On the eve of the NH Primary, it's hard to believe that we still don't have a clear victor out of the Iowa Caucus - but that's where we are.

Thousands showed up at University of New Hampshire tonight to rally for Bernie Sanders in what was easily the biggest rally in the state during this competitive primary season. AOC, Nina Turner, Cynthia Nixon, Paul Giamatti & Cornel West all deployed as Sanders surrogates throughout the state today, and opened up for Sanders in Durham to a monstrous crowd.

In contrast, Buttigieg was the darling of the New Hampshire Democratic Party as he was introduced first among all Presidential candidates at the glitzy McIntyre-Shaheen dinner over the weekend, boasting Rep. Kuster's endorsement of him, mocking the Sanders campaign, and enjoying preferential treatment from both state and national party insiders. Pete is definitely riding the momentum from Iowa and has climbed in all polls since the Caucus, even gaining +16 percentage points in some polls.

Klobuchar is a dark-horse here. She resonates with the Shaheen New Hampshire Democrats and has a strong pull from the moderate/conservative leaning crowd here. She may be positioned to upset Warren for 3rd - although Warren has a very vocal, loud & passionate contingent here given the state's geographic proximity to Massachusetts.

Biden's stock continues to plummet - despite getting some key endorsements from traditional Establishment circles. Had has made additional ridiculous gaffes at town-halls, and has been getting lost in the midst of his speeches - barely delivering a cogent address.

Gabbard will likely finish atop the lower tier candidates at ~4/5%, with Yang, Steyer trailing behind her at about 2%...and Bennett at the bottom of the group.

New Hampshire has had a much stronger track record (than Iowa) of predicting the eventual nominee - so the victor in this primary will carry significant momentum into Nevada & South Carolina.


-->

especially if Buttigieg comes close as the 2nd choice.

and more complaints about how "overly white states" have lead the charge like 2008 didn't happen.

everything is a lowkey Bernie concern troll game here. Especially if he overperforms in South Carolina. I think he will take New York and California, and many Midwestern states. The South is going to be interesting. If he takes every Southern state except Alabama, then.... shit.

Bloomberg rising better be a joke. I'd rather see Biden.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nevada-democrats-tight-lipped-about-vote-counting-plans-11581377009

>and more complaints about how "overly white states" have lead
>the charge like 2008 didn't happen.

Funny how that argument tends to selectively come into play, based on the results.

Ironically, commentators often try to make that claim to diminish the Sanders candidacy - implying that he won't do well outside of small, rural white states. Except the opposite is true: Sanders performs demonstrably better than the field (including Biden) in younger, more diverse states.

Unless - of course - you believe this new slate of polls that suddenly show Bloomberg all of a sudden gaining +25% with African-Americans.

>everything is a lowkey Bernie concern troll game here.
>Especially if he overperforms in South Carolina. I think he
>will take New York and California, and many Midwestern states.
>The South is going to be interesting. If he takes every
>Southern state except Alabama, then.... shit.

Interestingly, all of the top candidates have fluctuated wildly in the polls -- except Sanders -- whose support-base has been consistent and solid throughout (and always underestimated by the polls).

He is up big in California, should win Nevada (sans fuckery), over-perform in South Carolina - and is in better shape than any other candidate in the Super Tuesday states. Yet the narrative is always about his weakness (if he's mentioned at all after the Klobuchar/Pete lovefest and Bloomberg sycing).

>Bloomberg rising better be a joke. I'd rather see Biden.

It's really sad to see just how broken and influenced our political system is by special interests/big money. Bloomberg has now spent ~$315 Million dollars in this primary. He is literally buying his way into this process - without doing any grassroots work.

Yes - that is what oligarchs do.

-->

she gets a strong second, were in a 3 way tie after iowa and NH.

tulsi does better than biden.




sure.

I think it hurts Liz.

Not just Liz of course. I know there is little overlap with their approach/politics, but...

Shit, I think Dems are waiting to "fall in love" rather than in line.


Now I don't really get how Amy is that person, but she seems to be the new flavor of the week. And I read that Amy was having her biggest events in NH. She had a good debate, from what I've read.

I think folks who want to see a woman president all things being equal, will probably move to Amy from Liz.

If she is surging she probably hurts Biden, Liz, and Pete a little.

I would love if she took out, or at least significantly hurt, Biden and Pete though.

If Warren finishes 4th in NH I don't think there is any coming back from that.

i think she is definitely sticking through super tuesday. she might get some very good showings that night.

amy is definitely going for pete and biden supporters. i dont know if it has worked. i do agree amy would take away some warren supporters.

i would expect amy to outperform biden tonight. if warren can manage 2nd that would be a big boost for her. a solid 3rd still keeps her in good position. 4th would be disappointing.

https://www.270towin.com/content/thresholds-for-delegate-allocation-2020-democratic-primary-and-caucus

"Only one candidate exceeds 15% of the vote -- but just barely. If only one candidate gets 15%, the allocation is effectively winner-take-all. This is not a big deal if that person is the clear frontrunner, getting 40%, 50% or more. However, what if the opposite is true -- a candidate wins with 16% vote share, while the next three candidates are just a few points behind. If that happened repeatedly favoring the same candidate, the party could potentially end up with a nominee that lacks broad support."

not unique to NH and probably not an issue in NH but whoa.

Not a big deal.

I’m really interested in how Biden does. If he comes in 4th or 5th place will SC voters swing from him?

I really thought dude would be a legit contender but he is old, weak and uninterested. It’s like he was forced to do this shit. He doesn’t look like he wants the job.

Also think I read that he has never won a state primary. How the hell did I think this dude would be a lock with old ass voters? All his supporters are prolly dead.

its actually split up 8 delegates based on state wide voting then 8 for distrcit 1 and 8 for district 2. i guess a little less complicated than iowa.

this doesnt include super delegates

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/breaking-down-our-new-hampshire-forecast-district-by-district/

i think biden will definitely do bad. bernie should be good, pete should be solid. warren and amy...idk. i do expect yang or tulsi to out perform expectations. that might still be 6% but its something lol

There are 9 more automatic delegates, which used to be superdelegates, but they matter less this year because they can't vote on first ballot at the Convention (unless there's an overwhelming majority for one candidate).

This was a badly needed change. In 2016, Sanders won decisively in NH, besting Clinton by a wide margin (61%-39%). Despite that resounding victory, both Sanders & Clinton left the state with the same amount of delegates. That was a travesty.

>i think biden will definitely do bad. bernie should be good,
>pete should be solid. warren and amy...idk.

Biden could drop to as low as 5th in NH! I think both Warren & Klobuchar may very well do better than him. Either way, it's a bad night for Biden unless he can place a respectable 3rd/2nd place - which seems unlikely.

i do expect yang
>or tulsi to out perform expectations. that might still be 6%
>but its something lol

They both ran very strong campaigns on the ground here. I think both of them could get around 5% of the vote - maybe even more.




-->

I think it’s because I read that Iowa and NH represent like 3% of delegates or some low number even tho we treat them like they male or break candidates.

Ain’t no way I would drop out after Iowa and NJ unless I was broke as fuck and had negative percentage points. Just hang out until Super Tuesday.

>Ain’t no way I would drop out after Iowa and NJ unless I was
>broke as fuck and had negative percentage points. Just hang
>out until Super Tuesday.

Yea it definitely makes sense to hang around until Super Tuesday - unless your internal projections show you doing poorly there as well. Often, candidates like Biden (who was projected as the front-runner for months) drop out relatively early to save face and further embarrassment. That happened to Jeb Bush in the 2016 Republican primary - and to a lesser extent - to Kamala this year. Def could happen to Biden. All of the aforementioned had the money to continue (although Biden's donors are jumping ship at alarming rates).

I think Warren's campaign has the strongest case for a long-haul run, even if she fails to win any of the early states.

-->

when he kept telling them to vote for someone else.

>
>I really thought dude would be a legit contender but he is
>old, weak and uninterested. It’s like he was forced to do
>this shit. He doesn’t look like he wants the job.

Yeah even putting aside my own opinions of him, he seems irritated that he even has to do this. Like it should just be his.

>
>Also think I read that he has never won a state primary. How
>the hell did I think this dude would be a lock with old ass
>voters? All his supporters are prolly dead.

hahaha!

I forgot he thought telling them to vote for someone else wasn't enough, so he started calling them liars and shit.

That's true in every Democratic primary and caucus. The difference in New Hampshire is there is no resorting in a second round (as there was in the Iowa Caucus).

The primary process needs to be simplified and reformed.

-->

no, what i was pointing out is that if only one candidate meets the 15% threshold they get all the state delegates.

i previously only understood it as if you dont get 15% of the vote they basically throw them out and you get no delegates. i didnt know someone had the possibility of taking all of the delegates. its a somewhat remote possibility but still.

i was wondering the proportional delegates of everyone didnt meet 15% would be left as "uncommitted" so i looked it up. what happens is that anyone that does meet 15% or above splits up the delegates, no delegates are left uncommitted (besides the no longer but still basically super delegates).

>i was wondering the proportional delegates of everyone didnt
>meet 15% would be left as "uncommitted" so i looked it up.
>what happens is that anyone that does meet 15% or above splits
>up the delegates, no delegates are left uncommitted (besides
>the no longer but still basically super delegates).

