2020 Democratic Nominee

[Biff Tannen 46203]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

And an even larger number that would be like, ‘trump sucks but no need to overreact and elect a socialist’.  Not saying those people are right but there’s a LOT of them out there.  

That's what's so vexing.

[washparkhorn 9974]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Their lives are going okay and they don't want a giant revolution.

Revolution at the "ballot box." He is a small-d democrat. He is not calling for a revolution in the streets.

The real socialists you worry about do not care for Sanders. 

Quote

 

Every once in a while, my ears perked up. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “We need a mass mobilization of working-class people.” But then she quickly added: “… at the ballot box!” And this kept happening! “We need a working-class revolution … at the polls!” These “democratic socialists” of the Democratic Party want to sound radical, but in the end, the only thing they encouraged these 20,000 New Yorkers to do was vote for a capitalist party.

It is such an exciting time to be a socialist. But this rally appeared to take place in a parallel universe where there are no politics outside of voting for progressives. There was no mention of the ongoing strikes at GM or in Chicago. There was no mention of the mass mobilizations that forced the government to retreat in Ecuador. No mention of the mass protests shaking Chile that very minute. Speakers did mention Trump’s racist and colonial treatment of Puerto Rico—but they avoided talk of the 12 days of protests that toppled a corrupt governor.

 

https://www.leftvoice.org/sanders-in-queens-a-working-class-revolutionat-the-ballot-box

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

I voted for Elizabeth Warren but I'd be livid if either of these 80 year olds picks a 70 year old VP.

I agree. Warren supporter til the end, but it's got to be the big Cheese. I used to think VP would work, but the explanation on here w/respect to Senate seats made sense. I do like Cory Booker, he's smart and he's young. In the early days of the race I was waffling between him and Warren quite a bit.

51 minutes ago, Tuco said:

There are a bunch of pissed off women who blame his supporters for derailing Hillary and aren't going to be pleased with him beating Liz.      

In 1992, four white guys were on the ballot. I agree things have changed. 

I actually don't blame his supporters for derailing Hillary, I blame Hillary and the Trump campaign. Can't speak for all women, and I know there are many many women who support Sanders, but the faction that are the bros have a few that could use those gulags to relearn that calling other men by female body parts as an insult is insulting to not just those men and when they do it repeatedly and in all caps, like it or not, there is some transference of dislike to the candidate they support.

 

In the back of my mind, while the media have written Warren off, one thinks about how both Sanders and Biden play a lot more into Trump's hands anyway. His ops have way more usable material on both of them from Russia both real and made up mostly due to their longevity in politics. Warren has negatives, but I was disappointed with how quickly everything about her plans was dismissed by so many people many of whom went with the soundbites instead of reading them.

I hope that win or lose, she gives everybody hell.

 

 

It's really too bad that Pete and Amy dropped out. They were the two youngest candidates left and had an opportunity to be the only candidates left after Covid-19 is finished. The final meeting in Milwaukee would have been like WWW with stage names and everything. The South Bend Screwtaper vs. The KlobberuScar.

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

18 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

No, it doesn't. Pete endorsing Biden is not an endorsement of Biden's policies or the establishment. IMO it's a rejection of the divisiveness of Bernie's movement at a critical juncture in our country's history. 

 

If only there was a book where they kept all the meanings of words and we could look up what the word endorsement means. Since such a thing doesn’t exist, let’s go with the definition you just made up as it is all we have to go on. 

[washparkhorn 9974]

11 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

And an even larger number that would be like, ‘trump sucks but no need to overreact and elect a socialist’.  Not saying those people are right but there’s a LOT of them out there.  

That is the power of the media and economic policy that has concentrated it for the wealthy. If you are a billionaire, it would be against your self interest to elect Sanders. Biden? No problem. Trump? No problem - he has made money for concentrated media.

Antitrust policy needs to be bolstered and enforced. 

[ChiTownDoc 21349]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If only there was a book where they kept all the meanings of words and we could look up what the word endorsement means. Since such a thing doesn’t exist, let’s go with the definition you just made up as it is all we have to go on. 

This was really short on sarcasm for a typical Hank level post.  Come on, #BeBest

[ChiTownDoc 21349]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

That is the power of the media and economic policy that has concentrated it for the wealthy. If you are a billionaire, it would be against your self interest to elect Sanders. Biden? No problem. Trump? No problem - he has made money for concentrated media.

Antitrust policy needs to be bolstered and enforced. 

If the media had even close to that much power, we'd have Hillary, not Donald. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If only there was a book where they kept all the meanings of words and we could look up what the word endorsement means. Since such a thing doesn’t exist, let’s go with the definition you just made up as it is all we have to go on. 

