mccain definitely wasn't trump.  it's been 12 years, and gosh, kind of a lot's happened since then.

[Brisketexan 106693]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Brisket, I know you have a gimmick to maintain, but this is one of the dumbest fucking things ever written.

Trump won the primary with something like 45% of the vote. Entire social media networks sprang up with the specific purpose of trolling cuckservatives. MAGA kids would literally stand outside Jeb! and Cruz rallies with signs and yell at Cruz supporters. You can go on YouTube right now and find video of Trump supporters goading Ted Cruz himself (not just supporters) into arguments and fights.

You're sitting on the ledge with a bunch of other conservative men specifically because of the war on your side and you're acting like there isn't a war.

Fuck off back to the ledge. Absolutely worthless insight.

And I expected this response from you.

BT gonna BT.   What I posted remains true.  The opposition to Trump is a hostage to Bernie Bros as much as the GOP was ever hostage to Trumpkins.  The GOP caved, and became a cult.  It had no choice.  Because if they HADN'T caved to the true believers, they wouldn't have had sufficient numbers.

And that's where the hardcore, zero-compromise "progressives" are insisting the Dems go -- cave to our demands, or else.  It's Bernie or death.  

Trump wins a second term.  You know it and I know it.  But hey, maybe your principles will keep you warm at night in the rubble.

[bad_teammate 13485]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you guys love that stat.  not sure it's relevant now.

hillary is not bernie, and mccain definitely wasn't trump.  it's been 12 years, and gosh, kind of a lot's happened since then.

Yes, people tend to like data over the hurt feelings of temporarily-not-conservatives. Weird how it works.

The throughline is race. The whiter the base, the more likely it is to move right when angered. Hillary's 2008 base was a lot whiter than her 2016 base. In the 2020 general election, the candidate with the whitest base is the one with the base most likely to move right in the general if their person doesn't win. (Old also matters here.)

Bernie's 2020 base is young and diverse. It's the youngest and most diverse of all. It is the least likely to move right in the general.

Just now, Brisketexan said:

BT gonna BT.   What I posted remains true.  The opposition to Trump is a hostage to Bernie Bros as much as the GOP was ever hostage to Trumpkins.  The GOP caved, and became a cult.  It had no choice.  Because if they HADN'T caved to the true believers, they wouldn't have had sufficient numbers.

That's not what you said. You said during the nomination. Which was/is a lie.

Quote

And that's where the hardcore, zero-compromise "progressives" are insisting the Dems go -- cave to our demands, or else.  It's Bernie or death. 

There is no actual evidence for this other than your latent conservative reflex desire to punch left. But that's OK, you're not alone. You're in a forum chock full of other temporarily-not-conservative dudes who are spending their entire vacation from Republicanism whining about the Dems being in disarray.

 

[Brisketexan 106693]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

 

There is no actual evidence for this other than your latent conservative reflex desire to punch left. But that's OK, you're not alone. You're in a forum chock full of other temporarily-not-conservative dudes who are spending their entire vacation from Republicanism whining about the Dems being in disarray.

 

No evidence for this?  Seriously?  You don't read....well....anything?

Plenty of Bernie Bros went for Jill Stein last time -- enough to turn the election, or damned close to it, in several states that mattered.  Hell, just read what they post all over Twitter, or what you post here.  The hatred and contempt for any candidate who...well....isn't Bernie....ain't exactly concealed.  That isn't going to go away when/if someone who isn't Bernie gets the nomination.  Enough of the Bernie base will stay home, vote for Jill Stein, and/or actively continue to attack and sabotage the Dem nominee, that Trump wins again.

And if all you can do is deem as a "temporarily not conservative" folks who actually support universal healthcare, oppose tax cuts for the rich and corporations, favor reasonable gun control measures, oppose tort reform and closing the courts to the people, support serious criminal justice reform, support decriminalizing drugs, etc....well then, you're fucked.   You're utterly fucked.  Because you're telling us that there is no center-left in this country, and there's no room at the table for those folks.  Just Bernie Bros -- take the blood oath or get fucked.  And on that, you don't have the numbers.  Trump and the GOP win, and they will keep winning, until there's nothing left worth fighting for anyway.

[GSU&UT 1799]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And I expected this response from you.

BT gonna BT.   What I posted remains true.  The opposition to Trump is a hostage to Bernie Bros as much as the GOP was ever hostage to Trumpkins.  The GOP caved, and became a cult.  It had no choice.  Because if they HADN'T caved to the true believers, they wouldn't have had sufficient numbers.