I can't remember a time when all candidates failed to meet a 15% threshold. After Iowa's debacle, imagine that happening just to make the delegate math even more confusing lol.


-->

They count write-in votes in NH, and Bloomberg isn't on the ballot. His monstrous, well-funded staffing army are working any angle they can right now - and there's a push for voters to write him (since he's not on any ballot in NH).

-->

I'm hearing 1%

He was barely viable after the Iowa fuckery

Will the DNC repeat the shenanigans

When Biden finishes 5th

?

The MSM really needs to be called to carpet. I would like to see the candidates speak on...

We've been drowning in Biden as the frontrunner coverage for over 6 months now

This is the 2nd POTUS cycle that they've been completely wrong

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THIS BS.

I'm waiting for all the commentators here who lectured us for nearly a year about the "Biden strength" to explain this to us lol.

-->

It Bernie ultimately gets the Dem nod he will lose to Trump.

The only way Pete can possibly even think about winning if he gets the Dem nod is by having a Black VP.

-->

we just have to pick who replaces him.

i swear these ‘Trump has a chance’ folks really are showing how much they dont understand about politics

ill keep saying it,
Trump will get NO MORE than the 63 million votes he got last time.
the Democratic nom will do Obama ‘08 numbers

What makes Bloomberg so special?

I swear if we run to this rich asshole we deserve to lose again..

Voters are so lazy.

Don’t come at me like that, maybe I don’t even think it has to do with money or maybe I think his money is a bad thing in this race...

If you want to have healthy dialogue especially with me you need to come at me in a much less combative tone.

I don’t owe you an answer and I especially don’t when you’re coming at me from the jump like that.

I just don’t hear anyone saying Bloomberg’s name and following it up with a reason why they think he is the best guy to win.

Only thing he has is money so..

-->

She prolly googling right now cause real talk, I’ve seen hella ads but no policies or anything besides Trump sucks hit pieces.

“Who tweets more? Trump or Rihanna”

That was an actual ad by Bloomberg on FB.

Don’t do me like that.

That’s fucked up, you know nothing about me and yet you are out here thinking I have to google to actually give an answer.

That’s really shitty of you because even if I came up with a convincing answer you’re just say I googled it.

Fuck you.

I honestly don’t think there is a convincing answer because I’m not a fan of Bloomberg

lol

NONE of them led black support. None of them even led at all! Who were black people (supposedly) rallying behind? Biden. The whole Marianne Williamson-ADOS thing. Bloomberg's surging now from his ads *shrug* I just really don't think that "slap a black face on the ticket" mentality will necessarily win folks over.

Ideology and gender seem to have been the stronger divides this cycle, imho. I think a unity ticket this time around would more so look like.. A male nominee partnering with a female running mate and vice/versa. Or a moderate partnering with a progressive or vice/versa.

I mean maybe some intersectionality could help??? Like a black female running mate for white male nominee? I guess? But I just don't even think that's the way to read the moment tbh.

Like I myself cringe when I see Symone Sanders having to defend Biden's record/gaffes on the airwaves. I would just feel sorry for a Abrams or Harris or whoever constantly getting trotted out to "clean up". Ugh.


>can possibly even think about winning if he
>gets the Dem nod is by having a Black VP.

>
>Ideology and gender seem to have been the stronger divides
>this cycle, imho. I think a unity ticket this time around
>would more so look like.. A male nominee partnering with a
>female running mate and vice/versa. Or a moderate partnering
>with a progressive or vice/versa.
>

Though I don't think the ticket should be all white, I think gender and ideology are most important this cycle.

Then again, it depends on the candidates. A Pete/Warren ticket would tackle gender and ideology, and probably get slaughtered in the general because I can't think of a more lily white ticket.

So...I think it depends. But at the bare minimum, there needs to be some ideological unity.

One of the reasons I don't want Biden is that I don't think he would play this game- he would pick who he wants. There wouldn't be a progressive even close to the ticket.

I have my doubts that Bernie and his supporters are ready/willing to play that game too.

Both seem set in their ways and loyal to their surrogates- not unlike Hillary. Hillary picking a loyal walking bottle of mayo was one of many, many mistakes.

A Pete/Warren
>ticket would tackle gender and ideology, and probably get
>slaughtered in the general because I can't think of a more
>lily white ticket.

Warren does a bit better with Bernie's young demo and black voters tho, so if Pete ended up appealing to literally everyone else but them perhaps her coalition could boost them there.



And agreed on Bernie, Biden, and Hillary LOL.


Will be interesting to watch things play out.

much better.

Pete came in 2nd to Bernie in IA among non-white voters.

Furthermore, Biden was polling highest with black voters and he's tanked HARD.

I donno. I just think people, the MSM, and perhaps even the pollsters themselves (lol) need to pull back from following every minute tick in the polls. Given how wrong they were last cycle and how they continue to get it wrong this cycle, I'm starting to believe that a lot of these pollsters are using a bad sampling methodology.

But ya. I guess we just disagree then, lol. It's all good tho.

>lol
>
>NONE of them led black support. None of them even led at all!
>Who were black people (supposedly) rallying behind? Biden. The
>whole Marianne Williamson-ADOS thing. Bloomberg's surging now
>from his ads *shrug* I just really don't think that "slap a
>black face on the ticket" mentality will necessarily win folks
>over.

I keep hearing people like Jason Johnson saying that Black voters will go for Bloomberg because "they've been given no other option" -- really? We had 30+ candidates running, a number of Black and POC running in the primary, and they were flatly rejected.

>Ideology and gender seem to have been the stronger divides
>this cycle, imho.

Age/Generation is also a huge factor. The results from voters under 35 are *vastly* different than voters over 50.





-->

>>lol
>>
>>NONE of them led black support. None of them even led at
>all!
>>Who were black people (supposedly) rallying behind? Biden.
>The
>>whole Marianne Williamson-ADOS thing. Bloomberg's surging
>now
>>from his ads *shrug* I just really don't think that "slap a
>>black face on the ticket" mentality will necessarily win
>folks
>>over.
>
>I keep hearing people like Jason Johnson saying that Black
>voters will go for Bloomberg because "they've been given no
>other option" -- really? We had 30+ candidates running, a
>number of Black and POC running in the primary, and they were
>flatly rejected.

To be fair, its not necessarily about finding a black candidate but one folks agree with, trust, and trust white folks to vote for.

Bloomberg is a thing because of a)money and b) no good moderate option.

Kamala and Booker each made the mistake of trying to take up the progressive lane, or in Bookers case, no lane.

Look how it helped Pete once he embraced that lane.

There's just no good options left in that lane.

I've said it before, but if I *was* a moderate I would not be happy at all with my choices this go around.

>To be fair, its not necessarily about finding a black
>candidate but one folks agree with, trust, and trust white
>folks to vote for.

I don't think this is as accurate of a statement as it once was. This is where there's a clear generational divide in the electorate. Black voters over 50 may very well still hold those views that you just outlined, but Black voters under 35 aren't making their voting decisions based on who they "trust white folks to vote for" - they are making decisions based on the candidate who is the best advocate for their communities. That's an emerging trend we should welcome.

>Bloomberg is a thing because of a)money and b) no good
>moderate option.
>
>Kamala and Booker each made the mistake of trying to take up
>the progressive lane, or in Bookers case, no lane.

I think Kamala did her best to operate in both the progressive and moderate lane. Booker as well (more or less) - they both weren't considered the "progressive" candidates in this race.

>Look how it helped Pete once he embraced that lane.
>
>There's just no good options left in that lane.
>
>I've said it before, but if I *was* a moderate I would not be
>happy at all with my choices this go around.

Pete has been the beneficiary of Biden's collapse, and you're right, the moderates have rallied around him -- but while the older Black voter is certainly very moderate (even conservative) - the younger Black voter is far more progressive, which is why Sanders has 20% of the aggregate Black vote - and is trending upwards.



-->

>
>Age/Generation is also a huge factor. The results from voters
>under 35 are *vastly* different than voters over 50.
>
>

Ya, I really hope - whoever it ends up being - that coalition composition and size is taken into heavy consideration when trying to compensate for weaknesses. Especially if things aren't decided until the convention, there won't be much time to warm people up to somebody lol

There should be clear front runner by now. It’s too many still and I don’t think any of them beats trump...

We shouldn’t have a front runner already.

Not until after Super Tuesday.

iowa is a caucus which is some bullshit anyway
this is some Chicken Little sky is falling ish
plenty of time for candidates to break through, make their mark
we don't need a "star" we need someone that is more palatable than trump, which is almost our entire field
this election isn't even about the dem candidate, its a referendum on trump, unless we make it something else, which would be crazy to do....so they'll probly do just that

Maybe (hopefully) I'm dead wrong and they all can. I don't see it tho


>There should be clear front runner by now. It’s too many
>still and I don’t think any of them beats trump...
>

I can’t see how Dems vote lock in step AND Sanders cultish independents vote for him and he doesn’t win easily.

