options based on latest national polling avg. voting starts monday.

Poll question: Who are you voting for in the Democratic Primary?

Poll result (54 votes) Joe Biden (3 votes) Vote Bernie Sanders (25 votes) Vote Elizabeth Warren (21 votes) Vote Michael Bloomberg (1 votes) Vote Pete Buttigieg (3 votes) Vote Other (1 votes) Vote

last results
Poll result (57 votes)
Joe Biden (1 votes)
Bernie Sanders (21 votes)
Elizabeth Warren (25 votes)
Kamala Harris (5 votes)
Pete Buttigieg (4 votes)
Other (1 votes)

second poll results
who would you vote for?:
Poll result (92 votes)
Joe Biden (6 votes) Vote
Bernie Sanders (19 votes) Vote
Elizabeth Warren (53 votes) Vote
Kamala Harris (4 votes) Vote
Pete Buttigieg (4 votes) Vote
Other (6 votes) Vote

first poll results
Who do you want to win the Dem nomination?:
Poll result (87 votes)
Kamala Harris (16 votes) Vote
Joe Biden (4 votes) Vote
Bernie Sanders (35 votes) Vote
Beto O'Rourke (11 votes) Vote
Elizabeth Warren (13 votes) Vote
Other (post below) (8 votes) Vote

i'd prefer Warren as president but my only concern is who can beat Trump, and I have very little faith in her doing that, and not really convinced either way that as far center as Biden or as far left as Bernie is the way to go.

are you waiting to see how the early states play out?

we really dont know how things will play out if any of the candidates get the nomination. i think biden would be a wreck since he cant even finish a sentence. that hasnt stopped trump though so why would it stop biden i guess.

im pretty happy that i have two options that i would feel pretty good about if their policies were put in place. worst case, any of them would be an improvement over trump.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

IDC IDC IDC IDC IDC

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

This doesn't really fit into any of the existing politics threads, but they've proliferated so much that I don't want to start another. I'm assuming this will become the main politics thread for the next month or so. Here's the story:


Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters

"Allies of Donald Trump have begun holding events in black communities where organizers lavish praise on the president as they hand out tens of thousands of dollars to lucky attendees."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/trump-black-voters-cash-giveaways-108072

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13359207&mesg_id=13359207&listing_type=search

I thought they were running too.

-->

First time since I can remember that my primary is going to mean anything. Still figuring out who I think will be a better president.

that I'd never been able to vote in a primary at all until 2016

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Or something else?

I wasn't 18 yet in 2000, there was a last-minute law change to caucuses in 04 that didn't make any sense, they fucked it up so bad in 08 by trying to move the date that everyone took their names off of the ballot and in 2012 barack was going for re-election

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html

on the upside, in michigan you don't need to register as one party or another to vote in the primary

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

2nd choice for now is klobuchar, then Yang, then Bernie, then Biden, then Steyer, then Buttigieg.

i really dont understand her appeal. help me see the light.

Not to speak for blkprince, his thoughts may differ.

Klobuchar's mainstream (some would say 'moderate', though that's become a dirty word), which will be valuable in the general election. Younger and better in debates than Biden. Older and far more experienced than Buttigieg. She'd still draw that excitement of being the first female president, but nobody would be able to peg her as a radical. Whether people want to believe it or not, the 'radical' epithet did become a problem for Hillary, whereas Obama, while they threw the same shit at him, it didn't stick, mainly due to his personal charisma. Klobuchar obviously doesn't share Obama's charisma, but her folksy presence, that we groan at in every debate, serves the same purpose on this count.

I've always taken Klobuchar seriously. If I thought she had a chance in the primary she'd be my candidate. But I fear her upswing (such as it is) has come too late.

or knowing that it will appeal to a lot of americans is what appeals to you?

Whether someone would win a general election is the ONLY thing I think a person should care about in 2020.

she's a far more stable presence than Biden who is clearly gonna litter us with more facepalm moments of calling people Jack and challenging them to push-up contests

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

kinda refreshing in the progressive puritanical pageant i guess

just runs counter to the facts of the job.

I wish more people would say "yeah, I'm here to amass power, I like doing it and I'm a dick, vote for me anyway because I do xyz"

and some of xyz is bad and they know it's bad

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It depends a bit on how the race unfolds, of course. As I've said from the beginning, Warren is the one closest to my own sensibilities, and the one I'd most like to see as president.

We need to get past thinking about platforms and issue positions. That's fools' gold. It seems like the "serious" way to evaluate the candidates, but given the current state of the presidency, all of the Democrats would have essentially the same terms. On health care, the best anyone can really hope for is to restore and mildly expand Obamacare (mildly expand in the extremely unlikely scenario that we win back the senate, and then make the dangerous move of killing the filibuster), which all of them would do. On immigration, all of them would restore DACA and push for broader immigration reform (and probably not pass anything permanent, but they'd do what they can with executive orders). On climate, well, none of them cares about climate, but they all say basically the same (usually irrelevant) things. All of them would appoint the same judges, because all of them would take advice from the same sources.

Electability is the ONLY thing that matters, it's the only thing that differs between these candidates on a level that would ever be practically relevant. Everything we've ever seen from the US general electorate tells me that Klobuchar would have a strong chance against Trump, Biden would if he doesn't find a way to fuck it up, and everybody else would be fighting from a position of significant weakness.

People waking up early in the morning excited to cast their vote for Klobuchar.

She has two distinct advantages. She's moderate, so she could collect some swing voters. And I can't see what Trump could hit her with besides generic democrat attacks (not yet at least).

But I don't think those outweigh her blandness

After the four years this country has been through?

You really think Dem turnout will be a problem when Donald Trump is on the ballot and we all now know he's likely to win?

I tend to think the importance of base turnout is overrated on the Dem side even in the best of cases, considering how our base is spread over so many competing interests. But in this case it's even less important.

if amy somehow wins the nomination i would expect progressives to moan for a few weeks. then they/we will come together and be excited to be supporting anyone versus trump. AND its a woman? what would be the possible hits trump could try with her?

im not sure that she would really turn any trump voters though. maybe the ones that voted third party or stayed home.

im trying to picture young people getting excited for her..i guess it could happen.

So fuck me, I guess. I get why Republicans want to keep DC residents disenfranchised. Still waiting on whatever excuse Democrats want to use for 2009-2011.

“Simply put, we believe it is in the best interests of all postal workers, our job security and our union to support and elect Bernie Sanders for president.”

https://apnews.com/416a6f217c28d58fb11828bb4e3bf825

Postal workers union with 200,000 members endorses Sanders
By WILL WEISSERT
an hour ago

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Bernie Sanders was endorsed Thursday by the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union, an influential group that also backed the Vermont senator’s presidential bid against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

The union’s support is key because it promises organizing muscle across the country. Sanders says that if turnout is high during Monday’s lead-off Iowa caucus, he will win — and a win there will key victories in the next two states that vote, New Hampshire and Nevada.

“As with 2016, once again the Sanders campaign is boldly uplifting the goals and aspirations of workers,” union president Mark Dimondstein said in a statement. “Simply put, we believe it is in the best interests of all postal workers, our job security and our union to support and elect Bernie Sanders for president.”

Polls in Iowa and other states show Sanders bunched near the top of the polls with former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Warren and Sanders have both long called for expanding the services offered by post offices, especially in rural communities, to include things like banking.