And that's where the hardcore, zero-compromise "progressives" are insisting the Dems go -- cave to our demands, or else.  It's Bernie or death.  

Trump wins a second term.  You know it and I know it.  But hey, maybe your principles will keep you warm at night in the rubble.

I hope you're out there campaigning hard as a mother-fucker for Bernie then if this is your logic.

  

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

No evidence for this?  Seriously?  You don't read....well....anything?

Plenty of Bernie Bros went for Jill Stein last time -- enough to turn the election, or damned close to it, in several states that mattered.  Hell, just read what they post all over Twitter, or what you post here.  The hatred and contempt for any candidate who...well....isn't Bernie....ain't exactly concealed.  That isn't going to go away when/if someone who isn't Bernie gets the nomination.  Enough of the Bernie base will stay home, vote for Jill Stein, and/or actively continue to attack and sabotage the Dem nominee, that Trump wins again.

And if all you can do is deem as a "temporarily not conservative" folks who actually support universal healthcare, oppose tax cuts for the rich and corporations, favor reasonable gun control measures, oppose tort reform and closing the courts to the people, support serious criminal justice reform, support decriminalizing drugs, etc....well then, you're fucked.   You're utterly fucked.  Because you're telling us that there is no center-left in this country, and there's no room at the table for those folks.  Just Bernie Bros -- take the blood oath or get fucked.  And on that, you don't have the numbers.  Trump and the GOP win, and they will keep winning, until there's nothing left worth fighting for anyway.

How many fucking times does this have to be pointed out, THIS HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. More Hillary supports went to McCain in 2008 than Bernie supporters to Trump. Maybe look to why young people like him so much instead of chastising everyone for daring to support someone who doesn't mind being labeled a Democratic Socialist.

Edited January 20, 2020 by GSU&UT

[washparkhorn 9968]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you guys love that stat.  not sure it's relevant now.

hillary is not bernie, and mccain definitely wasn't trump.  it's been 12 years, and gosh, kind of a lot's happened since then.

I understand your concern (Sanders voters will not vote for Biden). It would be nice if Bernie does not prevail if the nominee does what Hillary did in 2016 - give Sanders supporters some concessions. Bernie worked his ass off for Hillary in 2016 and he convinced the vast majority of his supporters to vote for Hillary (when one compares his results to those of Hillary in convincing her supporters to vote for Obama). 

And not to speak poorly of the deceased, but McCain would have been a warmonger disaster for this country. I know his views have been whitewashed, but he was a threat at the time. The smart left voted for Obama. Centrists - were less certain of Obama. 

[Js1 87031]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you guys love that stat.  not sure it's relevant now.

hillary is not bernie, and mccain definitely wasn't trump.  it's been 12 years, and gosh, kind of a lot's happened since then.

also not where it mattered. 3 states. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

We love that stat because it flies in the face of blaming Bernie Bros (that candidate who has more donations from women than any other) for Trump when in all actuality maybe the DNC could have not trotted out the most hot-shit candidate AND helping elevate Trump because thought he would be easily defeated.

[Brisketexan 106693]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I hope you're out there campaigning hard as a mother-fucker for Bernie then if this is your logic.

  

How many fucking times does this have to be pointed out, THIS HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. More Hillary supports went to McCain in 2008 than Bernie supporters to Trump. Maybe look to why young people like him so much instead of chastising everyone for daring to support someone who doesn't mind being labeled a Democratic Socialist.

If Bernie wins the nomination, he will get my support and some of my money, no question.  Because I fucking see the existential crisis we're in.  Many of his supporters, I fear, do not.

And I absolutely do see why many young people support him.  He offers hope, and a vision.  That's good.  I happen to think that much of it is an unrealistic vision, which can't and won't come to fruition.  Thus, I see a mirror image of Trumpism.  A lot of white Trumpists voted for him because he offered them a hope and a vision of an America THEY long for: an America where white folks ruled, jobs for folks with high school diplomas were great, etc.  But he was selling a pipe dream, too.  I'm pragmatic -- I know that they both can't deliver.  Bernie because of practical realities (although he can deliver on much more than Trump could), and Trump because they were always fantasies.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Think the Dems need a hail Mary candidate like Yang. 