But I feel you. I don’t trust Americans tho.

head to head Bernie/Trump polls right now are meaningless imo. Trumpistan has treated him with kid gloves so far. We'll see once the real fear and propaganda campaign kicks in. Especially from a guy for whom no tactic or lie is out of bounds. Shit, Bloomberg might even start running pro-Trump ads. Whether it's effective or not remains to be seen. Same with whether Bernie's brand of populism grabs hold of the country, or if its perceived as too radical.

but I don't really blame the left of the party who are told every round to grow the fuck up and vote for the nominee for kinda reveling in being able to tell moderates to take their own advice.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/11/sanders-crushes-trump-18-points-among-independent-voters-new-national-general?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook


Tuesday, February 11, 2020
byCommon Dreams


Sanders Crushes Trump by 18 Points Among Independent Voters in New National General Election Poll


"Bernie Sanders is undeniably the strongest candidate against Donald Trump," tweeted journalist Walker Bragman.

byJake Johnson, staff writer
54 Comments

Supporters wave signs and hold up their phones as Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a New Year's Eve campaign event on December 31, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

A national Reuters/Ipsos poll released Monday found Sen. Bernie Sanders leading President Donald Trump by 18 percentage points among independent voters in a hypothetical general election match-up, a result Sanders supporters viewed as evidence that the Vermont senator has the best chance of defeating the president in November.

According to the new survey (pdf), Sanders has the support of 46% of registered independent voters while Trump polled at 28% support. The poll also showed former Vice President Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ahead of Trump among independents, but Sanders' lead was the largest.

"Bernie Sanders is undeniably the strongest candidate against Donald Trump," tweeted journalist Walker Bragman in response to the new survey.


The poll also found Sanders leading Trump nationally among all registered voters:


The national survey came just hours before New Hampshire voters headed to the polls Tuesday for the first-in-the-nation primary.

As Russell Berman wrote for The Atlantic Monday, independent voters could prove to be Sanders' "secret weapon" in New Hampshire and other states that allow independents to participate in the primary process.

"The Vermont senator's lead in several public polls is bolstered by his strong support among independent, or undeclared, voters, who are welcome to participate in New Hampshire's primary and could make up as much as 40% of the electorate," Berman wrote. "Beyond New Hampshire, Sanders' advantage among independent voters could be his secret weapon in the many large, delegate-rich states that allow them to cast ballots in the Democratic primary."

"Sanders has already demonstrated his strength with voters who have snubbed both parties," Berman added, "and that may prove decisive not only in New Hampshire on Tuesday, but in many states to come."

as alot of white Democratic voters, or the media and big wigs in the party. That's why this hasn't settled yet. Right today, the Black vote looks to be jumping from Biden to Bloomberg, but the media and bigwigs seem to want Pete, Warren or Klobuchar (those types all hate Bernie, and Black people still seem unwilling to back him in large numbers). This kind of discord is something I haven't seen in a Dem primary since I've been paying attention to politics over the last 30 years. It seems dangerous to me, but it could still sort itself out, although time is running out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/calm-down-democrats-are-not-disarray/

Is it time for Democrats to panic?

Some people sure want to believe it. With the first contest of the 2020 presidential primaries a week in the past and the second happening Tuesday, a look across the news media suggests that if you’re a Democrat, a full-on freakout is in order. Some recent headlines:

“Trump’s ‘dream scenario’ unfolds: Dem disarray ahead of 2020.”
“Top Democrats turn on each other after Iowa, complicating the party’s chances against Trump.”
“Democrats in disarray in New Hampshire as Sanders surges and Trump provokes.”
Just imagine if Democrats still don’t know who their nominee will be after two whole states have voted, with only 48 left to go. What ever will they do?

Oh please. Everyone just calm down.

People in politics suffer from a kind of myopia, in which what’s right in front of them, being in sharp focus, seems like the most important thing that has ever happened or will ever happen. This Changes Everything, we say over and over, despite the fact that the last 10 or 15 events that were supposed to Change Everything turned out to be so inconsequential that we’ve already forgotten what they were.

And what is it that’s happening now, this extraordinary disarray that threatens to destroy Democrats’ chances of winning in November? You might want to send the children out of the room before I tell you: Presidential candidates are criticizing each other.

And also, at least one candidate many thought was a serious contender (Joe Biden) is faltering. And a candidate many think will struggle in a general election (Bernie Sanders) looks strong.

What a calamity! Has any party ever witnessed such madness?

The answer to that question is: Of course. It happens every four years. A field of presidential contenders starts off being polite and friendly to one another, emphasizing that the real enemy is across the aisle, and then as the actual voting approaches, the criticisms become more pointed and aggressive. Some candidates don’t perform well enough, and drop out. Often the race comes down to two or three, who unload all kinds of nasty attacks on each other.

And sometimes, the candidates represent factions of the party that don’t particularly like each other, lending an increased bitterness to the competition. That was the case with Donald Trump and pretty much all his primary opponents in 2016. It was the case with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008. It was the case with George W. Bush and John McCain in 2000. Yet all those times, the bad feelings were patched up well enough for the nominee to prevail in the fall.

And what is the nature of this supposed disarray in the Democratic Party? The candidates are making what are pretty mild criticisms of one another: Sanders could have trouble passing his agenda. Biden isn’t the candidate of the future. Pete Buttigieg doesn’t have much experience. Everyone thinks the candidates they aren’t supporting would lose to Trump.

My stars, all this fussin’ and fightin’ is enough to give me the vapors!

But what about Iowa?, you say. It’s true that the caucuses were a debacle. But in the end, it looks as though both Sanders and Buttigieg can claim a sort of victory, and at this point it doesn’t really matter which won of them “won” by whichever standard you favor.

Oh, but isn’t Trump just terribly popular right now? He could win!

Well, yes, he could. We live in such an intensely polarized age that if Republicans nominated a sewer rat infected with hantavirus, it would pull 45 percent of the vote. This was always going to be a close election no matter what.

But Trump is actually not all that popular, despite people getting worked up about one poll that showed him at a spectacular 49 percent approval. He’s still the only president in the history of polling to have never cracked 50 percent, and his average approval is more like 44 percent, within a couple of points of where it has been for most of his term.

But if my favorite candidate isn’t the nominee, we’re doomed!, Democrats will say. Everyone always thinks that, in both parties.

That doesn’t mean some of them might not be right. All the candidates have vulnerabilities. But we won’t know how it will all play out until we have a matchup between Trump and one Democrat. Perhaps the theory of victory the nominee operates by (and they all have one) will turn out to be true, or perhaps not. We all tend to be far too certain about our “electability” judgments than history would suggest we should be.

So no, Democrats are not in disarray. What we’re witnessing now is a run-of-the-mill party primary. It may have some twists and turns remaining, and there will be more sniping and faux outrage. But it’s nothing we haven’t seen before.

the media needs to start giving more historical context instead of the incessant horse race sky is falling coverage.

black people havent even really voted yet. these 2 small lily white states arent make or break for the nominee.

gore was polling at like 6% at this point in 2000.

hillary clinton virtually tied in iowa then lost nh by over 23 points.

bill clinton lost both states. only won 1 state out of the 1st *11*.

we wont even get a sense of who even has a real shot at being the nominee until after super tuesday. the way it always is.

and still win.

I wouldn’t use him as anything more than an anomaly.

obama was the 1st black major party nominee *ever*.

clinton was the 1st woman major party nominee *ever*.

true anomalies.

back to back in successive non-incumbent presidential elections after never happening in our entire history.

we striking them from the record too?

we have no idea whats possible until it happens.

this isnt a discussion of likelihood/odds. just merely recent examples of the primary picture not truly coming into focus until a lot later than the 1st 2 states.

even when the eventual nominee split ia/nh...we didnt figure out which winner of which state was the nominee until later on.

this being the most important election in our lifetime, I’m extremely worried...paranoid even.

looking like a top 3 finish over warren and biden.

tulsi gabbard aint even top 7 lol. she will stay in the race tho.

Hell, she's even been a favorite of many here lol.

She does well in moderate democratic segments. NH is Shaheen-Hassan territory.

>tulsi gabbard aint . top 7 lol. she will stay in the race
>tho.

huh? *Right now (5% in) Tulsi is 6th behind Biden (atop the low tier candidates).


-->

you just say 'bernie isnt even my 1st choice'.

-->

The fact that he just doesn't like Tulsi, but that she is his *favorite* ? I mean...

Kinda like your respect for Klobuchar.

-->

One of the weirdest political dynamics of the 21st century is the thorough marginalization of the anti-war movement.

The folks who were ready to publicly, actively take to the streets and decry US military activity have been right about basically everything for more than fifty years now. And somehow we moved past the part where we go "those guys were right about Vietnam and right about Afghanistan and right about Iraq twice so maybe we should listen to them" and just take it for granted that those, past wars might have been disasters but the next one, well, that's probably going to go fine.

Instead, they've been characterized as insane hippies disconnected from apparently quite complex global realities that absolutely morally require that we use robots to blow up wedding parties.

I don't even like Gabbard that much, but the way she's maintained a national profile is through a pretty unusual act of political courage. If you don't think that's true, try to remember the last time you saw somebody on cable news take a firm position against war in general. It's incredibly rare because that conversation has been hijacked by the SERIOUS THINKERS who understand things that us idiots don't.

and foreign policy.

