2020 Democratic Nominee

[David Dennison 18,946]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Taking a flyer is pretending a Hilary-type nominee can beat Tump. Didn't work in 2016. Why would it work today?

Seriously - tell me why a Third Way Democrat in 2020 will beat Trump when a Third Way Democrat lost to him in 2016?

That appears to be the definition of insanity, especially as Third Way candidates have become more and despised since 2009.

The establishment is trying to protect its wealth. This has everything to do with money.

[Dropout 355]

I’ve been waiting to enjoy this view for awhile now. Relax and don’t go all Chris Matthews on me. Can’t wait to welcome and call you all Bernie Bros. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And she should drop out and fully support Bernie Sanders after she gets her clocked cleaned tonight and in New Hampshire.

Oh yeah, she should totally drop out if she loses in two small states which have a combined delegate total that is two thirds of her home state. 

Nobody is dropping out until after super Tuesday. Bernie is never going to drop out even if he trails Warren at that point and will hand the nomination to Biden while doing so. Warren will drop out if she trails Bernie.

[David Dennison 18,946]

2 minutes ago, Dropout said:

I’ve been waiting to enjoy this view for awhile now. Relax and don’t go all Chris Matthews on me. Can’t wait to welcome and call you all Bernie Bros. 

In a perfect world, everyone not named Sanders and Biden drops out after tonight so the party can get the actual fight over with as quickly as possible before people get so mad that they don't support the eventual nominee.

I'm worried that it's already too late. 

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

15 minutes ago, troph said:

You can argue all you want. I know you and bt are always right about this stuff, but millions of us - a lot of us Warren supporters - see it, we say it, and we are told by guys like you we are just simply wrong.

Then let's not get into it. Vote with your conscience and be adaptable to change. 

I believe in the Elizabeth Warren of 2008. Her voice was necessary and it was progressive in calling out the structural failure of unconfined greed. 

Cheers.

Edited February 3, 2020 by washparkhorn

[bad_teammate 13,224]

39 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

You realize attacks are much more effective when they’re actually true, right?

 

Tell me the voter profile you're imagining with this.

Quote

On the other hand, with Bernie they can point to him doing actual crazy communist things for decades.

Like?

[Message Board User 12,396]

19 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Bernie Sanders is not like JFK or LBJ, or even like FDR.  And, yes, he actually was a supporter of Marxist parties in the 80s.  He’s just smart enough to rebrand himself with better sounding words now.

Then again, maybe we don’t understand.  A majority of people, when asked if they would like Medicare for All (without defining what M4A specifically means or mentioning any of the tradeoffs that come with it), said they were for it.  Ergo, there is no downside risk to nominating a guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union during the Cold War and wants to fundamentally transform the American economy.  He’s just like JFK.

What’s funny is that if Bernie is the nominee and gets clobbered in November, his supporters will blame the general election voters for being out of touch without a hint of self reflection.

[Message Board User 12,396]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

In a perfect world, everyone not named Sanders and Biden drops out after tonight so the party can get the actual fight over with as quickly as possible before people get so mad that they don't support the eventual nominee.

I'm worried that it's already too late. 

 

The convention is going to be an absolute circus no matter who is the nominee.

 I’m sure the Squad (tm) will do their part in reaching out to swing voters.

[Dropout 355]

3 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

What’s funny is that if Bernie is the nominee and gets clobbered in November, his supporters will blame the general election voters for being out of touch without a hint of self reflection.

You’ve just described what’s actually happened for centrists and corporate democrats. Not imaginary like your scenario.

[Aqua Buddha 14,608]

22 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Taking a flyer is pretending a Hilary-type nominee can beat Tump. Didn't work in 2016. Why would it work today?

Seriously - tell me why a Third Way Democrat in 2020 will beat Trump when a Third Way Democrat lost to him in 2016?

That appears to be the definition of insanity, especially as Third Way candidates have become more and despised since 2009.

Because they’re a better candidate.

[Js1 85,568]

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

I saw a sweet burn on Robinson that he "dresses like a Kentucky slave owner" which is true and hilarious.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

4 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

What’s funny is that if Bernie is the nominee and gets clobbered in November, his supporters will blame the general election voters for being out of touch without a hint of self reflection.

No we won't

First - if Sanders gets the nomination, he will win against Trump. Trump is an intellectual lightweight who flies by the seat of his pants. He does not have the intelligence to confront Sanders. Sanders has a genuine message for the working and middle classes. He has never wavered. 

Trump can't claim he is part of the rigged system. 

Trump can't attack him from a faux-left perspective, as he did in 2016. 

That leaves Trump one lane - tired, wheezy, angry superiority complex - where Trump looks his ugliest and disgusts the most Americans. 

It's math. Confine Trump to that little corner and he loses - every time. 

