Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks.

womp womp

At least be intellectually honest.  Black turnout PEAKED when (hmm) Barack Hussein Obama was on the ballot.  2016 numbers were essentially flat with 2004.

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Please explain. I'm confused. What am I advocating, exactly?

You're sowing discord within the party because you don't like the front-runner.  You are absolutely recreating the Berner situation which was a fucking disaster.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You're sowing discord within the party because you don't like the front-runner.

Are people trying to get to Biden rallies but I'm slashing their tires? Did they try to donate online en masse but I hacked their computers? Are they trying to organize locally but I'm intercepting all their phone calls and Facebook messages?

I'm talking on this forum to like 10 guys (mostly) in Texas. I am not a powerful wizard creating the reality that surrounds the profoundly uninspiring and unmotivating candidacy of Joe Biden.

I know all you guys can really talk about is your hurt feelings with regard to Bernie, but maybe you can answer these questions I asked Dennison...

Is Biden someone who is going to bring in people who stayed home for Clinton? Who? What groups? What demographics? Young voters? Black voters? Latinx voters? 

What is the big vision or story that we're telling with Joe Biden?

Or this one:

If you want to pretend black turnout doesn't count or matter, what is Biden's pitch to the WWC voters who went to Trump in 2016? (Again, BIDEN'S pitch, specifically. Not your dream pitch to them or Pete's pitch or some other candidate's pitch, but Joe Biden himself.)

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

Man, I hate Biden as the candidate.  I sincerely hope Harris, Warren, or Pete B makes a push and gets the nomination.

However, I will NOT participate in the negative talk about Biden (outside this forum) where it matters.  It was a big problem in 2016 and it will be a big problem again.  

Would I love to see new blood at the top in the DNC?  Yes.  Is it gonna happen?  Apparently not by the looks of things.  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

However, I will NOT participate in the negative talk about Biden (outside this forum) where it matters.  It was a big problem in 2016 and it will be a big problem again.

So your takeaway from the 2016 election is that Clinton didn't lose because of depressed non-white turnout (Blacks -7, Whites +1), but instead because of Rust Belt whites? Right? Further, your contention is that these people went to Trump because Bernie Bros said negative things about Hillary?

This is the mind palace you've constructed, yes?

[F250 28,767]

53 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html

she had more than 65 million votes. She lost the white working class in key states and therefore the electoral college. 

womp womp you condescending prick

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So your takeaway from the 2016 election is that Clinton didn't lose because of depressed non-white turnout (Blacks -7, Whites +1), but instead because of Rust Belt whites? Right? Further, your contention is that these people went to Trump because Bernie Bros said negative things about Hillary?

This is the mind palace you've constructed, yes?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, but there was definitely larger percentage of Dems voting for the R candidate in 2016 than usual.  I've seen the numbers somewhere, but I don't have the time to look for them now.

[Pato del Muerto 52,489]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

You can offset losing the WWC in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin if you turnout black voters in Philly, Detroit and Milwaukee.   Especially when it's ~80,000 votes TOTAL. 

She did not do that.  A 7 point drop in the Democrats' most  loyal voting bloc is a disaster.  

Was it 7% in those cities?  Or did most of it come in red states where the urge to vote for a losing candidate wasn’t as strong, for a couple of reasons?

if it was depressed because why bother, she’s going to win easily, then lesson learned and shouldn’t be an issue going forward. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

50 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

... but there was definitely larger percentage of Dems voting for the R candidate in 2016 than usual.

Nope.

2016: 8% of Republicans voted for Hillary, 8% of Democrats voted for Trump
2012: 7/6
2008: 9/10

No. 

Hillary didn't lose because the Bernie Bros left their frat houses and went to dying, white working class Rust Belt towns chanting, "LOCK HER UP!" with ironic t-shirts on. Bill in Allentown with a kid dying of a fentanyl addiction didn't vote against Hillary because Bernie Bros were harassing his wife on Twitter.

Hillary lost because she was not a candidate who could attract non-voters, which is the type of voter Democrats need to energize to win the White House.

37 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Joe Biden is cleaning up the African American Democrat vote in early polls and was Obama’s Vice President.  Hillary was the lady that ran against Obama.  

Some of you are overthinking politics if you think voting for a crime bill in the early 90s that activists don’t like outweighs being Obama’s VP for purposes of turning out minority voters, especially the portion that casually follows politics and stayed home in 2016 but voted in 2008 and 2012. 