>The folks who were ready to publicly, actively take to the
>streets and decry US military activity have been right about
>basically everything for more than fifty years now. And
>somehow we moved past the part where we go "those guys were
>right about Vietnam and right about Afghanistan and right
>about Iraq twice so maybe we should listen to them" and just
>take it for granted that those, past wars might have been
>disasters but the next one, well, that's probably going to go
>fine.

>I don't even like Gabbard that much, but the way she's
>maintained a national profile is through a pretty unusual act
>of political courage. If you don't think that's true, try to
>remember the last time you saw somebody on cable news take a
>firm position against war in general. It's incredibly rare
>because that conversation has been hijacked by the SERIOUS
>THINKERS who understand things that us idiots don't.

^all facts.

-->

I don't really know why I post in political threads on okayplayer. I certainly didn't used to very often, so it's gotta largely be an expression of anxiety and desire for comradeship or something. But when I actually think about a purpose while I'm typing things here that purpose is to try and convince people here to be okay with left candidates.

Maybe talking about foreign policy and war in particular would be a more successful avenue on this board? The president has more individual control over foreign policy than most of the issues that we're talking about, and generally (not going to go beyond "generally" here) this board is much further left on foreign policy than it is on domestic economic issues.

Though my obstacle to discussing it more is that I actually don't know that much about the world outside some pretty basic extensions of my beliefs about capitalism.

"The United States is a malign force in the world because we protect the interests of capital abroad even more violently than we do domestically. We are villains. That's bad, and we should stop it."

That's it. I emptied out the bag. Don't have much more to say, sadly.

>Maybe talking about foreign policy and war in particular would
>be a more successful avenue on this board? The president has
>more individual control over foreign policy than most of the
>issues that we're talking about, and generally (not going to
>go beyond "generally" here) this board is much further left on
>foreign policy than it is on domestic economic issues.

Absolutely re: Presidential purview and foreign policy. This is precisely the reason why I think it should be a predominate topic - both on here and in the national discussion. It's one of the few areas where the President can act unilaterally - yet we rarely spend any time on it.

Why do I always bring up war and foreign policy? Because it's one of the few areas where there's been a bi-partisan consensus (and not a consensus that you and I might agree on). The reason we've been engaged in forever-war policies is because our leadership in both parties has authorized these wars and failed to challenge the Pentagon and Military-Industrial complex in any viable way. This is one of the main reasons why I support Sanders - and one of the main reasons why I greatly admire and support Tulsi.

>"The United States is a malign force in the world because we
>protect the interests of capital abroad even more violently
>than we do domestically. We are villains. That's bad, and we
>should stop it."
>
>That's it. I emptied out the bag. Don't have much more to say,
>sadly.

I hope you have a lot more to say - because that's a statement that you won't find leaders in the Democratic Party sounding off on.


-->

More like pandering to the right.



>One of the weirdest political dynamics of the 21st century is
>the thorough marginalization of the anti-war movement.
>
>The folks who were ready to publicly, actively take to the
>streets and decry US military activity have been right about
>basically everything for more than fifty years now. And
>somehow we moved past the part where we go "those guys were
>right about Vietnam and right about Afghanistan and right
>about Iraq twice so maybe we should listen to them" and just
>take it for granted that those, past wars might have been
>disasters but the next one, well, that's probably going to go
>fine.
>
>Instead, they've been characterized as insane hippies
>disconnected from apparently quite complex global realities
>that absolutely morally require that we use robots to blow up
>wedding parties.
>
>I don't even like Gabbard that much, but the way she's
>maintained a national profile is through a pretty unusual act
>of political courage. If you don't think that's true, try to
>remember the last time you saw somebody on cable news take a
>firm position against war in general. It's incredibly rare
>because that conversation has been hijacked by the SERIOUS
>THINKERS who understand things that us idiots don't.

You cherry picking, Tulsi is called out because of her right wing pandering.

his favorite candidate was getting 15 votes in iowa and coming in 7th new hampshire.

vex is wild lol.

I never predicted Tulsi would win any contests.

To the contrary - you've predicted Biden/Warren/Kamala/Beto are all "the ones" who would win and/or are rightful front-runners - and now are pivoting to Pete/Amy (and essentially anyone not named Bernie) in a desperate attempt to save face.

Yikes fam lol.


-->

>and now are pivoting to Pete/Amy (and
>essentially anyone not named Bernie) in a desperate attempt to
>save face.

or are you pulling shit out of your ass again?

Or is Biden still primed for a comeback in South Carolina because "he has the most diverse coalition" <actual Reeq quote.


-->

should i just start accusing you of shit that you never did? cuz for some reason *you* keep doing it.

fam in this *exact same post*...i asked who the fuck is voting for amy klo and *you* actually defended her lol.
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13366378&mesg_id=13366378&page=#13366607

and i literally said i was off p booty...in a conversation involving *you*.
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13364831&mesg_id=13364831&listing_type=search#13365023

you must be smoking that cte weed fam lol.

>fam in this *exact same post*...i asked who the fuck is voting
>for amy klo and *you* actually defended her lol.
>https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13366378&mesg_id=13366378&page=#13366607

Lol at “defend” her. That’s called analysis. I predicted that she’d be a dark-horse in the NH primary in this thread (another accurate prediction btw). That’s not defending her, that’s analyzing the primary correctly.

>and i literally said i was off p booty...in a conversation
>involving *you*.
>https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13364831&mesg_id=13364831&listing_type=search#13365023

Again - what I’m referring to here are predictions - not who you “like” or “dislike”. You have failed to recognize the Sanders strength at every turn, while at the same time bloating the legitimacy and strength of several other candidates.

That’s all. No need to take such offense fam - it’s just debate. But when you religiously bring up Tulsi like I’m supposed to be offended - don’t be surprised if I call your predictions onto the field to assess lol

>you must be smoking that cte weed

I wish.

-->

.

Liz has proven to be awful at this and Joe is Joe Biden

>looking like a top 3 finish over warren and biden.
>

I *like* Bernie more on a human level. I just have a bad feeling its gonna be disastrous. Though it will probably be disastrous no matter what

I personally feel like she lacks the charisma to beat Trump.

She seems to draw level-headed people into her fold, which is great, but in today's political climate you can't just sound even-keeled and capable when questioned, you also have to be able to get the base excited and lead the charge towards another victory.

Warren is better than her in that regard, but she seems to have shot herself in the foot.

Of getting people excited. Amy is more of a return to being able to go a week/day/hour without having to think about the president. Its something I'd desperately love to return to but it's not exactly a message.

I'm not sure Warren even edges her in the excite the base thing. I keep thinking of that video of her on the train and no one caring

>Amy is more of a return to being
>able to go a week/day/hour without having to think about the
>president. Its something I'd desperately love to return to but
>it's not exactly a message.

That'd be really excellent, I agree. But I'm not positive that countries just bounce back from fascism. I'm not even really sure (20th century history isn't actually my thing - though I've stupidly agreed to teach a class on it this spring) there's much evidence that defeating fascism at the ballot box is a practical approach.

But we might be done with the time in our history where we don't have to think about politics all the time.

>I'm not sure Warren even edges her in the excite the base
>thing. I keep thinking of that video of her on the train and
>no one caring
>
>

i was confused when i saw that. like "whats wrong with her riding a train??" but it was pointing out that no one cared?? lol is the person taking the video supposed to be a campaign staffer trying to capture the excitement they were hoping to get?

And people went back to looking at their phones.

I saw some comments complaining about her trying too hard because she got "caught" flying on a private jet, but my takeaway from it was no one gave a shit.

is gonna be difficult. good thing i only bought 15k

Klobuchar is indeed the darkhorse, currently battling Buttigieg to essentially a draw for 2nd.

Warren is 4th and not performing well early; Biden continues to perform poorly at 5th.
-->

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

it's totally not a scam

don't worry about it, he'll be back next week with a cryptocurrency or some shit and you'll have another chance


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

>it's totally not a scam
>
>don't worry about it, he'll be back next week with a
>cryptocurrency or some shit and you'll have another chance

"Speaking to reporters later in the evening, Mr. Yang was asked if he would consider running for mayor of New York City. “I wouldn’t rule anything out,” he said."

To be honest the 1k should be adjusted for NY prices though. I'm thinking 1,400 monthly is more in line.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html?referringSource=articleShare

that help no one and you can get excited about them all over again

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

I don't know why you'd advertise that fact, but it's your choice.

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

I'll just wait for another poster who read something somewhere to post in some detail, then act like I know what he's talking about

that's something you could dig, no doubt

and realize he's a libertarian.

but your way might work for you.

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

it's a common characterization of his politics that I don't think is really accurate.

the fact that a small segment of libertarians ride for him while most don't probably should tell you that he is far from a classic libertarian candidate.

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

FROM BEINGLIBERTARIAN.COM

https://beinglibertarian.com/freedom-dividend-yang-interview/

"Make no mistakes, he’s not a libertarian."

Here's a reddit link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/c06dhg/andrew_yang_is_not_libertarian/

"Andrew Yang is nowhere close to being Libertarian. Every one of his policies is rooted in government intervention, government aggression, and government force.

Primary:

- UBI is not the same as a negative income tax (suggested by Friedman). The only aspect of it which could be seen as Libertarian is the fact that it is seeking to alleviate the current welfare system. You could argue its a step towards a less dependent society (which is what I believe Friedman was using Negative Income Tax for). It's also not the same as what Alaska does or what Nixon tried to do and also not what King jr advocated for.