Trump will beat out of touch and senile Biden easily. I'm a Dem but Biden is a trainwreck.

[henrygandorf 29223]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, people tend to like data over the hurt feelings of temporarily-not-conservatives. Weird how it works.

twelve year old data based on completely different data points.  weird how that always stays consistent.

i guess i just see a difference between hillary supporters in 2008 and bernie supporters in 2016/2020.

[GSU&UT 1799]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

If Bernie wins the nomination, he will get my support and some of my money, no question.  Because I fucking see the existential crisis we're in.  Many of his supporters, I fear, do not.

 

If you are outright blaming Bernie Bros for electing Trump, and defeating Trump is the most important thing to you, then you should be out there driving support for him among your middle-age to older crowd in Texas before Super Tuesday.

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And I absolutely do see why many young people support him.  He offers hope, and a vision.  That's good.  I happen to think that much of it is an unrealistic vision, which can't and won't come to fruition.  Thus, I see a mirror image of Trumpism.  A lot of white Trumpists voted for him because he offered them a hope and a vision of an America THEY long for: an America where white folks ruled, jobs for folks with high school diplomas were great, etc.  But he was selling a pipe dream, too.  I'm pragmatic -- I know that they both can't deliver.  Bernie because of practical realities (although he can deliver on much more than Trump could), and Trump because they were always fantasies.

People are out here refusing to go to the hospital because they can't afford their deductibles. It cost my wife and I over 6,000 dollars (not including premiums) for the birth of our daughter. Maybe take a step back and realize the candidate who is the only one truly pushing for a Universal Health Care system that mirrors much of the developed world is not saying anything that is unrealistic. What is unrealistic is thinking we can half-ass our way for another several decades while we do the absolute bare minimum to address climate change and the insane rising cost in our healthcare system.

[bad_teammate 13485]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No evidence for this?  Seriously?  You don't read....well....anything?

You lecturing me about left/Democratic politics is like you lecturing me about the economics of international O&G.

I don't come to the blowjob factory and slap the dicks out of your mouth, Brisket.

Quote

Plenty of Bernie Bros went for Jill Stein last time -- enough to turn the election, or damned close to it, in several states that mattered. 

Were the percentages of Bernie primary voters who went third party out of line with historical norms?

Jill Stein got 1.07% of the popular vote. She got basically 1/4th as many votes as Gary Johnson. She got 1/19th the votes of Ross Perot in 1992. She got 1/3rd the votes of Ralph Nader in 2000.

Jill Stein was a non-factor. The idea that her voters were just naturally owed to Hillary makes no sense. Why not Johnson voters? Why not non-voters?

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i guess i just see a difference between hillary supporters in 2008 and bernie supporters in 2016/2020.

Elucidate.

 

[Brisketexan 106693]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

If you are outright blaming Bernie Bros for electing Trump, and defeating Trump is the most important thing to you, then you should be out there driving support for him among your middle-age to older crowd in Texas before Super Tuesday.

People are out here refusing to go to the hospital because they can't afford their deductibles. It cost my wife and I over 6,000 dollars (not including premiums) for the birth of our daughter. Maybe take a step back and realize the candidate who is the only one truly pushing for a Universal Health Care system that mirrors much of the developed world is not saying anything that is unrealistic. What is unrealistic is thinking we can half-ass our way for another several decades while we do the absolute bare minimum to address climate change and the insane rising cost in our healthcare system.

And if you can tell me how a single person, as executive, in a FUNCTIONING Republic, can accomplish all of those things without building coalitions and working to create a solution with folks from a spectrum that MIGHT include a person or two who doesn't think EXACTLY as he does, you have my interest.

Of course, you also need to tell me how every other candidate in the party WON'T advance the ball in any such respect, because that's also relevant.  Note that I think that every one of the issues you cite is the real-deal, and absolutely must be policy priorities going forward.  But I also note that we need to have a surviving, functional government to do so, and that part is seriously in fucking doubt.

Sorry I'm a pragmatist.  I know that's not exciting or sexy, but it's damned sure realistic.

[bad_teammate 13485]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

And if you can tell me how a single person, as executive, in a FUNCTIONING Republic, can accomplish all of those things without building coalitions and working to create a solution with folks from a spectrum that MIGHT include a person or two who doesn't think EXACTLY as he does, you have my interest.

You need someone whose entire premise is building exactly those coalitions.