If Sanders were to lose it will be because corporate media pushes false narratives that support their bottom line - not what is best for America. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Say we choose the "safe" path and pick Biden. Trump will spend the entire campaign calling out Hunter's daddy-abetted shenanigans in the Ukraine thereby both-sidesing the fuck out of the proceedings and stifling any kind of mass groundswell to vote him out.  You can't expect  great masses of voters who sat 2016 out to suddenly erupt from the woodwork in 2020 to vote for a pervy, cranky, misanthropic, corporate-owned old codger whose sole selling point is that he maybe has slightly better manners and different corporate overlords than the other pervy, cranky, misanthropic, corporate-owned old codger. Voters need something to believe in, not just something to vote out, and nobody in this country can solemnly swear, or even tell you with a straight face, "I believe in Joe Biden."

Obama made people feel good and powerful voting for him, because he promised hope and change. (Failing to deliver much of both, but that's another thread.) 

Hillary did not, and Biden will not.  

 

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

It’s going to be either Bernie or Biden as the nominee and either one will beat trump fairly easily so long as the election isn’t stolen (not a safe assumption) just like either one would’ve beat trump back in 2016.
 

Right or wrong many independents and even some male dems didn’t like Hillary and that’s why she lost or at least made it close enough for manafort and the Russians to steal it without making it look too obvious. 
 

So unless Hillary comes walking through that door again, trump will be not only the worst president in history, but also a one termer. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

8 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Because they’re a better candidate.

Who is "they're" and explain how Trump doesn't use his 2016 playbook against these "better candidates" please?  I want to understand the logic. Who is your candidate and why will she/he/they beat Trump?

If you say Biden - no need bothering to explain it. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Js1 85,568]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s going to be either Bernie or Biden as the nominee and either one will beat trump fairly easily so long as the election isn’t stolen (not a safe assumption) just like either one would’ve beat trump back in 2016.
 

Right or wrong many independents and even some male dems didn’t like Hillary and that’s why she lost or at least made it close enough for manafort and the Russians to steal it without making it look too obvious. 
 

So unless Hillary comes walking through that door again, trump will be not only the worst president in history, but also a one termer. 

Exactly. Biden does not have a 30 year smear campaign by Rush and fox news against him. Nor does he give off the “coastal elite” thing middle America hates. He’s Scranton Joe and real people like him. 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

He will try to attack Bernie as a socialist. But whether it lands and whether it hurts are separate questions.

He won't hide from it or apologize, so it won't hurt him among persuadable people who will judge based on the confidence of the attacker/defender. We take our cues from how people react, so if the Sanders campaign and, perhaps more importantly, the Sanders coalition doesn't react like the punch hurt then people won't think it was a hard punch.

Democrats usually collapse in the face of that punch. They fall to the mat. Bernie will smile at it, and the Bros will hoot and holler and post Soviet memes and make a joke out of it.

[Todd Gack 432]

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

No we won't

First - if Sanders gets the nomination, he will win against Trump. Trump is an intellectual lightweight who flies by the seat of his pants. He does not have the intelligence to confront Sanders. Sanders has a genuine message for the working and middle classes. He has never wavered. 

Trump can't claim he is part of the rigged system. 

Trump can't attack him from a faux-left perspective, as he did in 2016. 

That leaves Trump one lane - tired, wheezy, angry superiority complex - where Trump looks his ugliest and disgusts the most Americans. 

It's math. Confine Trump to that little corner and he loses - every time. 

If Sanders were to lose it will be because corporate media pushes false narratives that support their bottom line - not what is best for America. 

I very much believe this will happen and I also think that plutocrats will funnel absurd amounts of money into trump's campaign to wage an amplified fake news war on social media. 

Having said that, Bernie wins easily if young people vote because most of them at least can recognize bullshit on FB when they see it.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Us, not Me. 

https://twitter.com/srl/status/1224337878450393088

 

 

On a separate note, will there be a separate Iowa Caucus Thread? 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

"He's a Marxist" carries little weight with anyone under 40 or so. They were not indoctrinated the way we Cold War kids were. If anything, it seems chic to them.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The fight between the establishment and the left wing of this party gets turned up to 11 after tonight.

It's going to be brutal.

Strap in.

I'm for Team Chaos. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

This isn’t 2004. Nobody is getting “swift boated.”

This isn’t 1988, nobody is dropping out because of an extramarital affair. 
 

The game has changed for better or worse because of trump, mainly worse. Both sides are welcome to attack each other to their hearts content and all it will do is move the needle an inch each way, which means not at all. 
 

Hunter Biden isn’t gonna bring joe down. Bernie visiting the Soviet Union isn’t gonna bring him down. When trump craps his pants during a debate that’s not gonna bring him down either.