Others:
- He wants to further politicize the supreme court by putting in term limits which will guarantee appointment based on
party affiliation.
- He has an irrational fear of automation (not a policy but utterly ridiculous imo)
- Put the government in media.
- Free marriage counseling for all
- Medicare for all
- Increase welfare for single parent with subsidies
- Forgive student debt
- Increase gun regulations
- He wants the government to come in and prop up failing malls to "revitalize" communities and give the impression of a
solid local economy.
- Increase capital gains tax
- Early childhood education for all
- Paternal leave for both parents
- Federal govt subsidy for people who need to move for work


There are dozens more on his page which are for the most part equally anti-liberty. The only things I agree with him on are the deregulation of Nuclear Energy and letting banks fail (with those responsible being help accountable)."

These are clear ways that libertarians see his policies as clearly anti-libertarian.

But you can also have your opinion.

they're libertarians, clearly they don't know shit.



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

now apologize

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

and don't add up

are at least a second way he's libertarian

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

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/11/21069029/michael-bennet-drops-out-2020-presidential-race

Michael Bennet, Colorado centrist, is dropping out of the presidential race

The Neptunes sound

https://youtu.be/iplIRqq0mFQ?t=6

which makes the snake attack prior to Iowa looking like it was very ill-advised.

But Biden.

GOT DAMN.

I mean, ideologically, I didn't want him to be winning but still.
Did voters sort of see the senility too? Damn.

If she had just been vague like Bernie remains she woulda never started slipping. Shame she was punished for being transparent and taking hard questions head on.

It’s disingenuous to say that convo being leaked was a turning point for her, sanders supports were swiping at her long before that and never supported her, and were threatened by her being in the race (as was he, when he tried to discourage her from running)

Now to the victor goes the spoils, and sanders is definitely winning right now so it is what it is but I don’t want any of us to be fake here.

She created a monster by dancing around the question for weeks, then over-corrected.

Its a damn shame she wasn't more prepared for that debate where she was in the lead, and a damn shame that she and her people weren't smarter about releasing details as you said.

And even at that, once you release your plan, if thats your lane, fucking attack the others head on for not having a plan or a realistic one to pass the Senate.

>If she had just been vague like Bernie remains she woulda
>never started slipping. Shame she was punished for being
>transparent and taking hard questions head on.

Agreed, other than those 2 weeks she refused to answer.

But, it really was when she became the face of M4A and took all of the heat for it. From the media, the moderates, and the bros for being a "copy cat" or getting M4A in 4 years rather than 2 or whatever.

She took all the heat for Sanders.

And the bros picked her plan apart. Saw one dude literally tweet that he liked Sanders plan better BECAUSE HE WOULD PAY TAXES IN BERNIE'S PLAN. He wanted "skin in the game"

One dude? Sure, but fuck those dudes add up.


Oh, but she didn't have the decency to shake the mans hand!! LOL

>
>It’s disingenuous to say that convo being leaked was a
>turning point for her, sanders supports were swiping at her
>long before that and never supported her, and were threatened
>by her being in the race (as was he, when he tried to
>discourage her from running)

Dog, we are ><

Its interesting to me how some groups have created their own worst enemies.

Like, Bernie wouldn't even be a thing had the Dems ran an actual primary in 16. Here we are.

Similarly, had sanders fans spent more time attacking Pete than Warren, we could be looking at a very good chance of a Progressive President between the two.

But even as Pete was on the rise, all of the heat was on Warren.

They helped take out the other progressive and (checks notes) still only barely beat Pete. Yay?

>
>Now to the victor goes the spoils, and sanders is definitely
>winning right now so it is what it is but I don’t want any
>of us to be fake here.

Yeah it is very, very disappointing to see people blame it all on the leaked convo and/or her bad campaign.

She was most consistently on the rise until she became the face of M4A.

That's really damning for both of them.

>which makes the snake attack prior to Iowa looking like it
>was very ill-advised.

It was one of the most ill-advised campaign moves I've seen. Whoever advised her to do that should never get a job in politics again.


-->

worse because i dont see which state she can turn things around in. i guess if amy was able to get such a big push anything is possible. warren is technically still third but yeah i dont see a reason to be optimistic about her chances.

at least bernie looks likely to be the front runner.

just either a) don't like you or b) your platform didn't resonate with them

https://i.redd.it/ynofixcj4ig41.png

>https://i.redd.it/ynofixcj4ig41.png

she positioned herself in-between and instead of people flocking to that middle ground they stayed on their respective ends. it kind of makes sense in retrospect.

barring some miraculous comeback i hope who ever gets the nomination leans on her in regards to getting policy in place.

It sounds like veiled comments at Bernie but it also sounds like she's going at Biden with the "ad" talk?

(ngl that Biden ad on Pete was straight fire, LMAO)

of a campaign biden is running.

he is far and away the most experienced and most qualified to actually run the country. something the ad did a good job of portraying. also why a vp from the previous administration is generally a good bet for the nomination. people have seen him/her in that role and they 'inherit' much of the base of the prez.

dude should look more regal and presidential standing next to his opponents.

but biden looks less prepared/capable/coherent than the other top candidates and comes off like he doesnt even know why hes running.

esp. in favor of BUTTIGIEG.

of all the candidates, even Andrew fuckin Yang, Buttigieg seemed a bit of a longshot. it was an interesting story on paper until you look at what was on the paper.

I really think it was the lack of coherence whenever Biden got the mic.

>I really think it was the lack of coherence whenever Biden got
>the mic.

he allowed his entire narrative to be crafted by other people. and then when people finally see him in person...dude sounds like he roofied himself.

..dude sounds
>like he roofied himself.

she has the Rubio disease, where she cant just TALK, she has to turn everything into a ‘*que music*, slow pan closeup’ commercial

ugh

get her ass the fuck out of here

If she doesn’t win or at least come in second in Nevada. Let’s see what Klobuchar can do, hopefully this gives her a good boost.

I’m really lukewarm on both of the front runners, don’t think either can win or if so govern effectively. Buttigieg will prolly have a better go if elected.

He's clearly in the driver's seat heading into the more diverse/younger states - where he polls infinitely better than Buttigieg/Klobuchar, and decisively better than Warren.

As for Biden? lol yea none of his polls were real.

-->

Did you see this?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nevada-democrats-tight-lipped-about-vote-counting-plans-11581377009

Nevada was also tapped to use this faulty app (developed by Shadow, Inc.) in its Caucus - they've since said they won't use this particular app - but haven't provided any details or transparency as to how they will conduct the caucus. Despite the debacle in Iowa, The Nevada Democratic Party nonetheless has hired a paid Buttigieg organizer (Emily Goldman) to be their “Voter Protection Director”:

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1226607764727791621?s=20&fbclid=IwAR35XvNbdcwTOCK3p8kcOrAGlzoOsdZ87wVEGVCdqXeJGtcd5P80PQ7jT-A

This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the process.
-->

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1227459501776875521

good sign after all of the doom and gloom following ia turnout.

You motherfuckers are insane.

anyone really, well not anyone. But I'd take a wet fart over Trump

as much as it's an anti-Bernie posturing.

-->

>as much as it's an anti-Bernie posturing.
>
>-->


Some of us think about who has the best chance to win.


I prefer Bernie by a 1,000 miles.


But I'm nervous about his chances.


I look at Amy winning BIG in Minnesota, and ponder.


Also, some of us are capable of nuance, changing our minds, and considering that not all voters out there think like us and our twitter feed.

Again, not everything is an agenda.

Bernie is winning lol

>Bernie is winning lol

According to the DNC - he's not winning. They are trying to award Buttigieg 2 additional national delegates in Iowa - even though that race was tighter than NH.


-->

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1227357727720198145

zero mention of the republican voter suppression law signed in 2017 that targets college students and grads who stay in nh after college.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/new-hampshire-confusion-around-new-law-could-threaten-young-voter-n1117486

i dont know what its gonna take for the media to start covering the thing that impacts election results the most...changing who can actually participate in the election.

Ds lost 2 POTUS elections in my lifetime, despite winning the popular vote

There was the WV fuckery in 16's primary

Now, we're watching the delegate count conflict with the popular vote

In addition to the suppressive legislation that you mention

Bern's tagline is it's a rigged system

and it goes beyond campaign finance

You would think actual candidates would want a fair contest.

they vote overwhelmingly for democrats and are part of a much larger trend of repubs suppressing the votes of college kids (and other traditionally (D)emocratic voting groups) nationwide.

that seem to be surprised he didn't win by enough of a margin to be convincing, is all

i was flipping back and forth. you have to register your car to be able to vote. uhm.

And I'm glad you referenced this as it's been a real problem in NH:

>https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1227357727720198145
>
>zero mention of the republican voter suppression law signed in
>2017 that targets college students and grads who stay in nh
>after college.

Sununu and the NH Republicans have been absolutely disgraceful in pushing voter suppression.

-->

74% voted against him

^^^ I was really hoping this would not be the spin

But 1 thing the MSM is consistent with is disappointing

THERE'S 8 FUCKING CANDIDATES!!!

I'm also still seeing polls that have Biden winning SC and NV

When does the bullshit stop?