National labor unions wield a great deal of influence in the Democratic primary. Though many have yet to pick sides in the still-crowded 2020 Democratic primary, though the National Nurses United backed Sanders in November, after endorsing him in 2016. Biden’s campaign got an earlier boost last year with the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

Buttigieg once worked at the high-powered consulting firm McKinsey & Company and has previously released a client list that included the U.S. Postal Service. In 2010, the Postal Service hired McKinsey and other consulting firms and they eventually recommended ways to increase revenue, including cutting back on daily mail service.

Buttigieg’s campaign released a statement in December saying he was “part of a team tasked with generating ideas to increase revenue like selling greeting cards and increasing the use of flat rate boxes.” It added that the candidate “never worked on cost-cutting or anything involving staff reorganization or the privatization of essential post office services.”

In it’s statement endorsing Sanders on Thursday, the postal workers’ union said that the Trump administration “has released a series of proposals that would end the universal service requirement and also would make significant changes in the pricing structure of mail products.” It also noted that there have also been calls to sell the federally run postal service to private corporations.

“When we defeat Donald Trump, we’re not going to privatize and cut the Postal Service. We’re going to expand and strengthen the Postal Service,” Sanders tweeted, in his reaction to the endorsement.

The union promised to “encourage its members and their families who live and work in all 50 states” to join Sanders rallies and volunteer for campaign activities. It also said it would launch voter registration drives and urge its members, their families and friends to choose “vote by mail” options in states without restrictions on absentee balloting.

I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the Primary without hesitation.



_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

https://www.albumism.com/search?q=Marcus%20Willis

Return To Zero: A rap radio show hosted by mrhood75 (Spider Jerusalem) and me (UrkelMoeDee)
https://mixcloud.com

i think she'd make a really good president
and she's talked about most of the things i am most concerned about
on that note though... havent really read her student loans proposal - but i hope it goes beyond giving a 50k debt relief.. i think the terms of the loans are more problematic (vis a vis interest rates mainly - we should be making it easier for us to pay down toward the principal instead of prioritizing interest).

i don't really have a second choice so if she doesn't win the primary i'll be holding my nose and voting for whomever is the eventual nominee.

Right now, I think this is anybody's for the taking minus some obvious exceptions. The situation seems...fluid.

I don't have a good grasp about what it "means" to be a frontrunner in this race (so far), although I do think it's much easier to draw conclusions about candidates who haven't been front runners and haven't crossed a certain polling threshold. I guess that's obvious.

I do think Sanders has a big advantage going into the Iowa caucus as a front runner, especially when I consider that the numbers suggests he has traction. How to put that traction in context, I don't know. Sanders' advantage may be mercurial as people sort how they want to vote, especially in Iowa. If any other candidate was the front runner, I'd think the same thing.

I truly don't know if the right-now Democrat front runner will be the winner of Iowa. I've always thought the most opportune place for a candidate in this race was to have a strong second tier lane.

I place a lot of responsibility on the party and candidates who didn't have the decency to self-select and not run for the position this puts Democratic voters in, a reality that may ultimately contribute to a general election loss. How hard is it to offer a candidate who can win the primaries and a general election against Trump? That task should be a soft ball. I don't think a flat out winning candidate is in the field.

That's sad and worrying because the electoral map is pretty much the same.

Maybe someone will rise to the occasion. I'm not holding my breath, though I think some candidates have the skill set to make the case to the American people in a way that results in VOTES. What's done is done, though.

Biden probably comes closest to being primary/general ready. Even though he's never been my candidate of choice and even though I don't think he's the strongest candidate, the conventional wisdom about him is probably right and I get why there's a push for him. It's not like he has to be the strongest candidate. He just needs to win, and what winning will always come down to is votes. Even candidates who cheat get that. People will make Biden palatable enough so that he can win. I don't know if palatable enough is possible with some of the candidates, even Warren.

warren i believe would make the best president. she presents the best case for recalibrating the scales back toward the working class without coming off like a vigilante against the rich (why suburban and wealthy whites are comfortable with her). her proposals are sensible and measured and seem to be formulated for the best chance of actually bringing people on board and passing (oddly she has given more effort to detail things than bernie has when it comes to policies that bernie supporters claim she stole from him). shes far and away the best pitch person for an actual mapped out agenda. her greatest ability is her presentation of information to flat out teach those who arent yet educated (her professional trade).

but shes struggling to make inroads on a broad level with folks outside of college educated white people. shes spent most of her career being barely above water in her own home state (the most educated state in america where those voters obviously boost her). and i acknowledge her vulnerabilities for simply being a woman in america (i posted that poll a while ago that shows how far the drop off is between men and women candidates among white non college educated voters...regardless of where they actually are on the ideological spectrum).

---

personally im closer to bernie in terms of ideology. but i have doubts about his ability to effectively govern, his desire to lift the entire party (like downballot candidates) especially those who arent ideologically aligned with him, and his desire to negotiate/compromise to get anything passed. anyone who has spent half their adult life in congress yet only has 7 bills to their name (2 being post office namings) says a lot (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYQaLLVAAEwvi9?format=png&name=900x900). it also says a lot that you could barely drum up more congressional allies/endorsements for your initial prez run than martin omalley (someone who never worked in congress and never had political exposure outside his state of maryland).

basically i think he is a great activist with a penchant for pushing important issues to the forefront. but not a good administrative politician when it comes to navigating different terrain outside his wheelhouse and developing an allied coalition that leads to sustained success for the *entire* team (no matter how incremental).

go big or go home doesnt really work as a legislative agenda (outside of immediately following a disaster when theres an overwhelming appetite for self-correction). i think he is misreading the broader electorate here in terms of them voting for big bold radical (uncertain) change right now. at least in perceived spite of political/social stability. we have only taken substantial progressive leaps in modern history after the great depression/recession. when it became absolutely undeniable that the current system had utterly failed.

but even if he won...none of his big ticket items have *any* chance of passing given our current political landscape (repub obstruction with no electoral consequence, filibuster, etc) which would make him a failure by his own measure. barack obama needed a virtual senate supermajority to get his major items passed and his true legislative agenda was basically dead after *2* years when repubs gained the house. a dem president with *no* signature legislation in their 1st term is a sitting duck for re-election (as are his/her party members).

and he basically wants to reconstitute the democratic party back into a coalition heavily favored by the 'white working class' but that ship sailed a long time ago. and his non-recognition of that is a glaring blind spot. while republicans disproportionately/increasingly rely on white non college educated (largely male) voters (the voting bloc dwindling/dying off the fastest but who bernie has the most romance for)...dems are growing their coalition among non whites, women, college educated whites, and suburbs in general...the groups that are actually in areas gaining population and enlarging their electoral potential. any national dem party leader (which the nom/prez is) not leaning into those emerging groups is committing grave political malpractice.

---

biden is just a flat out shitty retail politician/candidate. not much appeal to me on a personal level. but hes a standard bearer (not to be confused with standard-bearer) of the general/generic democratic party platform...which is enough for me right now until we get trump out of the whitehouse and hopefully scrape away enough power from repubs at the state level to institute pro-voter reforms to our democracy that make it harder for them to cheat and gain/retain power.

hes got enough of that working class (white male) identity to appeal to the rust belt while being palatable or even preferable in those blue trending suburbs in potential dem pickups like az, ga, tx, etc.

just by the numbers...any dem prez candidate polling well with the majority of black voters and *30+%* of repubs is a damn unicorn in the current era (https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/99l8uafipkucdgbrwo95vw.png).

regardless of what people tell themselves in their social media echo chambers...the votes are in the center. the midterms told us this. off year elections in va, ky, la, etc told us this. moderates just flat out have the best chance to form a broad coalition and win elections in the competitive territory you need to gain political majorities.

if hes the best we got to retain that core obama/clinton coalition and continue to cement dem party gains in the suburbs (a gradual realignment that i fear bernie would fumble or even reverse)...then so be it.