Why aren't Harris and Booker doing better if black people are just mindless robots who only vote on skin color?

Also, Joe is cleaning up among ALL old people, black included. Bernie is beating him among blacks under 40.

Edited May 28, 2019 by bad_teammate

[David Dennison 18,854]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Anemic crowds, middling fundraising overall (outright bad among small donors), and finding enthusiastic Biden supporters is like finding unicorns. Poll numbers matter, and he is absolutely the clear frontrunner, but enthusiasm among the voting base matters a lot when it comes to voter turnout.

Look at this. You've probably said this 500 times in the last 4 months, right? When your leading pitch for a guy is to morally scold the left, that's a really bad sign in terms of turning out the tens of millions of American voters who would love to see Trump get out, are natural Democrat targets, but generally don't vote.

Is Biden someone who is going to bring in people who stayed home for Clinton? Who? What groups? What demographics? Young voters? Black voters? Latinx voters?

What is the big vision or story that we're telling with Joe Biden?

No idea, but he may very well be the candidate. I will vote for him if he is even though I dislike him as much as you do. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

This guy will CLEAN UP with black voters!

 

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nope.

2016: 8% of Republicans voted for Hillary, 8% of Democrats voted for Trump
2012: 7/6
2008: 9/10

No. 

Hillary didn't lose because the Bernie Bros left their frat houses and went to dying, white working class Rust Belt towns chanting, "LOCK HER UP!" with ironic t-shirts on. Bill in Allentown with a kid dying of a fentanyl addiction didn't vote against Hillary because Bernie Bros were harassing his wife on Twitter.

Hillary lost because she was not a candidate who could attract non-voters, which is the type of voter Democrats need to energize to win the White House.

Why aren't Harris and Booker doing better if black people are just mindless robots who only vote on skin color?

Also, Joe is cleaning up among ALL old people, black included. Bernie is beating him among blacks under 40.

a.  those are not at all the #'s I've seen

b.  I didn't say that's WHY Hillary lost.  It's funny, complicated systems with dozens of inputs are quite often difficult to pin down.  Correlation, causation, etc.  The fact of the matter is the Berners were fucking assholes who sowed discord when it was sorely not the right thing to do, and fuck them.  That's the end of the story.  They were fucking children.  If that's you, then you're a child.

[Chooky 13,307]

Never mind his civil rights background, I've learned not to trust old dudes with complicated hair issues.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This guy will CLEAN UP with black voters!

 

Can we all stop pretending that anything anyone did before, like, 2015 will have any impact on the 2020 election?  In a world where the citizens carefully vet their candidates, sure this shit would matter.  But our next election will probably come down to how many voters saw one of those cute Obama/Biden memes on Facebook the morning of the election.

I mean, honestly, the thought of a speech from 19fucking85 changing even a single vote is laughable.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Chuckie Finster

[bad_teammate 13,195]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

a.  those are not at all the #'s I've seen

Sanders -> Trump was in the 6-8% range, with the max projections 10-12%. All of that well within the normal historical trend.
Clinton -> McCain was in the 15% range, with the max projections 24-25%. Both of those are beyond the normal historical trend.

If there's a group you need to "worry" about, it's older white Democrats voting Republican, not youngsters and leftists voting Republican.

But you know... I'm posting sources and numbers and that's unfair and doesn't even take into account the Internet PTSD you've gotten from Bernie Bros being mean and nasty.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Joe Biden is why we can’t have nice things.

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

You know, if I tell you that those aren't the #'s I've seen, I'm not lying.  Fuck you.  Believe what you want to believe, but by all means continue to be a mewling twat.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

surly: Pete Buttigieg being a veteran might impact the military vote.

b_t: HAHAHA no way that matters.

also b_t: Here's a Biden speech from 1972 where the first letters of every 6th word almost spell out "YAY HITLER."  YOU EXPECT THIS GUY TO WIN!?!?

Edited May 28, 2019 by Chuckie Finster

[F250 28,767]

Primaries are supposed to be the time when potential candidates toughen up for the General Election. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the "treat Biden with kid's gloves" attitude. The Primary is just starting, it should be a bare knuckle brawl until the Convention.

 

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

40 minutes ago, F250 said:

Primaries are supposed to be the time when potential candidates toughen up for the General Election. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the "treat Biden with kid's gloves" attitude. The Primary is just starting, it should be a bare knuckle brawl until the Convention.