BTW, Bern's policies aren't outside the mainstream

Majority of voters support; climate change, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, a living wage, etc...

These false narratives need to die.

Only got a quarter of the vote in NEW HAMPSHIRE. That means ppl who voted for him there in 16 decided to pass on him this time.

I asked this before and didn’t get in answer, what has sanders done to expand his support...?

He did the same in Iowa as he did in 16 and worse in NH

And Biden, klobuchar, Buttigieg and evening warren supporters at this point wont be going over to sanders when their candidate drops out...

Now as much as I love pissing in Bernie bros cereal, this is for me about who can unite the party and create the strongest coalition to beat trump....

Bernie definitely is in the drivers seat, now it’s time to show and prove, who you gonna win over...? We’ll see I guess

something that previously unknown candidates like p booty and klo klo are capitalizing on.

its pretty apparent at this point that he capitalized on a lot of anti clinton vote (as opposed to pro bernie) in 2016. and a lot of those voters are attracted to other candidates...even more moderate ones.

this nigga van jones gotta take everything to level 10 tho lol.
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1227397057822044160

i dont know if we can call anyone a 'phenomenon' when they carry over such an infrastructure and fundraising advantage from running a national prez campaign in 2016...have near universal name id...and barely eek out 2 popular vote victories in low population lily white states. one of them basically across the street from his home court.

the moderate bloc is gaining more votes than the progressive bloc too. so bernie is benefiting from the split field instead of being the clear preference of voters so far.

Was is completely delusional (and that’s the most polite word that came to mind)

Biden has never won a primary in his entire life. His polls were juiced.

Sanders - on the contrary - is a real front-runner now. At worst: he tied in Iowa; won New Hampshire - both states that feature older/whiter populations. We are now moving to states with younger populations (where Sanders dominates) - and with larger non-white populations (where Sanders leads all other candidates).

That's what a front-runner looks like.

-->

Really thought dude would show some fight but he’s a dud.

Reminds me of Jeb Bush. Thought he could just show up and win.

I watched for 3 minutes and he brought up Obama twice.

Glad I didn’t bet on him.

I’m still interested to see if he can win SC. I doubt it tho.

Dude is on fumes.

Bernie is clearly the front runner now, yes. No doubt.

But if you would have told us a few weeks ago that Liz was going to TANK in NH, but Bernie was going to eek out a ~26% win over the Mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana??


And that Amy was going to go from "who's that on the end of the stage?" to 3rd place?? In Bernie's backyard?

Yeah there's more choices this time, but a what...40% drop? damn. What would cause passionate voters in a "movement" to move from Bernie to "you can't have nice things" Amy or empty speech Pete?


Bernie should have done better in NH. Not talking about it doesn't make it less true.

I know some will read this and over-reaction, accuse me of being a Bernie-hating Klobuchar fan, but its really concerning that they can't have an honest conversation about their candidates strengths *and* weaknesses.

Their knee jerk reaction to go on the defensive rather than analyze the situation is very discouraging.


They should be at least a little disappointed/concerned about NH. I guarantee the campaign is.

Sen. Sanders won the New Hampshire primary. Again. Very few people, other than two-term presidents, have ever managed to pull that off. New Hampshire is known for being contrarian AF and Independent-minded. With a race with *this* many compelling choices for voters, it's a very impressive account of Bernie's campaign.

Was NH pretty close? Sure. Did Pete & Amy have impressive showings? Absolutely (though if you understood the dynamics of the NH electorate, you'd understand why it's friendly terrain for both of them). But none of that takes away from the durability of Sanders - who has weathered the two early states whose demographics favor other candidates more than him.

Also - the "neighboring state" argument doesn't carry much water anymore. Warren is from a "neighboring state" - that didn't help her here. She did better in Iowa. Amy is from the MidWest - that didn't help her much there -- Warren did better.




-->

You had 2 choices. They chose Bernie in 2016.

It’s 2020. Some of those voters have other people they like more right now.

It happens.

I think the real story is people suggesting Bernie’s voters were all passionate nutcases who would die for him was nonsense.

I’m voting for Bernie but I would’ve entertained voting for Warren if she kept her shit together. I’m not a passionate Bernie Bro even tho I have been accused of it because I push back at the ridiculous Bro blaming on here.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders-social-media-attacks-invs/index.html

... then I don't want to be right.

Fine people on both sides.

These networks are owned by big $$$

Who do you think is most threatened by Bern’s campaign?

Regurgitating these false narratives demonstrates your lack of critical thinking.

>These networks are owned by big $$$
>
>Who do you think is most threatened by Bern’s campaign?
>
>Regurgitating these false narratives demonstrates your lack of
>critical thinking.

Nah using the world is anti-Bernie to defend him, proves you have Bernie colored glasses on.

LOL@Bernie colored glasses

‘They’ are intentionally feeding you disinformation

The question is...why do you like the way bullshit tastes?

https://youtu.be/ItXXk-BereA

"Here's the thing ... important context here: We don't have the full tape," Alesci began. "So this is obviously snippets that have been released. The podcaster and the writer that released this sound is clearly a Bernie supporter. If you look at his Twitter feed, he's very anti-Bloomberg. He's been promoting the hashtag '#BloombergIsARacist.' We don't know how he got the sound to begin with. So lots of questions are being asked, especially on the timing of this. ... A poll yesterday shows Bloomberg rising in the polls, in particular strong support in the African American community. He polled at 22 percent, just behind Joe Biden at 27 percent. So the timing here and the mission here are all calling into question-"

the NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html

The Atlantic story about David Sirota

www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2019/03 › sanders-promise...
Bernie Sanders Just Hired His Twitter Attack Dog - The Atlantic

The Atlantic piece that pointed to more stories about Bernie's supporters

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/bernie-sanders-and-his-supporters-bro-y-reputation/605836/


CNN is awful but every story about Bernie supporters who go too far, is not coming from CNN.

That’s my point.

Take Bloomberg for example

TMK, he’s earned 0 delegates and hasn’t been on the debate stage to present his vision for the country

Yet, from the previous link and I’m sure the other outlets are reporting similar support, they’re claiming he’s polling #2 behind Biden

Non-stop coverage of an invisible campaign (policy wise)

Now ask yourself, why is that (c)

>That’s my point.
>

This sounds more and more like Trump. All of the fake news is out to get him.

>Take Bloomberg for example
>
>TMK, he’s earned 0 delegates and hasn’t been on the debate
>stage to present his vision for the country
>
>Yet, from the previous link and I’m sure the other outlets
>are reporting similar support, they’re claiming he’s
>polling #2 behind Biden
>

Multiple outlets reporting Bloomberg is #2 behind Biden, mmmmmm I have not read that.

>Non-stop coverage of an invisible campaign (policy wise)
>
>Now ask yourself, why is that (c)


Even if Bloomberg is getting a push that doesn't prove Bernie and his supporters are innocent and the criticism is just propaganda.

He can’t control the internet

It’s a bullshit narrative.

Meanwhile, stories are now getting attention IRT Klobuchar’s, Buttigieg’s and Bloomberg’s enforcement of systemic racism

If internet trolls are more important...you’d have a point

>He can’t control the internet
>

Doesn't have to control the internet to do more.

>It’s a bullshit narrative.
>

Nah he has a problem.

>Meanwhile, stories are now getting attention IRT
>Klobuchar’s, Buttigieg’s and Bloomberg’s enforcement of
>systemic racism
>

Bernie is getting a pass on his Black drug dealer comments and the number of Black folk locked up in his state.

>If internet trolls are more important...you’d have a point

If the so called "internet trolls" are not important why did Bernie put out disclaimers ?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-email-surrogates-respectfully-engage-bullying_n_5c72188fe4b03cfdaa55e866

Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

Of course, individual Sanders supporters hurled vitriol at Hillary Clinton and her fans. But there is no empirical evidence that it was worse than the abuse in the opposite direction. In fact, independent observers have shown the difference between the two camps to be negligible or, in the case of one study, demonstrated that Clinton backers were actually more aggressive.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/10/selective-feminism-and-the-myth.html

‘Bernie Bros’ and ‘Alt-Left’ Are Propaganda Terms Meant to Disempower

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/15/bernie-bros-and-alt-left-are-propaganda-terms-meant-to-disempower/

How Come So Many Bernie Bros Are Women and People of Color?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/17/how-come-so-many-bernie-bros-are-women-and-people-color

It's not a deflection. It has absolutely nothing to do with policy.

People are mean online...is not breaking news...especially to a poster on this board

but if the same accusations come from people who are not Hillary, in 2020, it's more than a campaign tactic.

>Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism
>
>https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/
>
>Of course, individual Sanders supporters hurled vitriol at
>Hillary Clinton and her fans. But there is no empirical
>evidence that it was worse than the abuse in the opposite
>direction. In fact, independent observers have shown the
>difference between the two camps to be negligible or, in the
>case of one study, demonstrated that Clinton backers were
>actually more aggressive.
>

Two wrongs make it ok ? He is not running against Hillary now. Hillary started the birther racism, does that make it ok for Trump to use it ?

>https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/10/selective-feminism-and-the-myth.html
>
>‘Bernie Bros’ and ‘Alt-Left’ Are Propaganda Terms
>Meant to Disempower
>

Bernie fuels the propaganda when he does this.