---

sidenote: people can clown...but i wish there was a top candidate more like beto. cuz he was inspirational as a speaker (something dem voters require/respond to and something the other candidates are noticeably lacking). and he knew how to present himself as a moderate while he was personally (and i think would stealthily govern as) further left. the stuff he was saying and pushing for towards the end of his campaign pretty much confirmed this.

despite the clowning, he had that knack of presenting talking points of the left without being threatening to centrists or the moderate right. It's a unique talent I believe is bred by his being an idol of the incipient New Blue Texas while the state hasn't quite tipped the scales against its red roots. It's a skill he shares with Bill Clinton and I think once he gets a little more savvy and provided he doesn't sell out on that unique brand of idealism he'll come back a stronger candidate. He's the sriracha mayo while buttigieg is just mayo mayo.

Ended up massively disappointed like most of us.

But the dude can rally crowd.

The below (with a lot of added context) is exactly where I'm at on Warren, Bernie, Biden, and even Beto.

I was 100% team Warren before the bullshit w/Bernie. Now I can't call it.


>warren i believe would make the best president. she presents
>the best case for recalibrating the scales back toward the
>working class without coming off like a vigilante against the
>rich (why suburban and wealthy whites are comfortable with
>her). her proposals are sensible and measured and seem to be
>formulated for the best chance of actually bringing people on
>board and passing (oddly she has given more effort to detail
>things than bernie has when it comes to policies that bernie
>supporters claim she stole from him). shes far and away the
>best pitch person for an actual mapped out agenda. her
>greatest ability is her presentation of information to flat
>out teach those who arent yet educated (her professional
>trade).
>
>but shes struggling to make inroads on a broad level with
>folks outside of college educated white people. shes spent
>most of her career being barely above water in her own home
>state (the most educated state in america where those voters
>obviously boost her). and i acknowledge her vulnerabilities
>for simply being a woman in america (i posted that poll a
>while ago that shows how far the drop off is between men and
>women candidates among white non college educated
>voters...regardless of where they actually are on the
>ideological spectrum).
>
>---
>
>personally im closer to bernie in terms of ideology. but i
>have doubts about his ability to effectively govern, his
>desire to lift the entire party (like downballot candidates)
>especially those who arent ideologically aligned with him, and
>his desire to negotiate/compromise to get anything passed.
>anyone who has spent half their adult life in congress yet
>only has 7 bills to their name (2 being post office namings)
>says a lot
>(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYQaLLVAAEwvi9?format=png&name=900x900).
> it also says a lot that you could barely drum up more
>congressional allies/endorsements for your initial prez run
>than martin omalley (someone who never worked in congress and
>never had political exposure outside his state of maryland).
>
>basically i think he is a great activist with a penchant for
>pushing important issues to the forefront. but not a good
>administrative politician when it comes to navigating
>different terrain outside his wheelhouse and developing an
>allied coalition that leads to sustained success for the
>*entire* team (no matter how incremental).
>
>go big or go home doesnt really work as a legislative agenda
>(outside of immediately following a disaster when theres an
>overwhelming appetite for self-correction). i think he is
>misreading the broader electorate here in terms of them voting
>for big bold radical (uncertain) change right now. at least
>in perceived spite of political/social stability. we have
>only taken substantial progressive leaps in modern history
>after the great depression/recession. when it became
>absolutely undeniable that the current system had utterly
>failed.
>
>but even if he won...none of his big ticket items have *any*
>chance of passing given our current political landscape (repub
>obstruction with no electoral consequence, filibuster, etc)
>which would make him a failure by his own measure. barack
>obama needed a virtual senate supermajority to get his major
>items passed and his true legislative agenda was basically
>dead after *2* years when repubs gained the house. a dem
>president with *no* signature legislation in their 1st term is
>a sitting duck for re-election (as are his/her party
>members).
>
>and he basically wants to reconstitute the democratic party
>back into a coalition heavily favored by the 'white working
>class' but that ship sailed a long time ago. and his
>non-recognition of that is a glaring blind spot. while
>republicans disproportionately/increasingly rely on white non
>college educated (largely male) voters (the voting bloc
>dwindling/dying off the fastest but who bernie has the most
>romance for)...dems are growing their coalition among non
>whites, women, college educated whites, and suburbs in
>general...the groups that are actually in areas gaining
>population and enlarging their electoral potential. any
>national dem party leader (which the nom/prez is) not leaning
>into those emerging groups is committing grave political
>malpractice.
>
>---
>
>biden is just a flat out shitty retail politician/candidate.
>not much appeal to me on a personal level. but hes a standard
>bearer (not to be confused with standard-bearer) of the
>general/generic democratic party platform...which is enough
>for me right now until we get trump out of the whitehouse and
>hopefully scrape away enough power from repubs at the state
>level to institute pro-voter reforms to our democracy that
>make it harder for them to cheat and gain/retain power.
>
>hes got enough of that working class (white male) identity to
>appeal to the rust belt while being palatable or even
>preferable in those blue trending suburbs in potential dem
>pickups like az, ga, tx, etc.
>
>just by the numbers...any dem prez candidate polling well with
>the majority of black voters and *30+%* of repubs is a damn
>unicorn in the current era
>(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/99l8uafipkucdgbrwo95vw.png).
>
>
>regardless of what people tell themselves in their social
>media echo chambers...the votes are in the center. the
>midterms told us this. off year elections in va, ky, la, etc
>told us this. moderates just flat out have the best chance to
>form a broad coalition and win elections in the competitive
>territory you need to gain political majorities.
>
>if hes the best we got to retain that core obama/clinton
>coalition and continue to cement dem party gains in the
>suburbs (a gradual realignment that i fear bernie would fumble
>or even reverse)...then so be it.
>
>---
>
>sidenote: people can clown...but i wish there was a top
>candidate more like beto. cuz he was inspirational as a
>speaker (something dem voters require/respond to and something
>the other candidates are noticeably lacking). and he knew how
>to present himself as a moderate while he was personally (and
>i think would stealthily govern as) further left. the stuff
>he was saying and pushing for towards the end of his campaign
>pretty much confirmed this.
>
>

>warren i believe would make the best president.

I think so, too.

>her greatest ability is her presentation of information to flat out teach >those who arent yet educated (her professional trade).

That's why I think she's so effective as a candidate.

>personally im closer to bernie in terms of ideology.

I'm not, but it's not like most of Bernie's policy suggestions, in theory, represent anything I don't support in principle.

>but i have doubts about his ability to effectively govern, his
>desire to lift the entire party (like downballot candidates)
>especially those who arent ideologically aligned with him, and
>his desire to negotiate/compromise to get anything passed.

I have doubts, too. When given the opportunity to demonstrate his desire to lift the entire party, he hasn't. Bernie plays for Bernie. It's politics, so I won't deny him that. However he wins, ok, fine. But also: his strategy is all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.

The *only* reason I don't support Bernie is because I just don't see how the votes are there in a general election. I've never seen a net positive votes scenario for Sanders.

He lost the last primary race. That was real! Those votes were real! The electoral map is brutal and not a joke! Sanders didn't come close enough--not in the popular or electoral vote. Is the support *that much more* for Sanders, now, with an electoral map that's nearly the same as what we looked at in the last election?

> i think he is misreading the broader electorate here in terms of them >voting for big bold radical (uncertain) change right now. at least
>in perceived spite of political/social stability. we have
>only taken substantial progressive leaps in modern history
>after the great depression/recession. when it became
>absolutely undeniable that the current system had utterly
>failed.