Like our good friend Charlie once said, the cake is baked. And short of election shenanigans or an alien invasion, the die is cast. 

[workswithseed 2,110]

6 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

"He's a Marxist" carries little weight with anyone under 40 or so. They were not indoctrinated the way we Cold War kids were. If anything, it seems chic to them.

You're wrong, but keep beating that drum.

[Hank Kingsley 21,052]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Exactly. Biden does not have a 30 year smear campaign by Rush and fox news against him. Nor does he give off the “coastal elite” thing middle America hates. He’s Scranton Joe and real people like him. 

There are Republican senators literally already threatening to impeach Biden over the Ukraine stuff if he becomes President. 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14,608]

13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Who is "they're" and explain how Trump doesn't use his 2016 playbook against these "better candidates" please?  I want to understand the logic. Who is your candidate and why will she/he/they beat Trump?

If you say Biden - no need bothering to explain it. 

Hillary was the most unpopular major candidate in history.  (This is not an opinion.)

My candidate is Bloomberg with Kloubachar as his VP.  It expands the map in suburban areas and builds on gains made in the mid terms where the Dems ran moderate candidates.

Why should the Dems do something they’ve never done before?  How does that expand the map?  Why take the risk?

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

You're wrong, but keep beating that drum.

As a father of a 23-year-old and a 15-year-old, I am pretty well informed on teh kidz.

[Hank Kingsley 21,052]

We've gone through almost a year of Democratic campaigning, and the infighting before a single vote has been cast has left people divided with a lot of hurt feelings. 

And during this past year, the GOP and Trumpkins have basically just been watching and laughing from the sidelines. They haven't even begun their attacks. 

I have little faith in Americans to be able to handle the psychological warfare they will eventually deploy. 

 

EDIT: To BT's point, if the play is just to fight back at Trumpkins, Berners are the only supporters that have the firepower and organization to execute it. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[tantric superman 4,667]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Democrats usually collapse in the face of that punch. They fall to the mat. Bernie will smile at it, and the Bros will hoot and holler and post Soviet memes and make a joke out of it.

Hey, at least the Bern Bros will get to laugh at it. 

[workswithseed 2,110]

Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

As a father of a 23-year-old and a 15-year-old, I am pretty well informed on teh kidz.

As a 27 year old and friends with other young people my age group. I also have a life line as to what they think.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Hillary was the most unpopular major candidate in history.  (This is not an opinion.)

My candidate is Bloomberg with Kloubachar as his VP.  It expands the map in suburban areas and builds on gains made in the mid terms where the Dems ran moderate candidates.

Why should the Dems do something they’ve never done before?  How does that expand the map?  Why take the risk?

holy shit, Bloomberg does absolutely nothing to energize voters and has a very awful past because of his implementation of a Stop and Frisk system. He is a less stupid Trump, I'd fully expect him to ratchet up the War on Drugs and implement means testing for social welfare programs. The only reason he is polling well is because he's running ads in state where basically no other candidate is, I fully expect him to drop by Super Tuesday. Klobuchar literally couldn't not fucking answer this with her own awful past either,

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

You're wrong, but keep beating that drum.

It has been that way for a while now. It was glaring in 2016.

Quote

The age gap between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters was huge. According to the entrance polls, which wrongly predicted a Clinton victory, Sanders got eighty-six per cent of the Democratic vote in the seventeen-to-twenty-four age group, eighty-one per cent in the twenty-five-to-twenty-nine group, and sixty-five per cent in the thirty-to-thirty-nine age group. Clinton, by contrast, was largely reliant on the middle-aged and the elderly. Among forty-something voters, she won by five percentage points. Among the over-fifties, she won by more than twenty per cent.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-just-changed-the-democratic-party

Cold war hysteria has been put into perspective for younger Americans. 

[GSU&UT 1,798]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

As a 27 year old and friends with other young people my age group. I also have a life line as to what they think.

You aren't 27 or if you are you must have grown up around nothing but upper middle-class white people. I live  and grew up in Georgia, I know of very few people my age (32) in the Atlanta suburbs where any of them beyond the super white dudes who grew up in very well off circumstances that support the GOP (and even those guys often are more libertarian). I haven't heard anyone under 40 act scared of the "SOCIALISM" label.

Edited February 3, 2020 by GSU&UT

[washparkhorn 9,939]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Hey, at least the Bern Bros will get to laugh at it. 

Sanders supporters will be extremely angry is Trump beats another Establishment Democratic Party nominee. 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

Bloomberg/Klobuchar: The Rocket Sled to Failure

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Socialism and even communism were once so potent and intoxicating to great masses of Americans that even a born elite like FDR saw that adoption of some of those policies was necessary to halt the USA from tipping over full-bore into that economy. The economy hummed along pretty well there for decades but the GOP first halted any further progress in that direction (Truman's stab at national health) and then started rolling it all back, and now here we are, sliding toward a Brazilian future. 