 

Sure, and after that one would expect the adults to step up and support the winner, except bad_teammate.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

surly: Pete Buttigieg being a veteran might impact the military vote.

b_t: HAHAHA no way that matters.

Two different people said Pete would outright win the military vote over Trump, which absolutely is worthy of laughter and derision. Pete isn't going to win over an election-swinging number of military voters. Him simply existing as a veteran will not do that.

This guy has multiple Vietnam combat commendations, a ton of relevant government experience, and he got fucking owned in the military vote by a dipshit rich kid who guarded Texas from the Mexicans.

(I was an extremely tiny part of Kerry's 2004 campaign and I, like an idiot, thought his veteran status and shiny medals would matter to military voters and... lol)

2 hours ago, F250 said:

Primaries are supposed to be the time when potential candidates toughen up for the General Election. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the "treat Biden with kid's gloves" attitude. The Primary is just starting, it should be a bare knuckle brawl until the Convention.

If we pretend it's all cool then the Republicans won't attack him and no one will find out he's shitty. Then he'll win and, uh... accomplish nothing.

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sure, and after that one would expect the adults to step up and support the winner, except bad_teammate.

What is it you provide candidates in terms of "support"? Do you donate? Do you volunteer? Do you host fundraisers? Do you canvas? Do you phonebank?

[bad_teammate 13,195]

b_t, an idiot: "Hey that ship coming this way can't turn fast enough and it's going to smash into us if we keep going this way. It's cool, though, we can get well clear in time if we start now."

Brain Geniuses: "That thing is like a half-mile away shut up and vote for our current path."

 

[David Dennison 18,854]

This is going to be a hard campaign for Joe.

If history is any indication, he won't make it.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

No public events scheduled, but he'll be in the driveway if anyone needs him. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Centrists are fascists, by the way.

 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1. Two different people said Pete would outright win the military vote over Trump, which absolutely is worthy of laughter and derision.

 

2. Pete isn't going to win over an election-swinging number of military voters. Him simply existing as a veteran will not do that.

part 1 - you're correct, two of us said that, including me.  i said i was making a "bold" call.  it's not like i'd put money on it.  most of us just said he would close the gap from hillary's results, and anything that can win you votes was worth trying.

part 2 - zero people said that he was going to do that.  those goalposts sure are mobile.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

b_t, an idiot: "Hey that ship coming this way can't turn fast enough and it's going to smash into us if we keep going this way. It's cool, though, we can get well clear in time if we start now."

Brain Geniuses: "That thing is like a half-mile away shut up and vote for our current path."

 

cnn is running headlines about the fact that he's only had like 11 events so far.  total.  not counting closed-door check writing sessions.

i know he just declared, but 11?  he's not gonna make it.

we all need something to "happen" to keep him from being the guy.  the most likely is his health.  i don't wish ill towards anyone, but if he's limping in may 2019, he's in trouble.  

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Two different people said Pete would outright win the military vote over Trump, which absolutely is worthy of laughter and derision. Pete isn't going to win over an election-swinging number of military voters. Him simply existing as a veteran will not do that. you canvas? Do you phonebank?

I don't know who said that about Trump VS Pete, but I do know that active military approval/disapproval of Trump has declined from 46/37 to 44/43.  That's pretty interesting. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

No public events because he's all about his private fundraisers.

 

Just now, henrygandorf said:

cnn is running headlines about the fact that he's only had like 11 events so far.  total.  not counting closed-door check writing sessions.

i know he just declared, but 11?  he's not gonna make it.

we all need something to "happen" to keep him from being the guy.  the most likely is his health.  i don't wish ill towards anyone, but if he's limping in may 2019, he's in trouble.  

"Sleepy Joe" is starting to sound like a great nickname for him. Trump is dumb about basically everything, but he's great at in-the-moment bullying and seeing the immediate weakness of an opponent. He's too dumb for larger strategies and 5D chess, but he can smell an insecurity a mile away.

[Turkleton 145]

5 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

This article doesn’t account for voter suppression 

Always, Pancho. Keep up the good fight with your crusade. LOL

[Bama Chick 28,596]

cnn is running headlines about the fact that he's only had like 11 events so far.  total.  not counting closed-door check writing sessions.
i know he just declared, but 11?  he's not gonna make it.
we all need something to "happen" to keep him from being the guy.  the most likely is his health.  i don't wish ill towards anyone, but if he's limping in may 2019, he's in trouble.  