I just don't see how the numbers are in his favor.

I dare any of the candidates to usher in sweeping liberal policies when the courts, for instance, have taken a dark turn. Witnessing the Republicans legislative and political strategy and the long-term gains they've made is sobering. This is not the time to make easy mistakes. Republicans will make us pay for any legislative agenda and attempt to suppress votes, regardless.

>dems are growing their coalition among non
>whites, women, college educated whites, and suburbs in
>general...the groups that are actually in areas gaining
>population and enlarging their electoral potential. any
>national dem party leader (which the nom/prez is) not leaning
>into those emerging groups is committing grave political
>malpractice.

1000% agree.

>regardless of what people tell themselves in their social
>media echo chambers...the votes are in the center. the
>midterms told us this. off year elections in va, ky, la, etc
>told us this. moderates just flat out have the best chance to
>form a broad coalition and win elections in the competitive
>territory you need to gain political majorities.

That's right.

>if hes the best we got to retain that core obama/clinton
>coalition and continue to cement dem party gains in the
>suburbs (a gradual realignment that i fear bernie would fumble
>or even reverse)...then so be it.

That's where I am with this.

>sidenote: people can clown...but i wish there was a top
>candidate more like beto.

I get that.

I've often looked at the candidates and wanted to hear that soaring rhetoric thing. A voice that can unite the people!

warren makes too much sense. there is so much hate for her though. attacks against her have been really effective and she hasnt been great at deflecting/overcoming them. the situation with bernie definitely was a loss for her.

she seems to be getting a lot of backing from the "establishment" now but im not sure thats going to keep her afloat. i think her best chance is that biden does really bad and that support goes to her.

i cant call it with bernie. if he wins, what happens? i kind of really like warrens transition compared to bernies regarding M4A. other than that i would imagine he will stand his ground to get as much as possible in what he does pass.


wouldnt biden get the blow back that he is part of the establishment? i guess that is kind of his pitch, lets get back to the establishment but i do worry that too many people do not want that.

First of all: great insights as usual. Thanks for all that.

Regarding your sidenote: I've been having similar thoughts about Kamala. I think she could have been a much stronger candidate than what we saw. I don't blame anyone but her for her early demise. It was a huge strategic blunder to try to push for that Bernie/Warren lane to the extent she did. If she'd run as a backup alternative to Joe Biden (which always seemed more natural for her anyway), by now she'd be the candidate that a huge number of Democrats seem to want.

I pretty much agree with you word for word on Warren and Bernie.

I do (probably foolishly) wonder if Warren could somehow pull off winning Iowa what that would do for her demos. I'm thinking what Iowa did for Obama, basically.


Beto is kind of sad case man. I think folks got distracted by Pete being a gay veteran from the midwest, to be fucking honest. Dude took Beto's thunder.

That said, I wonder if Beto would have done better had he entered earlier. Maybe at that El Paso rally. He had all this momentum- I wonder if he could have boxed out Pete, etc.

Then again, he was also not strong on policy which was a glaring weak spot- especially this cycle. And he worked way too hard to drop 'biblioteca' on fools.


I'm still Warren right now. Ironically, I was coming around on the Bernie campaign (due to his donations, the crowds, the organizing, etc. In that sense, his campaign reminds me most of Obama's) UNTIL the Warren beef.

Yeah she and her team fucked up. But so did he and his. He had days to come up with and rehearse a response that could have validated the challenges women face, etc...and he just fell flat. Plus the way his surrogates, loud supporters, etc acted?

I just don't see that "movement" giving a single fuck about moderates.

And, you know me, neither do I! lol lol But I also get that you have to be strategic and politics is local. So when it comes to things like supporting down ticket candidates, being smart about who he picks as a VP, etc? I just can't picture it.

The Warren beef was a reminder how...self-centered and privileged that 'movement' can be. It was also a reminder how relatively little criticism Bernie has faced when compared to someone like Warren. I have my doubts about how he and his team can hold up in the general. Again, you had days to come up with a response to Warren and it was "it wasn't me"

And I know I'm a broken fucking record, but there will be a point where Trump is going to turn to Bernie and say "Bernie, you've been in Washington for 30 years, why haven't you gotten any of this done yet?" and it will work. Just like it did on Hillary.


I will say man, I do not believe republicans are going to vote for any Dem- not even Joe Biden. I think some of them probably do like Joe for a variety of reasons, but liking him doesn't = voting for him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they love him compared to Liz or Bernie. But that doesn't mean they are going to cast a vote for him.

And even the ones who say they will vote for him are full of shit. Megan McCain types aren't voting for a Dem. They like to say they are- even in polls. But if you'll take all of Trump's evil shit over Warren taxing the wealthy, you'll take his evil shit over any Dem.

In other words, if there is a line where all of Trump's shit is acceptable over a Dem, Joe Biden isn't exempt from that. This is their party. This is what their party has been- its just in our faces now. I think folks are straight up fooling themselves, even after all this time, even after the same failed thinking with Hillary, that there are some mythical moderate Republicans who will vote for a Democrat.

Its just not going to happen. We are more partisan than ever. Gardner, who is probably going to lose his seat anyway, won't even vote for witnesses- which is a no brainer. And he is a supposed 'moderate' who is facing re-election. Even he won't go against the team.

Nah. This is the GOP, man. The party and their voters.

This is their party. Republicans aren't going to line up to vote for Joe Biden.

Mostly he just made me miss the real thing. But I agree he's the type that could work, and I agree with a lot of what you said.

What are your thoughts on Kloubochar, it she could make a push?

I think folks, myself included, were drawn to him initially because he invoked those same feelings we had in 2004 and then as we approached 2008 ... but sadly Beto just didn't have the staying power, policies, legs to stay in it.

The initial hype certainly had a lot to do with his magnetism and how he was able to channel Obama in his early speeches. But that kind of hype/feeling only lasts if you're able to back it up.


>Mostly he just made me miss the real thing. But I agree he's
>the type that could work, and I agree with a lot of what you
>said.
>
>What are your thoughts on Kloubochar, it she could make a
>push?

I think he has the best chance of beating trump.

But I think Biden has the best chance of winning.

it’s vital that trump is beaten in November.

but I can’t ride for him in the primary.

another propped up candidate by the dnc

oodles of gaffs

creep


it feels like a lot of complaints you can make about trump could apply to biden. at least on the superficial level which is what seems to matter to too many voters.

no question ill vote for biden vs trump but hes close to the last one i want to win the nomination.

but the reason I think he has the best shot is due to name recognition and old white people who will “trust” him.

He’s the type of guy the middle of America and the rust belt will vote for... and older black voters also trust him because he was Obama’s guy.

>He’s the type of guy the middle of America and the rust belt
>will vote for...

He's not from there. What about him indicates that he'd get more traction there?

It wasn’t so he could win Delaware.

Republicans have shown us for 4 years now who they are. Not just the politicians, but the voters in their approval numbers, etc.


And yet, people STILL think a guy like Biden will peel off Republican votes.


I'm not being an asshole. I get wanting to think that. And, in the past, there would have been an argument. But there is no question we are in a time of extreme hyper partisanship.

And that was the argument in '16. Hillary was more experienced, more stable, etc- and she would appeal to moderate Republicans who couldn't 'stomach Trump'

People see polls that say "32% of Republicans have a favorable view of Joe Biden!" and get excited. Those folks aren't voting for Joe today....let alone after 10 months of gaffes, fuck ups, and losing his temper with voters.