Pete hasn't actually made the endorsement yet, correct? It's to be at the rally this evening? So perhaps Pete will endorse and reject all in the same sentence the way he usually does when speaking inspiring prose to the people.

[mchookem 16784]

Amy is going to be at the rally with Biden tonight.

i think it's safer for all of us if Pete and Amy aren't put in proximity to each other.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

God dammit Whiggins you’ve hit the nail on the head again. The correct answer is that he will endorse the ideas that unite us and reject those that divide us while always twirling, twirling towards freedom. 

[Huckleberry 34749]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't mistake enthusiasm for numbers.  Reminds me of the old Jerry Garcia statement about the Dead:

“We're like licorice. Not everybody likes licorice, but the people who like licorice really like licorice.”

It all comes down to the head-to-head polling v. Trump, and as you note, he has performed well in the polling.  But lots of voters are nervous about whether that will really translate to support come election day (Hillary polled well - we the people have been burned on this stove before).

There are.  Getting those people comfortable with supporting Bernie is going to be a big, and important, job.  And Bernie himself is going to have to do the heavy lifting.

Dude, you just cited numbers that 52% of Democrats identify as moderate or conservative and 47% as liberal or very liberal. That latter portion is up from 27% just 20 years ago. My numbers could be off but that pace would seem to indicate that by the time the 2024 election comes around the centrists will be outnumbered.

So if you're really concerned about numbers, this entire inquisition of the Sanders supporters could be turned around. The more progressive and liberal wing of the Democratic Party is quickly killing off the centrist wing, so why should the centrists be the ones appeased at every turn? Why does the future need to put itself on hold in favor of the past?

[Biff Tannen 46203]

2 minutes ago, mchookem said:

Amy is going to be at the rally with Biden tonight.

i think it's safer for all of us if Pete and Amy aren't put in proximity to each other.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

The Dems are going to force-feed us Biden and they are going to lose.

Pretty impressive record since '64. Lost to a crook twice, once with a moderate and once with a liberal. Eked out one term over a stiff whose party was in shambles with a Dem who steered the party to the right and got trounced for his troubles. Crushed by a senile actor in '84. Nominate a technocrat dweeb in 88 and bring the losing streak up to three.

Here's where their long game skills really come into play. Poppy Bush wizardry. Perot thinks he's playing spoiler and but it all works out fine for the GOP. It allows the Clintons to win, who use their two terms to enact a shit-ton of Republican wet dream policies even while flipping the Dem Congress to the GOP and vaulting Hillary into an inglorious future where she blows yet another election, all while setting the stage for eight more years of Bushes in the White House in the meantime.

Poppy Bush, man, Poppy Bush didn't play. 

Or maybe it's just that the Democrats force-fed us two stiffs in a row, each of whom seems like a rock star next to the Biden 2020 model.

2008 rolls around and they try to kill the golden goose but they settle for just neutering him in office, and here we are today, with the worst president in history by an order of magnitude ready to square off against....Joe Biden? If ever there was a name destined to go into history alongside those of Al Gore, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry, it's Joe fucking Biden.

No DNC, you really can fuck this up. You think you can't. You think it will be different this time. This won't be like that time you shot down Bernie in 2016, or Howard Dean, or Eugene McCarthy.

 Yeah yeah, you know Biden excites no one, and will excite still fewer once Trump's oppo research Gestapo works him over, but c'mon, everybody hates Trump, right? I mean, all the nice people do, all the people that matter. And we can still count on the blacks and the Mexicans, right? Right?  

And hell, if we lose we can just blame it all on those Bernie Bros. That's what you get for expecting a party to fight for things like healthcare. I mean, the nerve of some people.

Edited March 2, 2020 by MaybeACoordinator

[Hank Kingsley 21812]

7 minutes ago, mchookem said:

Amy is going to be at the rally with Biden tonight.

i think it's safer for all of us if Pete and Amy aren't put in proximity to each other.

Apparently Pete will be there as well. It will be fine. 

 

[washparkhorn 9974]

20 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

If the media did not have that much power, we'd have Sanders, not Donald. 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by washparkhorn

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

 

#thanksclinton

[ChiTownDoc 21349]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

 

Oh cool, then we definitely don’t need to sweat Trump winning again.  Thanks for sharing.  I feel better already.  

[washparkhorn 9974]

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Oh cool, then we definitely don’t need to sweat Trump winning again.  Thanks for sharing.  I feel better already.  