Some prominent Sanders supporters had been flaming Ms. Harris publicly as the preferred choice of the corporate Democratic establishment against which Mr. Sanders had long railed, a view amplified among Sanders-boosting accounts across social media. “Pre-emptive strike,” one person wrote on the popular SandersForPresident Reddit group, where Sanders fans were sharing details of Ms. Harris’s recent fund-raising swing in the Hamptons with former Hillary Clinton donors. “Start the conversation now, end it before 2020.”

Mr. Sanders assured Ms. Harris that there was no issue, the Democrats familiar with their conversation said. He insisted that he could not control how his followers communicated.

"But two years later, as both senators pursued the party’s 2020 presidential nomination and Ms. Harris returned to the Hamptons to collect campaign checks, Mr. Sanders broadcast an observation of his own after Ms. Harris raised doubts about his “Medicare for all” plan. “I don’t go to the Hamptons to raise money from billionaires,” he tweeted last August, elevating a message that supporters had already been pushing. Thousands of retweets followed."

>https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/15/bernie-bros-and-alt-left-are-propaganda-terms-meant-to-disempower/
>
>How Come So Many Bernie Bros Are Women and People of Color?
>

That doesn't mean Bernie gets a criticism pass. Some of my best friends are Black ? Biden has Black faces, Trump has women, is that all it takes ?

>https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/17/how-come-so-many-bernie-bros-are-women-and-people-color
>
>It's not a deflection. It has absolutely nothing to do with
>policy.

The recent story in the press about Bernie supporters harassing The Culinary Workers Union is based on the union criticizing his healthcare policy.

>People are mean online...is not breaking news...especially to
>a poster on this board
>
>

If it was just "internet trolls" or people online being mean, what do you call this

"For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live."

Incels in Warren and Buttigieg lol yeah right.

But I love how people are complaining about some fringe supporters online.

Meanwhile, actual democratic officials, high level staffers, and prominent media pundits have spewed vulgar vitriol at Sanders - but CNN conveniently omitted that from the “report” - if you can call it that.

-->

Before the Nevada? primary

Total coincidence it’s owned by the richest man in the world

LOL

Yeah, I started to read homie’s link... but stopped after they cited 2 people

2 people =/= his base.

>You had 2 choices. They chose Bernie in 2016.
>
>It’s 2020. Some of those voters have other people they like
>more right now.
>
>It happens.

I'd expect him to lose some support, because last time a vote for Bernie could have easily just been a vote against Hillary and only that.

But 40% or whatever?

All I'm saying is I wish his passionate supporters would be able to talk about the possibility that he underperformed- at least a little.

Again, Warren flamed the fuck out. You would think that those voters- at least most of them- would have moved to Bernie...but it sure doesn't look like it.

Pete wasn't supposed to be that close to Bernie in NH. And Amy?

I'm not saying he isn't the frontrunner- he is. I'm not saying the next states shouldn't favor him more than Pete- they definitely should.

But as far as momentum? I thought it would at least be a convincing win- especially with Warren flopping.

>
>I think the real story is people suggesting Bernie’s voters
>were all passionate nutcases who would die for him was
>nonsense.

Yes and no.

One thing that actually has me more pro-Bernie than I would have predicted 6 months ago is the diversity of his supporters, etc.

And their passion. Not the crazy passion, mind you- but I sort of figured a 'movement' would have some really dedicated, though silent supporters.

Actually, Doc said Bernie's campaign looks most like Obamas in terms of organization and passion. He put it better than I just did, but his statement actually sold me on Bernie more than anything else said on here.

So his support is what makes me feel better about his chances.

But then he *barely* beats Pete in a state where he dominated last time??

Where he already had name recognition, his organization, etc?

I don't know man. Makes me nervous. I go back and forth a lot because of Trump. I want the slam dunk.

Again, I'm just scratching my head at Warren basically a no-show and Bernie eeking out the w.


>
>I’m voting for Bernie but I would’ve entertained voting
>for Warren if she kept her shit together. I’m not a
>passionate Bernie Bro even tho I have been accused of it
>because I push back at the ridiculous Bro blaming on here.
>
>

Heres my thing- I was called a Bernie Bro last cycle because I didn't like Hillary and I definitely didn't like her chances. I grew to hate the term, and I don't think all Bernie supporters are bros. I definitely don't think you are, because I've seen you go back and forth. Not every Bernie supporter is a bro.

The bros - to me- are the ones who refuse to stop and talk this shit out. Who can't discuss things logically, or accept that some of us are just scared Bernie won't win.

And the ones who set much higher standards for Warren than any other candidate.

Now, Warren and her team have fucked up a lot.

The media has gone extra hard on her, and she played into it by being transparent (ironic).

But the bros helped take her down too. Helped chip at her credibility, etc. Because there are a group of supporters who want Bernie and only Bernie. It is sort of cult like.

So some of them trashed Liz at any opportunity. Even on here, dudes were furious she wouldn't shake his hand (lol).

And did it help Bernie even? Nope- doesn't look like it. Looks like a lot of Warren voters moved to Pete and/or Amy.

So how did their relentless attacks on Warren help the progressive cause? Lets say Amy drops out...how much of that support probably goes to Pete?

Those are the bros.


But to the point of the post- I just think its weird they can't even consider the possibility for a second that NH was at least a little disappointing.

Mostly, because if folks can't look back and learn lessons we are fucked.

Remember right after Hillary lost, and certain people only wanted to talk about Russia, Bernie, 'she won the popular vote!', etc?

A lot of people refused (or downplayed) to talk about how poorly Hillary did in the midwest, etc?

That is a much more serious case, but when anyone's stannery gets to a point where they can't sincerely reflect that's an issue to me.

So, even though his supporters won't talk about it I really hope his campaign is internally.


That said, I think SC is going to be huge. If Bernie can't slaughter Pete in SC? I dunno man.

its more of us than them

we beat ourselves last time by not showing up

Trump did his best these past 3 years to make SURE everyone will show up in 2020

Trump is DONE

we’re just choosing who takes over

like, who the fuck do you think is voting for Trump this time that didnt last time? right.

now subtract the voters he’s LOST since then

cmon now

yall too caught up in political theater

If you think Bernie- or any Dem- is a slam dunk then I envy your confidence.


I get what you are saying. I'm not even saying Bernie can't win.


Just saying I go back and forth, and I'm skeptical.


As far as Trump being "done"- we've been saying that for over 4 years.


Also, polls are wrong. Ask Joe Biden. Ask Hillary.


I would say ya'll are too gassed by the people you are with everyday, on twitter, etc. The echo chamber can be dangerous

and it allows them to hold the insurance plans over the heads of members should they decide to step out of line.

And adds to my doubts about selling M4A to enough Americans to elect Bernie (or Liz for that matter).


Americans are selfish.


There are Americans who like their health insurance, or at least distrust the government to handle insurance.

Americans are also fairly stupid.

"Democrats are coming for your healthcare" would be a strong, and fucking ironic, scare tactic

As would the "job killer" attacks, etc.

Add in unions not wanting a change- regardless of why cuz it muddies the waters....


Add all that up? selfish + like healthcare + distrust government + the scare tactics/job-killer/economy will tank/innovation/freedom/blah + stupid + "oh shit, unions are even against it?" + all the money that will be invested in trying to kill it?


I dunno man.


At least don't tell me "doubting Bernie can win is fucking bizarro!" ya know?


Take all the M4A stuff and consider Bernie's age, the fact that he has been in Washington for 30+ years, calls himself a socialist (see: American stupidity)?

AND that Trump consistently pulls out when we all think "he's done!"??


I don't think any Democrat is a lock. They all have issues. Bernie included.

>Americans are selfish.
>

i saw on reddit a dude complaining that he would be out $20k under M4A. he forgot to mention that was less than 4% of his income and that him and his wife dont actually use health care. their jobs pay 100% of their costs.

why arent more people looking out for the top 5%????

2016 was a two-person race; 2020 is a multi-candidate race with several candidates whom voters find compelling. Further, you have candidates who appeal across the political spectrum.

In a state as politically diverse as New Hampshire (where you have everyone from Progressives & Moderates to Independents, Social/Economic Libertarians, Greens & Lincoln Republicans) - you essentially had a rich field of candidates to choose from. That Sanders was still able to win New Hampshire (with viable fresh faces on the ballot) speaks to his strength and durability, not to his weakness.


-->

?

I remember some basic policy differences in 2016

HRC was eventually pushed more to the left

as I stated in a previous reply; action on climate change, universal healthcare, criminal justice reform, a living wage, etc...

Those are staples of Bern's political career

in 20', we're not seeing YUGE policy differences

most of the candidates have adopted some policy aimed at the topics mentioned above

and the majority of americans support action on those topics

now, we're seeing arguments in the primary shift to being pragmatic on the topics

in contrast to being pragmatic in general in 16'

Wouldn't it be reasonable to deduce, that in addition to 8 candidates

the slim margins are also a reflection of how close the candidates are on policy

?

>Wouldn't it be reasonable to deduce, that in addition to 8
>candidates
>
>the slim margins are also a reflection of how close the
>candidates are on policy

I think that's reasonable. Even the most moderate top Dem candidates are still for MFA - it's just a MFA "for those who want it". On foreign policy, environmental policy, economic policy, and a myriad of other issues - the candidates are all essentially parroting what Sanders advocated for in '16 - with some nuances.