Add it in what his "the fog will lift and the GOP will work with us" and "we need a Republican party" stuff would do to take (even a little) momentum/passion out of the Dem side?

Nah.

I used to think Biden was the worst play too. I'm not sure I'm that extreme anymore- but I do think he would be one of the worst.

And if people are talking strictly about older, moderate Dems? I'd rather have Klobuchar. No joke. At least she doesn't come with the baggage, has won big in a purple state, and would excite people by being a woman.


And fuck it, "I'd trade two of you for a bottle of water" is funny.


But even then...I really don't get the argument that there are older, moderate Democrats who will take Trump over a liberal candidate.

how much is she paying? lol

when i think of her i think eh why? but now also WHY NOT?

I think "why not?" should be her slogan, fuck it.


Don't misread my intent, though. I'm just saying, if someone could sell me that a "moderate" was the only way to win, I would take her over Joe, over Mayor stop-and-frisk, and definitely Pete. (I would take this cup of coffee I'm sipping on over Pete)


Someone up above made a good point- why does Joe get to be the default rust belt candidate....from Delaware?


Amy is from the area, and won big when Hillary barely won. And dems love to make history...so I think even the progressives could get behind it.

That said, some of the stories about her have been awful and very concerning. But, a few of the stories she just sounds like an abrasive woman from the midwest...*shrugs* Like her bottle of water joke. Shit was funny to me.

That’s who the rust belt trust the most

And great point on why Obama picked him, also.


I just don't think everyone should ignore someone who actually wins big in the rust belt.


And I agree with you on people discounting how disliked/hated Hillary was. I was right there with you in '16.

Biden wouldn't have that, nor the extra sexism she faced.


But there were (are) people who fucking loved her too. Joe doesn't have that. I know seeing him and Obama out there campaigning would get folks in the feels, but Obama can't be on that debate stage with him.

I don't know man. I get your points, just not sold.

And 48% lean Democratic.

https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

This is as of 2016. According to less-rigorous analysis the GOP number has decreased since then. But let's take the 44/48 split to be cautious.

Nobody's talking about winning over any of those 44% (even though some of those are only saying they "lean" Republican, so it's not out of the question especially when many of them are embarrassed by Trump).

The argument for moderates is that we need to maximize the fraction of the remaining 8% who votes for the Democrat.

The fact that partisan voters are so strongly polarized right now does not mean that there aren't also voters who can be swayed between the two parties. There are a lot of voters who are generally disengaged. There are a lot who voted for Trump because they liked his TV persona. There is a HUGE number of voters who claimed not to like either candidate in 2016 (as there are in most races) and said they were voting for the lesser of the 2 evils, the one they'd "rather have a beer with." These voters can add up, and I think it can be argued they're the ones who've decided every presidential race in our lifetimes.

I have seen people big up Joe Biden's potential to win never-trumpers. It is a case that *some* make, and I think it is naive.



As far as true independents (that is independents that truly can be swayed to either party, not independents who identify that way simply because they hate the idea of a two-party system...then vote with their preferred party anyway)....the argument is more convincing, but I'm still not with it.

Okay maybe Joe gains some *true* independents because they trust him more or would rather grab a beer with him.

Do those numbers outweigh the liberal independents/ typical non-voters/etc that will stay home or vote *shudders* green?

I don't know man.

Like I said, I used to think Joe was our worst bet. I don't necessarily think that anymore.

And I think for him, his VP pick could be make or break. Maybe more than any other candidate.

Is he willing to pick a VP that would excite progressives? If I was confident he would I'd feel a lot better about it. Still wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd feel better.

And, trust me, I know the VP essentially is just there to break ties or whatever. But I do think party unity, as corny as it sounds, will be important. And I know you think I over-estimate turnout, but I do think it would be stupid - or at least risky- to not give the left wing *something* this cycle.

The flip side is Bernie. I think he would have to pick an 'establishment' VP for similar reasons, and I also don't think he would. And I don't think his supporters are ready for it, either.

and some of us in here kept trying to tell folks she was HATED by some Dem voters.

Not sure why but she is an extremely hatable person.

I knew a few people who said they would vote for anyone but Hillary. She really makes people mad

Hell, I still hate her over the “Obama could get assassinated” line.

Fucking witch ass

>Not sure why but she is an extremely hatable person.

>
>Hell, I still hate her over the “Obama could get
>assassinated” line.
>
>Fucking witch ass

she was on some bullshit for that one.

>And if people are talking strictly about older, moderate Dems?
> I'd rather have Klobuchar. No joke. At least she doesn't
>come with the baggage, has won big in a purple state, and
>would excite people by being a woman.
>
>
>And fuck it, "I'd trade two of you for a bottle of water" is
>funny.
>
>
>But even then...I really don't get the argument that there are
>older, moderate Democrats who will take Trump over a liberal
>candidate.
>
>

Klobucher has baggage

https://thehill.com/campaign-issues/480611-minneapolis-naacp-black-lives-matter-call-on-klobuchar-to-suspend-campaign

To be clear, I meant she didn't have as much baggage as Joe- but I honestly didn't know about this.

And I was strictly comparing her to other moderates just based on her ability to win big in MN.

I don't want to be viewed as the Klobuchar defender. **Rethinks life**

>I don't want to be viewed as the Klobuchar defender.
>**Rethinks life**
>
>
>

What the fuck happened? Let me retrace my steps...

>
>To be clear, I meant she didn't have as much baggage as Joe-
>but I honestly didn't know about this.
>
>And I was strictly comparing her to other moderates just based
>on her ability to win big in MN.
>
>I don't want to be viewed as the Klobuchar defender.
>**Rethinks life**
>

I get it.

however I don’t think any of the other candidates can beat trump and I’ll willing to sacrifice everything for the better chance...

I hear you tho :-)

Oh I get it, trust me.

Beating Trump is the most important. This is the most I have *ever* gone back and forth on which candidate I support, or the most I have considered more moderate candidates, etc.

I get it.

I don't like Biden obviously. But if I did (or do) feel he was our best bet, I'd be right there with you.

i think he could have even peeled off some republican votes, and he would have pummeled Trump with ease, and the GOP would be humiliated, and kicking itself for actually letting this buffoon be their nominee.

but the country is in a different place now, and he seems 20 years older than he was 4 years ago.

And I've said this re: Biden, too. He had the recency bias and goodwill of his proximity to Obama and the eight years of relative peace and progress that came with their administration, he had the benefit of not having to campaign against an incumbent, and I think - and said at the time - that he would've been the perfect foil for 45*'s standard bullshit. I think Biden was still sharp enough at that point to counter 45*'s particular brand of brashness.

But alas, it was "Hillary's turn" and of course, the death of his son played a major part in his decision not to run. But had things fallen into place differently I imagine we wouldn't be anywhere near the place we are now.


>i think he could have even peeled off some republican votes,
>and he would have pummeled Trump with ease, and the GOP would
>be humiliated, and kicking itself for actually letting this
>buffoon be their nominee.
>
>but the country is in a different place now, and he seems 20
>years older than he was 4 years ago.

Even if he wins, we're stuck with him as President which would be horrible.

https://gfycat.com/repentantmenacingadeliepenguin

Fuck robots

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PaTWufUqqU

robotics are already here and have been for a while. Machine learning is going to be everywhere, including robotics (you're probably using some tech that's using ML now). If people think a grand a month is going to make things better for folks who aren't ready, I don't know what to say.

The sad thing is, the entry point for learning how this stuff works (at least having a basic understanding of it) is not that high.