 

 

[Brisketexan 106693]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You lecturing me about left/Democratic politics is like you lecturing me about the economics of international O&G.

I don't come to the blowjob factory and slap the dicks out of your mouth, Brisket.

First campaign I ever worked for was a Dem campaign, but okay.  If you want me, and those like me -- folks who are part of a pretty broad center to center-left coalition -- to "sit down and shut up and do what we're told"....well, fuck you.  You are damned near everything that we hate about Trumpism, too.

And believe me, I am POSITIVE that you don't know a single thing about a proper blowjob -- on that point, I'm pretty comfortable with my certainty.

But if the point is, metaphorically, bringing the nation to climax....might I suggest cupping the balls instead of repeatedly punching them and shouting about how Bernie is the only way the recipient can get off, and you won't stop punching those balls until they admit that Bernie is the one true Fellater?

[Brisketexan 106693]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You need someone whose entire premise is building exactly those coalitions.

 

 

I don't give a flying fuck about premises or ideas.

Tom Herman's premise is "my offense will win titles."  Fuck that.

Reality on the ground is what matters.  Frankly, I don't have much hope about any of the Dem field in that regard, because I think the system is broken beyond repair, and as long as we have a functioning GOP,  we will not have a functioning Republic, but hey, keep dreaming.  I like dreams.  That's where I get my Sela Ward action.

[bad_teammate 13485]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

First campaign I ever worked for was a Dem campaign, but okay.  If you want me, and those like me -- folks who are part of a pretty broad center to center-left coalition -- to "sit down and shut up and do what we're told"....well, fuck you.  You are damned near everything that we hate about Trumpism, too.

If you truly believe this, then your actual critique of Trumpism is laughably shallow. Whatever bullshit you just quoted isn't actually real. It's your brain demons.

If you come in here saying the biggest and most active Democratic primary coalition is a "cult" don't fucking cry like a bitch when someone hits you back.

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Reality on the ground is what matters. 

also Brisket

Quote

Hell, just read what they post all over Twitter, or what you post here.

This is just about your social media hurt feelings. If it was actually about reality "on the ground" you'd see Bernie's fundraising and volunteer numbers and see what's plainly obvious.

 

[GSU&UT 1799]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And if you can tell me how a single person, as executive, in a FUNCTIONING Republic, can accomplish all of those things without building coalitions and working to create a solution with folks from a spectrum that MIGHT include a person or two who doesn't think EXACTLY as he does, you have my interest.

Of course, you also need to tell me how every other candidate in the party WON'T advance the ball in any such respect, because that's also relevant.  Note that I think that every one of the issues you cite is the real-deal, and absolutely must be policy priorities going forward.  But I also note that we need to have a surviving, functional government to do so, and that part is seriously in fucking doubt.

Sorry I'm a pragmatist.  I know that's not exciting or sexy, but it's damned sure realistic.

I love this disingenuous logic of "he can't get anything done so why would you vote for him?! We need a safe pick!" Why in the hell would I vote for anyone who is more safe in the primary if they don't align with my values? That's the goddamned point of a primary.

I want to dive public opinion so that my daughter doesn't grow up in a country that routinely bankrupts people over health issues. I want the one candidate who is going to fight the hardest regardless of what is eventually accomplished under a Sander's presidency. Yes I truly believe every other candidate will not move the needle nearly enough. No other candidate, including Warren, is pushing for a much needed fundamental change to our country's values than Bernie. 

Again, if your whole whiny point is that Bernie supporters gave Trump the presidency and they'll do it again then the most pragmatic and logical thing is to help Bernie win the primary. If that's not agreeable then go fuck off and stop questioning why millennials who will be paying off student debt into their middle-aged lives may not get that excited about another candidate. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by GSU&UT

[Brisketexan 106693]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Again, if your whole whiny point is that Bernie supporters have Trump the presidency and they'll do it again then the most pragmatic and logical thing is to help Bernie win the primary.

That.  Is.  FANTASTIC.

So, let me get this straight....if there's a faction that will make sure the destroyer of the Republic wins if they don't get their way, then the only rational thing do to is....support that faction?  That is ABSOLUTELY the Bernie bro message.

Fuck that shit.  Fuck political terrorists.

For fuck's sake, I actually LIKE the guy - don't agree with everything he has to offer, don't think he can get a lot of it done.  But I like him.  I just fucking LOATHE his supporters, for shit like the above.