But Beto’s an arm flailing empty suit who’s just wasting his time according to all the highly paid pundits who post here.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Two different people said Pete would outright win the military vote over Trump, which absolutely is worthy of laughter and derision. Pete isn't going to win over an election-swinging number of military voters. Him simply existing as a veteran will not do that.

It's wild to watch someone who hates Trump so much, so perfectly employ his communications strategy.  Spew endless bullshit and defend it passionately, and the rest of the world will be too slow and too tired to fact-check. 

I'm looking at the Buttegieg thread right now: you blabbered about draft dodging for a few posts, had a few people say "well, it makes sense for Pete to say this since he actually served" and then, about 10 posts later, you introduced the Pete vs. Trump military vote comparison with the following post:

On 5/23/2019 at 1:21 PM, bad_teammate said:

That's because he was a Democrat.

Draft-dodging Trump who openly insulted veterans did extremely well among military voters. Now, with 4 years of photo ops with the troops, does anyone seriously think Pete is going to pull an appreciable number of military votes from Donald?

Much discussion followed on this topic, none of which included A-N-Y-O-N-E predicting Pete to outright win the military vote, and then you came back with:

On 5/23/2019 at 3:44 PM, bad_teammate said:

The voting history of the enlisted/veteran population.

Does anyone seriously believe that Pete Buttigieg would win more enlisted/veteran voters than Donald Trump?

To which HG basically said, "fuck off, sure."

You managed to solely shift the discussion from "should Pete discuss Trump's draft dodging?" to "will Pete win the military vote?!" in the span of a few hours, and then acted like HG's response to your 500th post (NOTE: estimate) on the topic was what set you off in the first place.    

Again, we are on the same team here in the big picture.  But holy shit, is your name accurate.  Some real Barry Bonds/Jeff Kent shit going on right now.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Chuckie Finster

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

Sorry for the sidetrack, back to Sleepy Joe

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's wild to watch someone who hates Trump so much, so perfectly employ his communications strategy.  Spew endless bullshit and defend it passionately, and the rest of the world will be too slow and too tired to fact-check. 

I'm looking at the Buttegieg thread right now: you blabbered about draft dodging for a few posts, had a few people say "well, it makes sense for Pete to say this since he actually served" and then, about 10 posts later, you introduced the Pete vs. Trump military vote comparison with the following post:

Much discussion followed on this topic, none of which included A-N-Y-O-N-E predicting Pete to outright win the military vote, and then you came back with:

To which HG basically said, "fuck off, sure."

You managed to solely shift the discussion from "should Pete discuss Trump's draft dodging?" to "will Pete win the military vote?!" in the span of a few hours, and then acted like HG's response to your 500th post (NOTE: estimate) on the topic was what set you off in the first place.    

Again, we are on the same team here in the big picture.  But holy shit, is your name accurate.  Some real Barry Bonds/Jeff Kent shit going on right now.

Ahhhhhh good times....... goooood times....

[henrygandorf 29,189]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

To which HG basically said, "fuck off, sure."

get out of my head!

[Js1 85,311]

49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

b_t, an idiot: "Hey that ship coming this way can't turn fast enough and it's going to smash into us if we keep going this way. It's cool, though, we can get well clear in time if we start now."

Brain Geniuses: "That thing is like a half-mile away shut up and vote for our current path."

 

This is some Tom Herman 4th quarter bullshit. 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

28 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Spew endless bullshit and defend it passionately, and the rest of the world will be too slow and too tired to fact-check. 

 

Trump is well-known for sourcing his arguments and providing specific, cited statistics and numbers.

Quote

I'm looking at the Buttegieg thread right now

Cool then go talk about it there, Jesus. Or see a therapist who can teach you how to compartmentalize your various Internet traumas.

18 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Yes, he was a veteran.  He then became of the most visible anti-war protesters of the Vietnam era.  Even if you agree with him, you have to recognize that is a hot button issue that is going to be controversial with a lot of veterans.

Yes, Kerry's overall record was "controversial", but it's a principled and decorated record. I had no illusions that Kerry would outright win the military vote, but it was a one-sided beatdown. Also, I was being stupidly naive.

But thank you for reinforcing how stupid the overall idea of expecting a progressive to win the military vote is, I appreciate your support.

Do you think a Harvard/McKinsey guy joining the Naval Reserves as an officer and then going to Afghanistan 10 years after the war was over for a desk job is something that's going to inspire uniform respect among military voters?