AWS has a deepracer platform that can be used to teach the concepts of reinforcement machine learning. You don't even need a physical device ($400 bucks), you can run simulations in the cloud (of course, you have to watch how long your models train for). You get the added benefit of getting familiar with cloud based infrastructure and services.

There are other robotics/ ML platforms that can be run outside of AWS.

We need to stop worrying about the jobs that are being made obsolete and focus on how to get the skills needed for the jobs that are coming.

For your reference:
https://twitter.com/sickofwolves/status/1088556051706699776

also, just so we're square, I was 100% joking

removed from welfare reform, is going to give anyone...let alone brown people...money no strings attached)

>RE: this rhymes with "immigrants are stealing our jerbs"
>
>We need to stop worrying about the jobs that are being made
>obsolete and focus on how to get the skills needed for the
>jobs that are coming.

Unfortunately there's too much money at stake for anyone in power to ever put any kind of genuine effort into convincing the general public that it is in the best interest of all of us to focus on retraining the masses for the jobs that are coming, rather than digging their heels in to protect the increasingly obsolete jobs that exist.

Voting with my head in the general for the nominee, of course.

I just don't feel like I need to vote for the person who is most likely to beat trump because that person doesn't exist. You can make a legit case against all of them for why they're not going to win. And everyone in this post is making great points about why their candidate can win. Shit, some of y'all are selling me on the Klob for fucks sake lol.

So why Bernie? I vibe with his proposals the most, simple as that. I also vibe with the "day one" rhetoric over the pragmatic rhetoric of Warren. Either of them winning would be great and I would enthusiastically support them. I'm not down with the centrists because I'm not down with their policies and approaches. Besides, whoever gets the nomination is going to be smeared as a dirty socialist rat who wants to turn this fine country into Venezuela so fuck it, might as well earn it. And if the Dems win, the GOP will put their horseshit stonewalling machine in full effect, even against the most vanilla proposals out there, as Obama will tell you. Electability is a myth and you can let Sen. Sherrod Brown explain it better than I can: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/sherrod-brown-electability-is-a-myth-858699/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/30/us/politics/democratic-presidential-candidates-quiz.html


_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

https://www.albumism.com/search?q=Marcus%20Willis

Return To Zero: A rap radio show hosted by mrhood75 (Spider Jerusalem) and me (UrkelMoeDee)
https://mixcloud.com

Dude was second behind Warren in that other quiz. I had no idea where dude stood to be honest.

he’s the only one I hear on the black station in Charlotte.

Always weird to hear his first move as President is to make Climate Change a national emergency.

That’s a weird first move as President.

wasnt even about the issues mostly. does the next question change based on how you answered the previous question?

I think it's always the same 10 questions.

>wasnt even about the issues mostly. does the next question
>change based on how you answered the previous question?


_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

https://www.albumism.com/search?q=Marcus%20Willis

Return To Zero: A rap radio show hosted by mrhood75 (Spider Jerusalem) and me (UrkelMoeDee)
https://mixcloud.com

https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/1223224310413905921?s=20

There's a lot of people hurting out there.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/john-delaney-democratic-race-cnntv/index.html


Washington (CNN)Former Rep. John Delaney announced Friday that he's dropping out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race, ending a long-shot bid that saw the Maryland Democrat spend millions of his own fortune only to fail to gain any traction in the 2020 race.

Delaney, who announced his campaign in summer 2017, had planned to stake his campaign on success in Iowa's first-in-the-nation nominating contest. But the Democrat ultimately opted to drop out three days before the caucuses.


"It's clear to me on Monday, on caucus night, I will not have sufficient support to get to the 15% viability threshold ... that is needed to get delegates out of Iowa," Delaney told CNN's John Berman on "New Day."

Delaney did not endorse another Democrat for president but vowed to support the party's eventual nominee, whoever it is. He said his decision was motivated in part to make sure moderate candidates have a better shot at succeeding in Iowa.

"My support is sufficient enough to take from other more moderate candidates, and I just don't want to do that," he said.


But Delaney cautioned against nominating either Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, whom he believes are too liberal and would have "a tougher campaign against Donald Trump" in a general election.
"Their proposal takes health care away from a lot of people and forces them on some new government plan. That's a hard way to win an election," Delaney said.

I legit forgot this dude existed.

he started in 2017 and still was invisible.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

-->

Trump has mental real estate in Warren's mind. And that Native American shit will bury her.

All Trump has to do with Bernie is fear monger the socialism card and he's toast.

I fully admit im only voting for who i think has an actual shot at beating Trump

Trump will get no more than the 63 million votes he got last time

whoever gets the Democratic nom will do Obama numbers or better, 66 to 70 million

yes, i know, "but, but, the electoral college"

even still.

I think others could beat him but I wouldn’t be as sure. I would have the least confidence in Bernie.

what is she doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk-yvUOQm0E

either way...she says/does some goofy ass shit.

i think she micromanages and squeezes every drop of juice out an issue/proposal that most people are just cool with a broad platitude on.

just say you wanna kick devos out and replace her with someone who has experience in public education then move on with your damn speech lol.

because I've liked her since before she got into politics.

How did I forget about him? Who else is still out there lurking? lol

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

im trying to vote any chance i get, local, statewide, national.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Guess I’m a Bernie Bro since I voted for him in 2016.

My theory is Dems would fall in line and the Bernie independents would take him over the top.

Or if there was any hassle at all.
But it's easy here, so yeah I'll vote

it’s damn near a crime not to vote, especially with early voting.

Shit is easy af.

Caucused in 2016, too

bring it on

I've voted in the last primary for the 1st time and have voted in the last 3 elections. I am not stopping.

You can even mail it in now on NC.

Side eyeing anyone claiming they didn’t have time to vote.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm registered to vote, but I'm not registered to party, which results in me not being able to vote in the upcoming primary here in NYC.

THIS AGENDA IS ALL MINE I LOCKED IT DOWN

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i do think bernie is the front runner now. im not sure how he is stopped.

i think biden is done, i dont think he will bounce back. iowa showed how much support he really has. he will probably do worse moving forward.

pete...i dont know. i think he will do better than he is being projected to.

warren needs biden to drop out to make some gains but they would probably be washed away by pick ups by pete and bernie.

i dont think we need anyone else to stay in. knowing they will i would think amy has a chance but she needs to show it in the next 3 states.

I'm actually torn between the two.

Sanders is more consistent ideologically and he has the momentum now, but I think Warren would get much more done. Her campaign is falling off hard tho. I'm not sure if she can bounce back.

I take it back, maybe I'll vote for her in the primary. But if she is still in 3rd in March she needs to drop out and back Sanders.

i did donate to both. warren has really won me over but id be really happy with sanders too. i am disappointed in a lot of things warren has done of late. the lack of a surge is pretty disheartening.

im definitely going to keep watching how they both do in the next 3 states. it has the potential of changing my vote to sanders but if she stays in the top 3 i think im going to stick to voting for her. if it somehow gets back to being a bernie vs biden race with pete sticking in there then maybe i change to sanders.

right now i feel like its important for her to stay in, if she drops out i don think most of her voters would go to bernie.

how would a brokered convention work? would warren have control of where her delegates go?

where they want.

>how would a brokered convention work? would warren have
>control of where her delegates go?

i like her and i think she'd be just fine once she was in office.. probably even the best of the bunch, but she doesn't seem to have a lane anymore. She was the "I have a plan for that" candidate. Now she's just week to week on whatever her last cringe moment from trying too hard was.

It doesn't make sense why she's struggling this hard.