Look, y'all are gonna do what you're gonna do.  You always were, and I never had any illusions that anyone was ever going to change that.  I've just called it like I've seen it, and will continue to do so.  I was one of the first folks around to say "President Donald Trump."  Hate my bona fides all you want, call me a non-believer, whatever.  I don't care.  I'm just watching what's happening, and what's been happening, and I'm telling you where it's going.  Hell, maybe I'm just making a record, so history doesn't write me down as an accomplice.  Trust me, I know that nothing I or anyone says or does will cause the Bernie crowd to alter their course even a millionth of a degree.  Y'all have made that abundantly clear.  We believe you.  Everyone believes you.

Let's see where that gets us.  I've made my prediction.

[BradInATX 9208]

Sanders people: "Vote for us or you will lose because a bunch of us have shown that we will pout and stay home or vote for the Green Party!"

Also Sanders people: "I'm appalled that people think we're divisive! How dare you!"

Edited January 20, 2020 by BradInATX

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

[tantric superman 4668]

So, Bloomberg/Sanders for the win?

[bad_teammate 13485]

Record-setting number of donors and volunteers? FUCK THAT
FOXNews crowds hooting and hollering for democratic socialist policy? FUCK THAT
A tremendously young and diverse voting base? FUCK THAT
Record-setting donation totals with zero PAC contributions, high-dollar fundraisers, and billionaire bundlers? FUCK THAT
The eager and active backing of the most energeticm, diverse, and youthful progressivism in Congress? FUCK THAT

Give me the REAL SHIT, like how NICE people are on the INTERNET! I'm a pragmatic fucking realist and we all know you can't get universal healthcare without BEING NICE TO ME ONLINE

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That.  Is.  FANTASTIC.

So, let me get this straight....if there's a faction that will make sure the destroyer of the Republic wins if they don't get their way, then the only rational thing do to is....support that faction? 

1) Do you believe that the Bernie Bros will sabotage any non-Bernie candidate? 
2) Do you believe that Trump will win if the Bernie Bros sabotage a non-Bernie candidate?
3) Do you think Trump winning is the worst outcome?

He's giving you basic pragmatic logic.

If you believe that the Bernie Bros will sabotage a non-Bernie and guarantee Trump a victory and you do not want a Trump victory, then you should try to get Bernie nominated so that doesn't happen.

You said that you're a pragmatist multiple times on this page. Do you know what "pragmatism" is?

Quote

Look, y'all are gonna do what you're gonna do.  

Vote for the non-Bernie Democratic nominee at higher-than-normal historical rates? Yep, that's probably going to happen again.

[GSU&UT 1799]

 

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That.  Is.  FANTASTIC.

So, let me get this straight....if there's a faction that will make sure the destroyer of the Republic wins if they don't get their way, then the only rational thing do to is....support that faction?  That is ABSOLUTELY the Bernie bro message.

Fuck that shit.  Fuck political terrorists.

For fuck's sake, I actually LIKE the guy - don't agree with everything he has to offer, don't think he can get a lot of it done.  But I like him.  I just fucking LOATHE his supporters, for shit like the above.

I love this too, you spend so much time, rightfully, complaining about Trump doing long-lasting damage to this country and (unless I've been mistaken) the single most important thing is making sure he doesn't get a second term. You then blame Bernie supporters for making this possible AND double down on it happening again. This is the logical conclusion, to make sure Bernie wins because the Bros will not vote anyone else.

To be perfectly clear, I am not expecting for you to vote for him on March 3rd, but don't be mad that that this is the argument you've left yourself with.

Finally I voted for Bernie in 2016 the Hillary and will vote for whoever the nominee is. I am not going to whine at the multitude of reasons why some may not choose to do so because it's likely their lives are much worse than mine.

Edited January 20, 2020 by GSU&UT

[Zonahorn 8079]

Why people refuse to blame trump supporters for electing trump eludes me.

[Brisketexan 106693]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

This is the logical conclusion, to make sure Bernie wins because the Bros will not vote anyone else.

Yep.  I can't POSSIBLY see why millions of voters would be ripshit pissed at being given a choice between which political terrorist movement to vote for.  That's AWESOME!  We should be GRATEFUL for the chance!

Bernie's a lot like Jesus, I guess.  I like the guy....but his supporters have a sizable faction that sucks.

I knew what I was getting even wading back into this thread, and I'm utterly unsurprised.  Y'all keep on keeping on.