We have a big worry about Trump winning again with the cleave in the Party between progressives and moderate/conservatives. Hence our little family discussion here. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

Most of those media conglomerates either love Donald or are OK with him.

[henrygandorf 29229]

17 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

And hell, if we lose we can just blame it all on those Bernie Bros. That's what you get for expecting a party to fight for things like healthcare. I mean, the nerve of some people.

what if bernie wins and then loses to trump.  whose fault will it be?

[Hank Kingsley 21812]

Obviously not a surprise, but Biden said he wants Buttigieg to be in his administration. 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

I am starting to think Warren is the only hope, given that Bernie is not gonna get it. Warren would bring some excitement, all but the reddest of the redass Bernie Bros would rally around, the Root said her plan for black America was the best of all the candidates, and she stands for something. Not to the extent I'd like to see but I would be motivated to do more for her than sleepwalk to the polls and click on Biden. The Pocohontas shit seems trivial, suddenly, when I think of what ammo Trump has against Biden.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

what if bernie wins and then loses to trump.  whose fault will it be?

That's the Catch 22. And it's why I think Warren is the only hope now. 

[Michael Knight 13239]

We're fucked Trump is going to be re-elected. #ImwithBrisket

[Brisketexan 107028]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Dude, you just cited numbers that 52% of Democrats identify as moderate or conservative and 47% as liberal or very liberal. That latter portion is up from 27% just 20 years ago. My numbers could be off but that pace would seem to indicate that by the time the 2024 election comes around the centrists will be outnumbered.

So if you're really concerned about numbers, this entire inquisition of the Sanders supporters could be turned around. The more progressive and liberal wing of the Democratic Party is quickly killing off the centrist wing, so why should the centrists be the ones appeased at every turn? Why does the future need to put itself on hold in favor of the past?

 

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

We have a big worry about Trump winning again with the cleave in the Party between progressives and moderate/conservatives. Hence our little family discussion here. 

So which is it -- is it "fuck the centrists, get on board of get fucked," or is there a problem with a cleave in the party?

And as for this: 

Quote

Why does the future need to put itself on hold in favor of the past?

Fuck your future.  The progressive wing will likely be firmly in control of the party at some point in the future - the trend certainly says so.

And fuck your past.  The centrists were in control in the past, but the party is in transition.

How about we talk about THE PRESENT?  The present in which the party is split almost perfectly in half?  The present in which failure of a material portion of EITHER half will mean Trump wins in 2020 -- THAT present.

My inquisition is absolutely of BOTH Biden and Bernie -- that was my initial question (seriously, the first of 27 times I had to ask it before someone answered).  What will EACH do to garner support from the other wing in order to win the general?

[Brisketexan 107028]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

what if bernie wins and then loses to trump.  whose fault will it be?

Everyone's but Bernie's and his supporters' fault.  That's a guarantee.

If Biden wins and then loses to Trump, on the other hand -- that will absolutely be Joe's fault (what an uninspiring, pointless candidacy).

2 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I am starting to think Warren is the only hope, given that Bernie is not gonna get it. Warren would bring some excitement, all but the reddest of the redass Bernie Bros would rally around, the Root said her plan for black America was the best of all the candidates, and she stands for something. Not to the extent I'd like to see but I would be motivated to do more for her than sleepwalk to the polls and click on Biden. The Pocohontas shit seems trivial, suddenly, when I think of what ammo Trump has against Biden.

Now you're talking.  Warren gives you enough of the real progressive agenda, but she is methodical and traditional enough in her communication and planning that she doesn't spook the rest of the party's voters.  I voted for her early, and I still would vote for her tomorrow if I'd waited.

1 minute ago, Michael Knight said:

We're fucked Trump is going to be re-elected. #ImwithBrisket

BUT.....this.  We're going to fuck this up.  Badly, and all the way.  Bernie will lose to Trump.  Biden will lose to Trump.  Fuck, Warren probably loses to Trump.  I think he's unbeatable, because our core identity is stupid and mean, and we are great at staying on-brand.

[Chuckie Finster 23098]

8 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I am starting to think Warren is the only hope, given that Bernie is not gonna get it. Warren would bring some excitement, all but the reddest of the redass Bernie Bros would rally around, the Root said her plan for black America was the best of all the candidates, and she stands for something. Not to the extent I'd like to see but I would be motivated to do more for her than sleepwalk to the polls and click on Biden. The Pocohontas shit seems trivial, suddenly, when I think of what ammo Trump has against Biden.

It's insane that she isn't the runaway leader at this point.

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's insane that she isn't the runaway leader at this point.