But since we're in the Biden thread... how's Biden going to do among military voters?

[Pancho 44,758]

1 hour ago, Turkleton said:

Always, Pancho. Keep up the good fight with your crusade. LOL

I don't know what this is about, and I suspect you don't either.  Voter suppression in 2016 (and coming for 2020) is pretty well documented.  

[Pancho 44,758]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, which an incompetent Democratic party who hates activists and fights against them is responsible for allowing to happen.

Are people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden champions for minority voting rights?

lol

Wait, democrats are responsible for reppublican efforts to suppress votes?  so many questions here. 

 

biden is in Houston tonight.  tempting...but it's too hot to drive. 

[F250 28,767]

Biden and Trump both had 5 deferments each and eventually got out of the draft due to bone spurs and adolescent asthma. They cancel each other out in that regard.

 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think a Harvard/McKinsey guy joining the Naval Reserves as an officer and then going to Afghanistan 10 years after the war was over for a desk job is something that's going to inspire uniform respect among military voters?

crafting a line that you think helps your argument, then repeating it over and over again.

so oddly familiar...

[Js1 85,311]

JFC

 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

1 hour ago, Pancho Negro said:

Wait, democrats are responsible for reppublican efforts to suppress votes?  so many questions here. 

Poor defense is partially responsible for a player scoring a lot of points, yes.

It doesn't absolve the evil of the Republicans, but it's instructive with regard to the values and efficacy of the Democrats.

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

crafting a line that you think helps your argument, then repeating it over and over again.

so oddly familiar...

All humans ever who communicate?

henry, as ever, playing the man and not the ball

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

JFC

Gropin' Joe is one thing, but this is something people need to understand now: Joe Biden hasn't changed and he is constitutionally incapable of changing. He's such an arrogant and self-worshipping prick that he is incapable of learning and growth.

"Oh his hero-worship of segregationists was SO LONG AGO!"

"Oh his desire to have cops curb-stomp black teens in the street was DECADES AGO!"

All of this bullshit defense of this garbage clown is based on the completely ridiculous idea that he has changed or is changeable.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

All humans ever who communicate?

henry, as ever, playing the man and not the ball

someone calls you out for basically using "trump-like" tactics, then on your next post, you take one of your catch phrases, and repeat it again, hoping against hope it convinces just one person - straight out of trump's playbook.

then, when called on it, you go right back into your playbook and accuse someone of attacking you instead of your message.

ironic, even for you.

now comes the part where you create a new argument and explain to someone how you're winning it.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Before Donald Trump, no one in history had ever repeated an idea or argument.

It's not the repetition you have a problem with henry, it's the content of the statement itself. If repetition was something that bothered you, you wouldn't constantly make the same inane attacks against me (comparing me to Trump, etc).

Please draft another 3,000 word "HOW DARE YOU, SIR!" rant. I'll need something to read on the toilet later.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

stop it, Joe

please stop touching the children

 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Before Donald Trump, no one in history had ever repeated an idea or argument.

It's not the repetition you have a problem with henry, it's the content of the statement itself. If repetition was something that bothered you, you wouldn't constantly make the same inane attacks against me (comparing me to Trump, etc).

Please draft another 3,000 word "HOW DARE YOU, SIR!" rant. I'll need something to read on the toilet later.

i didn't compare you to trump, chuckie did.  i just found your retort amusing and ironic.  but you really got me back with the "but everybody does it" comeback.  scorching.

and yeah, i have a problem with your statement, because it's a feeble attempt to devalue a decision that someone else made.  you don't know his motives, and your guessing skills have shown to be shitty.  you try to slide in your little backhanded nonsense hoping people will see things your way.  you have an opinion, you have an agenda, we get it. 

i never attack you (or your candidate), so save that shit for someone else.  you're always the one accusing everyone else of being dishonest or whining, yet when anyone challenges something you say, you label them "attacks."  give me a fucking break.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Fucking Pete thread needs tighter gaskets

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

JFC

 

Holy hand grabby...  What is this guys problem ?   Maybe he's just touchy feely, but his handlers have got to get a handle on this.

[Turkleton 145]

3 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

I don't know what this is about, and I suspect you don't either.  Voter suppression in 2016 (and coming for 2020) is pretty well documented.  

LOL. I'm sure most of the Marxist on this CR will up vote you, but you really are the biggest race-baiter on here and that is quiet an accomplishment since that is the forefront of leftism. 

If you can't be a victim, you ain't doing it right....