None of the knocks against her are disqualifying, but her campaign can't seem to roll with the punches at all.

i guess there have been problems since before. she wasnt able to maintain momentum after her initial bump. once pete went after her on m4a the campaign started falling. i thought releasing a plan to pay for m4a was good. even finding a way to pay for it without raising taxes on non-millionaires. i guess people didnt like that.

i really like her public option transition but that was definitely a flop. i still think its the best fix to healthcare but yeah people dont care.

all that said, there werent major issues with her campaign until january/december. there seems to be more and more unforced errors lately.

i hope she can turn it around. if not i hope whoever does win brings her on so we can get some of these plans implemented.

people respect Bernie's consistency, and evolving and compromising, even though i don't personally see it as bad, is mostly viewed as weakness, or a reason not to trust someone.

i think the whole 'women can't win' beef with Bernie hurt her (even more with CNN clearly taking her side) and she's not helping herself with silliness like saying she won't approve of a secretary of education unless her selected trans high school student signs off on them. I know she views this as an act of kindness, but she's trying to win an election. Not just the room.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

We talked about this, remember?

It's cute how you think that's the emotion anyone associates with you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and we both know it wasn't rational. that's identified enough

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

for your daily need to manufacture other people's emotions in your head just so you'll have something to bitch about.

things that are going on in my head.

interesting.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/elizabeth-warren-campaign-nevada-111595

is anyone still checking for these? its seems biden and pete are now going at each other. i wonder if they will do so in the debate.

7 people made tonights debate.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/candidates-qualify-hampshire-democratic-primary-debate-podium-order/story?id=68796457

Seven candidates will face off in the Democratic debate ahead of New Hampshire's primary election, ABC News announced Friday.

ABC News is hosting the eighth Democratic primary debate of the campaign cycle in partnership with Apple News and Hearst Television's WMUR-TV, ABC's affiliate station in New Hampshire. The debate, sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, will take place at Saint Anselm College's Sullivan Arena in Manchester, New Hampshire.

The debate, airing from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET on the ABC Television Network, will feature the following candidates on stage, from left to right as viewed by the audience:

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Businessman Tom Steyer

In addition to watching on ABC, viewers can get up-to-the-minute coverage about the candidates and issues as the debates unfolds on the iPhone's free Apple News app. Not only can viewers watch the debate, but they can click on a feed of live updates to see more information, including real-time updates, analysis and explainer guides from ABC News’ top correspondents and experts.

Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, "World News Tonight" Anchor and Managing Editor David Muir and ABC News Live Anchor Linsey Davis will moderate the debate. Joining them will be WMUR-TV Political Director Adam Sexton and WMUR-TV News Anchor Monica Hernandez.

Candidates will have one minute and 15 seconds to answer direct questions and 45 seconds for rebuttals, at the discretion of the moderators. Candidates will not make opening or closing statements, but there will be a closing question.

The podium order was determined by averaging the candidates' qualifying polls as certified by the DNC. Polls had to be publicly released between Dec. 13 and 11:59 p.m. Thursday.

The presidential hopefuls had two ways to meet the polling threshold.

The first path was the four-poll threshold: Candidates had to get at least 5% support in four national polls or polls conducted in New Hampshire, Nevada and/or South Carolina. In order to count as qualifying polls, the polls had to be sponsored by different organizations, or if sponsored by the same organization, covering different geographical areas.

The second path was the early state polling threshold: Candidates had to get at least 7% support in two polls conducted in New Hampshire, Nevada and/or South Carolina. Unlike the first path, these polls could be sponsored by the same organization and could also be conducted in the same geographical area.

The polls had to be sponsored by one of the organizations or pairs of organizations from the following list determined by the DNC: Associated Press; ABC News/Washington Post; CBS News/YouGov; CNN; Fox News; Monmouth University; NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist; NBC News/Wall Street Journal; NBC News/Marist; New York Times/Siena College; Nevada Independent/Mellman Group; Quinnipiac University; University of New Hampshire; USA Today/Suffolk University; Winthrop University.

By ABC News' count, there were 21 qualifying polls released in the qualifying period for this debate.

Candidates also had to meet a grassroots fundraising threshold to qualify. They had to accrue at least 225,000 individual donors, and they had to have a minimum of 1,000 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states, U.S. territories or the District of Columbia.

The deadline to achieve this was also 11:59 p.m. Thursday.

When the DNC announced the qualifying criteria for this debate, candidates had another way to secure their place on stage -- by being awarded at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention from Monday's Iowa Caucus. However, given the issues with reporting results, and DNC Chairman Tom Perez's call for a recanvass Thursday, the Iowa Democratic Party has not announced who has received delegates, and the candidates who qualified submitted for certification based on polling and fundraising thresholds.

Usually, I'm excited for literally anything to bail me out of a social engagement. For one night only, that's not the case. I haven't watched a single one of these debates and been pleased that I've sat through it.

Though I'm also not very good of making anything in the moment. I really thought the Sanders/Warren "I beat a republican incumbent" thing was hilarious banter before it blew up. So this is probably for the best.

im happy to have something else to focus on. also because we now have some results and indications of where things may go i feel the tone might change.

also, CNN is not hosting it so we might have something worth watching.

i do expect them to ask biden why voters should trust that he can win based on how he did in iowa.

i kind of want to get some pizza and wings and watch this lol an hour in might bail though.

if you watched that shit you should be committed

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Steyer and Yang should just go home.

"nibbling at the edges" from both Bernie and Yang. LMAO.

"GET THAT WEAK STUFF OUTTA HERE"

i like that they pressed pete to give an answer. Amy seemed to be the favorite of the media after the debate.

i wonder how much the impeachment trial affected the turn out for sanders/warren/amy

will berne and warren get a bump from the moderates fighting?

can NH go smoothly?

made during last week's debate that I agree with is that Democrats have to win the Senate. Now I don't know if he's necessarily the dude for Democrats to rally around since I think he's a bumbling awkward doofus, but that is a very crucial step.

I lean towards Warren and Saunders, but I do wonder how well Congress will work with either of them assuming they do become President, Bernie especially.

But of course beating Trump is the most pressing matter at hand.

No but seriously I hope we have a clear nominee by the end of March. That Debate last nite has me really feeling like they are all good, yet all flawed and anymore messes like Iowa is just going to depress and diminish the energy we need to beat trump

I literally don’t care who the nom is now (if pressed, I still want lizzy followed by Klobuchar), we all just need to have a nom to rally behind and sure up down ballot races, we def can keep the house and I think if not outright take the senate at least make grounds

The thing I’m so scared about is the messier and longer it takes to settle on a nom, the more it will seem like “both sides are a mess” so why not just stick with trump since the economy is good. That’s basically what destroyed HRC , the notion that both were “just as bad”

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1226905592830124032

this prompted me to find the video of her exiting the private plane


tryna hide behind a staffer

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1227397235308101633

more surprising we still have so many candidates.

to me what intrigued me the most about him was his "human capitalism" measurement.

whos chappelle going to support now???

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/massachusetts-gov-deval-patrick-suspends-presidential-bid/story?id=67498712

Unless someone un-suspends their campaign (wouldn't rule it out this year).

Bernie Sanders
Pete Buttigieg
Elizabeth Warren
Amy Klobuchar
Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Tom Steyer
Tulsi Gabbard

I imagine Tulsi and Tom will drop out soon. The rest will probably stick around through super Tuesday.

Hard to say who else besides Bernie is a serious contender. I'd guess at least Pete is. I don't think he will do as poorly in the following states as pre-Iowa polls were showing.

Amy has potential but too early to say her momentum is real. Biden and Warren have the potential for bounce backs but I wouldn't bet on them. We need to see how Bloomberg does on super Tuesday, hopefully worse than Biden.