Wasn't Runaway Leader her brother's name?

[bad_teammate 13567]

REVEAL YOURSELF MEGAN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My inquisition is absolutely of BOTH Biden and Bernie -- that was my initial question (seriously, the first of 27 times I had to ask it before someone answered).  What will EACH do to garner support from the other wing in order to win the general?

And only Bernie supporters have answered you seriously and in good faith. Yet your vitriol is reserved for them. Weird.

Quote

Now you're talking.  Warren gives you enough of the real progressive agenda, but she is methodical and traditional enough in her communication and planning that she doesn't spook the rest of the party's voters.  I voted for her early, and I still would vote for her tomorrow if I'd waited.

Her 4 massive failures don't put you off at all regarding her ability to win?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

8 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I am starting to think Warren is the only hope, given that Bernie is not gonna get it. Warren would bring some excitement, all but the reddest of the redass Bernie Bros would rally around, the Root said her plan for black America was the best of all the candidates, and she stands for something. Not to the extent I'd like to see but I would be motivated to do more for her than sleepwalk to the polls and click on Biden. The Pocohontas shit seems trivial, suddenly, when I think of what ammo Trump has against Biden.

That's among what I just said above--I'm sure they will find some stuff on her, but she still does not have the legacy in DC that those two have. She IS the compromise candidate IF people are willing to do that. BT has said that Sanders supporters should not have to compromise their values to gain supporters, but with Warren they have most (not all) of those values still intact. Biden supporters get someone who will pull the party left and closer to the dynamic it needs as it grows younger and more diverse.

I can see why Amy is going with Biden though. The Post it comment hurt I'm sure. But if Liz came up with that on the fly and it wasn't generated ahead of time, don't screw around with her.

[Brisketexan 107028]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And only Bernie supporters have answered you seriously and in good faith. Yet your vitriol is reserved for them. Weird.

Well, if you can find an actual Biden "supporter" around here, point me at 'em, and I'll give them shit.  Seriously, Joe isn't someone people enthusiastically support -- he's who you end up with.

He's the plain girl at the bar who you hooked up with once before a few years ago.  You know what you're getting, and you THINK it's probably a sure thing, so....toss back another two whiskeys and give her your most middling pick up line to see if you can rekindle what was never much of a spark.

[Bama Chick 28596]

This power play happening today is not just about Bernie. It's also signal to everyone to reject/disregard Bloomberg on Super Tuesday. 
 

Yep. And I think it’s the smartest thing that they could do.

I’ll have to go find my post from yesterday predicting all this - I thought it would happen after Super Tuesday but it seems like Biden’s absolute annihilation of the field in SC sped everything up.

[bad_teammate 13567]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, if you can find an actual Biden "supporter" around here, point me at 'em, and I'll give them shit.  Seriously, Joe isn't someone people enthusiastically support -- he's who you end up with.

You can find 35 in this thread.

The fact that none of them bother articulating some kind of positive and enthusiastic case should worry you quite a bit more than some anonymous Internet kids who like Bernie and posting memes.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

Surprising that 538 has Biden with the better chance of winning Texas than Bernie. However they're showing very close winning percentages of 56% vs a 43%. If it was a 2-way race, that would probably equate to 50.5% - 49.5% split.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/super-tuesday-preview-sanders-and-biden-are-duking-it-out-in-texas/

FYI, I think the reason that Biden is the favorite is that only 79 of the 228 Texas delegates are based on the statewide vote, while the rest seem to be decided at the state senate district level. I assume their model has Bernie winning some districts by a wide margin but Biden winning more, closer races.  Who knows.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[washparkhorn 9974]

Maybe the Old Republican-Democratic Party can resurrect itself. 

 

[mchookem 16784]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can find 35 in this thread.

no you can't, that's disingenuous. by your very definition those are people that supported SOMEONE ELSE besides either Biden or Bernie.

they are reluctant default 'supporters' at best. 

anyway...msnbc just reported that while he's staying quiet publicly,  behind the scenes 'word has gone out' from Obama...Biden is the one. not surprising i guess. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by mchookem

[bad_teammate 13567]

The fact that they are reluctant Biden supporters is irrelevant, they had to come to their conclusion based on some kind of reasoning.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

I was on the fence until Joe said he’s consider a Republican to be his VP. Now I’m team Joe all the way. Have to make sure there’s a Republican 1 geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency. It’s just the decent thing to do gosh darn it. All you Biden supporters chime in with what you think. 

[henrygandorf 29229]

are we saying "biden supporter" is the same thing at this point as "biden voter"?

i'm neither, i'm just trying to figure out the jargon moving forward.