Western societies are defined by the fact that they have middle classes. Third World countries generally do not. Preserving the middle class, and bettering the lives of the working class, now urgently requires that we stop ladling more and more cash and power to the elites and clawing it back toward us.

First rule of holes: stop digging. We have exactly 1.5 candidates who are even talking about that in a serious way, and Bernie's solutions differ not just in degree but in kind from Warren's.

Today's GOP is a bullet train to Favelaville. The DNC is more like a local commuter, but it's headed there all the same. Bernie is the only train heading with real conviction in the other direction.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

10 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

As a 27 year old and friends with other young people my age group. I also have a life line as to what they think.

No need to answer or explain because it is personal information, but I would love to understand the socioeconomic demographic involved. Would this group vote for Trump over Sanders? 

Edited February 3, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Hank Kingsley 21,052]

Trump would get 400 electoral votes vs. Bloomberg/Klob 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

No need to answer or explain because it is personal information, but I would love to understand the socioeconomic demographic involved. Would this group for Trump over Sanders? 

"Works with Seed" = farmer = 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

"Works with Seed" = farmer = 

Loves Agricultural Welfare programs, which are Socialism? 

That would be funny - but I am sure if his demographic is truly anti-"socialism" they utterly reject socialism for farmers. 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

Actually me, and my friends in my militia, do NOT like socialism

[tantric superman 4,667]

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Socialism and even communism were once so potent and intoxicating to great masses of Americans that even a born elite like FDR saw that adoption of some of those policies was necessary to halt the USA from tipping over full-bore into that economy.

The Great Depression was even more potent to the great masses, and if we were a few years into it I'd say that the USA would be very open intoxicated by Bernie.

[workswithseed 2,110]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

No need to answer or explain because it is personal information, but I would love to understand the socioeconomic demographic involved. Would this group for Trump over Sanders? 

I live in Portland, most are left leaning as it is. I only know 2 of that support Sanders. 

The rest are apolitical that don't mind the economy as is, but would probably vote on social issues.

I only know of a family of pubs.

 

[workswithseed 2,110]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Loves Agricultural Welfare programs, which are Socialism? 

That would be funny - but I am sure if his demographic is truly anti-"socialism" they utterly reject socialism for farmers. 

I do, but also not a farmer.

[6th Street 6,498]

Nobody with any modicum of financial achievement wants Bernie

[bad_teammate 13,224]

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Nobody with any modicum of financial achievement wants Bernie

I know, right? It rules.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I do, but also not a farmer.

Libertarian? Anarcho-capitalist? Nihilist? 

No need to answer in a public forum. Sorry. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9,939]

5 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Nobody with any modicum of financial achievement wants Bernie

Me, not Us?  

At least it's an ethos. 

"Don't touch MY socialism."  = Vote Bloomberg!

Edited February 3, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Hank Scorpio 17,730]

12 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Nobody with any modicum of financial achievement wants Bernie

We’re going to take all your money old man and there’s nothing you can do to stop us. 

[ndawg 1,242]

The idea that a middle-of-the-road Democratic candidate will fare better than a socialist like Sanders strikes me as short-sighted.

The GOP at present has a stranglehold on the economy narrative, i.e. they get to determine whether working and middle class white Americans perceive the economy as strong or weak. When the stock markets are great, and a Democrat is in the White House, the GOP has made hay out of the "numbers aren't telling the whole story" narrative. Conversely, when the stock markets drop with a Republican in the White House, they can counteract the reputation hit by fear-mongering socialism. When Democrats win elections, the GOP still wins so long as they can sustain the socialism boogeyman, because the fear of being perceived as a socialist tends to keep moderate Dems in check.

The left needs to rid "socialism" of the stigma it has with center/independent white voters. By breaking the power that word has over so many Americans, we stand to diminish the GOP's power bigly.

Liberals need to understand that, as repulsive as it is to accept, a lot of working/middle class white Americans believe Trump is interested in improving their lot in life. They buy into the notion that the "elites" run the country, and still see Trump as an outsider. More than the other Dem candidates, Sanders can steal that narrative away from Trump, and *that's* why his far-left ideology is vastly overstated as a liability. The fact that he can also destigmatize "socialism" makes him a very attractive candidate to oppose Trump.

I've been leaning Warren up until the recent spat, and now I'm ready to put the Bernie sign in my yard. I'm not a rich man, but I'm in a much better situation financially than most of Trump's supporters. The message that well-off Republicans and centrists need to hear over and over is that nobody's wealth is safe if we regress into a banana republic.

Edited February 3, 2020 by ndawg