I wonder how many people would change their votes now. I am wavering on Warren, I need to see some life from her in NV. I am seriously considering changing to Bernie.

Tulsi and Bloomberg need to get out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq-SvhcHtOo

even if she shows up to that shit with 0 delegates lol.

i noticed her online supporters have gotten mad quiet (like yang gang after iowa).

any offices in states?

on january 8th. in nh. less than a month before the primary.

right?

according to this article they are. i keep searching to see if theres a new nevada poll and came across this. if this is true then nevada could really shake things up.

https://truthout.org/articles/biden-has-raised-the-most-from-nevada-donors-but-sanders-leads-in-the-polls/

emocratic presidential candidates who received the greatest amount of donations from Iowa and New Hampshire residents also finished at the top of the polls in the two early primaries.

If those results are any indication of what can be expected from the upcoming Nevada caucuses, then this time, it’s former Vice President Joe Biden who could finally make a breakthrough in the state.

Biden has raised almost $842,000 from Nevada donors, topping his Democratic primary contenders by a large margin. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) comes in second, raising around $528,000 in the state. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has received over $292,000 in contributions.

Biden is slated to be one of the top contenders in the Silver State after finishing fourth and fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. While FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls earlier forecasted a comfortable lead for Biden in Nevada, Sanders has now overtaken him for the lead.

Until last week, FiveThirtyEight projected a Biden win with almost 23 percent of the vote. But after his poor performance in the first two contests despite spending a lot of time and money in both states, he dropped more than 4 points to 18.5 percent.

Biden’s campaign, which is banking heavily on the African American and Latino voter base for a win in Nevada, reportedly tried to reassure worried top donors and contributors on a conference call on Tuesday. The Super PAC Unite the Country backing Biden also warned supporters of a “doomsday scenario” if Biden is forced to exit the race, urging them to contribute.

It was reported that the former vice president boosted Nevada spending, putting an estimated $290,000 into broadcast, according to FiveThirtyEight. Meanwhile, Biden’s campaign has spent almost all of the $60 million it raised last year, leaving Biden with less than $9 million cash on hand.

Warren, who trailed in both primaries, is projected by FiveThirtyEight to finish third in Nevada. She vowed to continue aggressive campaigning after the losses and pulled her television ad buys in South Carolina to pour additional money into Nevada advertising. Warren has spent approximately $430,000 on TV ads in the state.

Riding on his success in Iowa and New Hampshire, former mayor of South Bend, Ind., Pete Buttigieg, doubled his staff in Nevada and increased investment in television ads. He has spent over $150,000 on TV ads so far, according to Advertising Analytics, an ad data firm. Super PAC VoteVets, which is backing the former mayor, also reportedly bought over $500,000 worth of TV ads in Nevada.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) team will spend $70,000 on advertising in Vegas and an additional $94,000 on cable statewide. Her team has increased spending after a surprising third place finish in the New Hampshire primary, following a spike in polls after her debate performance last Friday. Additionally, after the New Hampshire primary, her team also announced they raised $2.5 million in four hours.

Meanwhile, billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who isn’t on the ballot in Nevada or South Carolina, has spent $350 million on nationwide advertising but under $2,000 in Nevada, according to estimates by FiveThirtyEight.

President Donald Trump has raised the highest in contributions in Nevada at almost $872,000. Running four TV advertisements in the state, Trump has spent around $880,000. Trump lost Nevada by less than 3 points in 2016.

she does some little boneheaded things that frustrate the fuck out of me, mainly because they're terrible politically, but they are always small things that get escalated.

i also don't have a whole lot of faith in her to beat Trump. I actually don't have faith in any of these people to beat Trump. I find each candidate either too polarizing, or flawed in their own way.

I think she's the only one that has any shot of uniting the wings of the party, and I've kind of changed my previous qualifier of who can beat Trump, to who would make the best president. She's to the left of me personally, but i find her willingness to adjust positions (such as m4a) to be more of a strength than a reason to mistrust her.

she's the best of this bunch imo

https://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Elizabeth-Warren-2.jpg

i voted for her last week. ive gotten texts asking if i will canvass for her. im tempted to. not really my thing to be knocking on peoples doors but erm maybe.

>https://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Elizabeth-Warren-2.jpg
>
>i voted for her last week. ive gotten texts asking if i will
>canvass for her. im tempted to. not really my thing to be
>knocking on peoples doors but erm maybe.

even if i thought i was even a little better than terrible of convincing anyone how to vote, i doubt id do that for her. I'm not super excited over her, I'm not following the debates much or any of the noise, but if anyone asks I'll let them know I'm voting for her and why. Good on you, if you do that though, man.

i kind of enjoy debating things in good faith. if i can get some people to consider her maybe i can help her get over 15% in the state.

i think she should at least be a realistic option if we get to a contested convention.

>even if i thought i was even a little better than terrible of
>convincing anyone how to vote, i doubt id do that for her. I'm
>not super excited over her, I'm not following the debates much
>or any of the noise, but if anyone asks I'll let them know I'm
>voting for her and why. Good on you, if you do that though,
>man.

I'm not sure where you live, I'm in MA. And I did some canvassing for Obama in 2012 and again in 2018 for the midterms ... and in my experience it wasn't so much about convincing folks *how* to vote. It was more about motivating folks to go vote in the first place.

No joke part of my spiel was "do you have transportation to your voting location ? Can we provide that for you ?"

So it's less "you need to vote for X" and more "we know you usually vote this way, this is insanely important, please vote we'll help you"

i miiight feel different if i was in a swing state (i'm in Cali), or even if i had the bandwidth for it because I'm already spread thin, but realistically I wouldn't either way.

I think about people who stand outside grocery stores trying to get people to sign petitions to get something on the ballot. I respect the fuck out of it, i really do, but I also hate people bugging me, knocking on my door, etc.. so I'll rarely bite on any of it (at most I'll ask them for info where i could look into it and sign something on line)

that said, much respect to anyone who's out there like that.

>i miiight feel different if i was in a swing state (i'm in
>Cali), or even if i had the bandwidth for it because I'm
>already spread thin, but realistically I wouldn't either way.

... in 2012 when I canvassed for Obama I went up to NH to do it. MA was obviously already voting blue as always.

In 2018 I was in MA but hitting neighborhoods w/a lot of registered dems that had low voter turnout in 2016.


>I think about people who stand outside grocery stores trying
>to get people to sign petitions to get something on the
>ballot. I respect the fuck out of it, i really do, but I also
>hate people bugging me, knocking on my door, etc.. so I'll
>rarely bite on any of it (at most I'll ask them for info where
>i could look into it and sign something on line)
>
>that said, much respect to anyone who's out there like that.

Yea I totally feel you. For a long time I was that way as well, and still get kinda annoyed with it to this day.

But there came a point where I thought: if I'm gonna drive my friends insane all the time pontificating about politics and how bad the repuglican party is I should prolly put some action behind my words.

But obviously it's not for everyone, and understandably so.

and what were reactions like, generally?


>But there came a point where I thought: if I'm gonna drive my
>friends insane all the time pontificating about politics and
>how bad the repuglican party is I should prolly put some
>action behind my words.
>

Lol i don't know how my #resistance type friends keep it up. I haven't followed the noise of the primary that closely. I've seen one debate few months ago. I'll check on certain things, or read articles here and there. Okp is probably the most place I'll talk politics. I don't really bother on social media anymore.

But i agree if you're focused like that, might as well go out into the world instead of going on about it to people you already know.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://www.mayopete.io/

but nah