[mchookem 16784]

i think he just said it to seem open and attractive to moderates, and has no intention of ever actually even considering that. 

yes, a purely political calculated lie. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by mchookem

[henrygandorf 29229]

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Maybe the Old Republican-Democratic Party can resurrect itself. 

 

yes, we all made fun of this a few months ago when he said it.

do we have to do it again, how does this work?

[bad_teammate 13567]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

are we saying "biden supporter" is the same thing at this point as "biden voter"?

Yes, those are the same thing.

[henrygandorf 29229]

12 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Maybe the Old Republican-Democratic Party can resurrect itself. 

 

without a blue check, it's tough to figure out who this guy is or who he supports.  but i think he might have an agenda...

 

[Hank Kingsley 21812]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The fact that they are reluctant Biden supporters is irrelevant, they had to come to their conclusion based on some kind of reasoning.

"Not Bernie" would probably be the most popular answer. 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

I think now that Joe is the front runner his VP pick becomes very important and the fact that Republicans are in the running makes it all the more interesting. But I can’t keep up with Joe’s 4d chess political maneuvering and slick stump speeches. I’m just a simple bro who actually believes in things, not a fancy big city politician saying he might pick a member of the other party to be next in line for the presidency. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I think now that Joe is the front runner his VP pick becomes very important and the fact that Republicans are in the running makes it all the more interesting. But I can’t keep up with Joe’s 4d chess political maneuvering and slick stump speeches. I’m just a simple bro who actually believes in things, not a fancy big city politician saying he might pick a member of the other party to be next in line for the presidency. 

That and Susan Collins just wasn't convincing enough in her role compared to Mitt and the rest. Once she came out with the "I think he's learned his lesson" line everyone knew she would kill Joe and not bat an eyelash.

[bad_teammate 13567]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

"Not Bernie" would probably be the most popular answer. 

Which is fair, but even that should involve some kind of expressable reasoning that we can get engaged with and have substantive conversations about.

Why not Bernie? Why is anti-Bernieness so paramount?

I think a lot of the freakout right now in this thread is about how some have decided to go with Joe but feel extremely insecure about it and don't know how to talk about it in a way that feels right.

[Dbeasy 15613]

This was really short on sarcasm for a typical Hank level post.  Come on, #BeBest

He’s a bully with the written word.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

This guy (who predicted HRC's defeat) nails it:

Quote

These serious warning signs for Biden’s prospects include: 

1. Shockingly weak fundraising
2. An uninspiring message that promises nothing to working families 
3. A low-energy campaign with no volunteer base
4. A damaging corruption scandal which undermines his core message
5. An inability to campaign vigorously

and

Quote

Perhaps the biggest development in the course of the campaign so far, though, to really call into question whether Joe Biden is a good bet to take on Trump is Ukraine and the Hunter Biden scandal. Despite all the attempts by mainstream media outlets to discount it, the fact remains that Joe Biden’s son Hunter accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars ($50,000 a month!) from a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was personally conducting U.S. foreign policy with that nation as a sitting Vice President. It’s not clear what Hunter really did to earn that $50,000 a month. This fact, of course, has taken on central relevance after the House Democrats impeached the president for holding U.S. foreign aid hostage in exchange for dirt on … Joe Biden.  

I can already hear the million excuses, justifications, qualifications, and counter-examples: “But Trump is using the Presidency to promote Ivanka’s clothing line and enrich himself and his children’s business interests” and “Jared Kushner is a corrupt smirking brat doing way worse!” and “But there’s no evidence that Joe Biden changed U.S. foreign policy because of the large sums his son was taking.” 

None of these things matter. What matters is that the Democrats have risked making the entire election about Ukraine, and the Biden family has an obvious corruption scandal of its own—involving Ukraine. And the more Democrats try to explain the scandal away, the more they will reinforce the basic facts: The Biden family took money from a corrupt Ukrainian company at the same time Joe Biden has admitted to pressuring the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor investigating that company. Cue Donald Trump employing his best and favorite tactic—pointing out that his opponents are hypocrites who have done the very thing he is accused of —and not being wrong. MSNBC will continue 24/7 coverage of impeachment, the Biden campaign will promise a Return to Respectability and Normalcy, and Trump will make a joke of the whole thing by pointing out that it’s all about covering up Hunter Biden accepting dirty money from Ukraine. Does that sound like a winning campaign to unseat an incumbent President? Accusations of misconduct against Trump will be hopelessly muddled by counter-accusations against Biden, and voters will once again throw up their hands saying “they’re both the same.”