-->

p booty and klo klo are more viable now and arent going anywhere before super tuesday. biden is still in the top 4-5 and will prolly see some level of boost in more diverse states.

bloomberg is gonna sit out and then parachute in just in time to kneecap them all and prevent any of those candidates from consolidating any portion of the moderate vote. and he has zero chance of winning.

bernie is clearly benefiting from the split moderate vote to pull out some tight finishes. why would you slice that pie even further if you want to beat him?

The Same: obstacles to him being president.

I’m not buying the narrative that he is just tryna to stop Bernie from getting the nom.

I wish obama would come out and say I do not endorse stop and frisk monster Bloomberg

The Black mayors supporting him, especially my girl London Breed, should really be searching their consciousness becuz he is not an ally and spending that much money on ads is nothing to be proud of, especially when that money would have been better spent on senate and House raises

I hope he crashes and burns hard on Super Tuesday

but no one will do it.

They won’t even say because they don’t like anyone else. They just go dark.

Weirdest shit ever. He has them under some billion dollar spell.

alternative, which is four more years of Trump

They may pragmatically be measuring his war chest and seeing how it measures up with Trump's. Clearly he can run an effective advertising campaign and so he can manufacture consent. He can wage war digitally and through the media. He has all of the financial tools and most of the political savvy needed to beat the other guy. Other than that, I don't have anything to say about him that's positive.

They don't see the process by which we collectively decide how to organize and govern ourselves as something within their control, so they point to somebody who has been quite explicit that he doesn't think control over those decisions is any of our business. We've already got one of those, but Bloomberg is polite and understands the importance of acknowledging liberal shibboleths even as he attempts to limit any of the understandings of human dignity on which those notions are based.

And seeing this arena as outside of our control is a pretty reasonable response to the last several decades of political discourse. The circle of practical and acceptable political outcomes is shrinking rapidly, evidenced pretty clearly by the idea that anything Bernie Sanders believes is radical. The most explicit avenue for political participation, voting, has been valorized to such a high degree that it has successfully excluded other effective forms of political activity like strikes, riots, or assassinations* as not part of rational, civilized discourse. And if you live in the wrong place or you're not white or god forbid both, even your ability to vote has been badly curtailed.

Bloomberg is a fascist, but the one thing we always forget about fascism (until it's too late) is that it's really popular. People like a force that's going to expel the wrong people from public view, particularly if it's hard to pin down who the wrong people are (until it's too late) and we can graft our own imagination onto that process and its eventual, but never quite arriving, manifestation. As long as he can offer what Trump offers, a chance to turn off your brain and live your life without thinking about politics, but do so politely then he's going to get a lot of traction.

*this is a historical point. i'm not advocating anything.

>
> The
>most explicit avenue for political participation, voting, has
>been valorized to such a high degree that it has successfully
>excluded other effective forms of political activity like
>strikes, riots, or assassinations*

>*this is a historical point. i'm not advocating anything.

They did a profile on NY1 on current NY AG Letitia James and made reference to one of her predecessors who was actually assassinated in City Hall in 2003. Now I was here in NY and for some reason had no recollection of this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/nyregion/councilman-is-shot-to-death-in-city-hall.html

totally off-topic. just posting because I had the article open as I read your response

I had no idea that happened, though I'm slightly pleased to be let off the hook in hearing that you didn't either. I guess the post-911 news cycle was a pretty weird thing.

I've been reading a lot of anarchist pacificists lately, particularly Gustav Landauer, and he has to talk a lot about assassination because of how common it was in the late 19th and early 20th century and how quickly it became associated with the anarchist movement in particular. Landauer's a pacifist, so obviously he disavows it, but the frank way that he talks about it, through the lens of Pisacane's understanding of assassination as "propaganda of the deed" is so weirdly dispassionate. He talks about it as though it's just another political tactic in an ocean of possible tactics and ends up dismissing it almost as much for its ultimate inefficacy than any moral reason.

It's real weird.

as a pacifist. Maybe he's trying to be more guarded in revealing his misgivings, aware that to the reader his moral stance would obviously disqualify it as a valid political strategy and therefore a criticism to be written off as one based on personal feelings. Discrediting its efficacy seems like a 'hard data', statistician's way of shaping general attitudes about the practice to the extent that he's able through his writing.

is the reason for assassination's inefficacy the martyrdom effect, or that it removes a figurehead but leaves the political vehicle, in his opinion?

And that, on a practical level, the remains of the coercive state will take action on assassins and groups associated with assassins in a way that is brutal, destructive, and disproportionate. So even if you win, you lose.

>is the reason for assassination's inefficacy the martyrdom
>effect, or that it removes a figurehead but leaves the
>political vehicle, in his opinion?

The state is a relationship, in his view. That means untangling it is much tougher, and though the idea of propaganda of the deed (which basically says assassination is justified because the apparatus of the state infuses our lives with constant coercive violence) makes the issue about more than a single death for him, Landauer still believes that disentangling needs to be done interiorly: a cultural change where we view our relationships to each other in a radically transformed way.

mitigate the separate existences of the powerful elite and that of the rest of society. I don't think it's novel but the way it was put was so succinct.


>The state is a relationship, in his view. That means
>untangling it is much tougher, and though the idea of
>propaganda of the deed (which basically says assassination is
>justified because the apparatus of the state infuses our lives
>with constant coercive violence) makes the issue about more
>than a single death for him, Landauer still believes that
>disentangling needs to be done interiorly: a cultural change
>where we view our relationships to each other in a radically
>transformed way.

Wow. Just read a novel called Taina by Ernesto Quiñonez. It's written from the perspective of a horny / smitten teenager so it doesn't get too wordy, but there is a moment when one of the characters says 'poverty is violence', and there's a subtle theme of power and punishment throughout. The ending of the book, without really giving anything away, pretty much leaves the reader amidst a radical transformation happening between gentrifier / gentrified, and rich / poor. Decent book and a very quick read.

>Wow. Just read a novel called Taina by Ernesto Quiñonez. It's
>written from the perspective of a horny / smitten teenager so
>it doesn't get too wordy, but there is a moment when one of
>the characters says 'poverty is violence', and there's a
>subtle theme of power and punishment throughout. The ending
>of the book, without really giving anything away, pretty much
>leaves the reader amidst a radical transformation happening
>between gentrifier / gentrified, and rich / poor. Decent book
>and a very quick read.

Thank you very much for this. I'll check it out.

he is the only candidate that I will go hard in the "NO" column for

id hold my nose and vote for him vs trump. but other than that...

I don't trust him to pick the right people for the courts.

I mean, even Buttigieg is better than he is, and he's a mess IMO

>id hold my nose and vote for him vs trump. but other than
>that...

If it comes to this, I would too. But I don't believe that he'll come through on all of this recent pandering to the left. Dude is a hardcore Republican.

Bernie won, again.

yeah i see how things turned out the way they did.

jesus christ.

do these folks go out and talk to any real voters or just get their outlook from politico articles?

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/798296505/deval-patrick-ends-his-presidential-bid

the culinary union in nv...possibly the most powerful political organizing force in the state...has come out against medicare for all because it would eliminate the healthcare plans they fought hard and collectively bargained for (a lot of unions pick this same bone with m4a).

so ryan grim says this:
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1227653821805056000
-----
Hey @Culinary226, check in with your government affairs people. There are not 60 votes in the Senate to ban the private health insurance you got in your union negotiations, nor will there be after the election. You're gonna be okay.
-----

basically 'we wont have 60 votes to pass our agenda after the election anyway'.

so he admits medicare for all has no chance of passing in the senate after the election? should we stop caring where a candidate stands on m4a since its already a failed promise anyway? is the revolution on hold?

He needs to work on being more apologetic about Stop and Frisk though.

That sounds like a guarantee. He's awful.

because he can run a lot of ads?

Hillary had the never trumpers on board too and outspent the shit out of Trump.

Not saying he can't beat him, but definitely is a reach

It isn’t just about his money though.

He’s the only one that can get enough Dem support and enough Republicans that wanna be Republican but don’t wanna go Trump route that can translate into winning the presidency.

He’s the only one that scares and intimidates Trump.

All that plus more adds up to him being the only candidate currently out that can win.

Edit to add:

Bernie and Liz too left to get enough of the vote come Election Day, yes I’ve seen the polls that have all Dem candidates beating Trump but I don’t trust those polls.

Pete would get crushed as an upstart elistist who hasn’t earned his place yet and isn’t qualified to be POTUS (no, it doesn’t matter he can speak hella languages and went to Harvard)

That’s cool Amy did well in NH but that won’t be sustained

Biden is fading and no amount of Black folks in SC can save him

having zero faith in the standard political process and just leaving it up to the plutocrats to duke it out for control over the channels by which they manufacture consent and then willingly going along with picking the less evil of the two of the them is just not something I can stand behind

I have a friend that is totally tuned out on American politics in general (he's still on that Native American shit where it's all politricks so he doesn't pay attention) and sent me this article just now like "it's all rigged, bro, don't even try. the statisticians already did the math Trump is the favorite" This level of complacency is what's really going to lose the election. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackjones/2020/02/11/trump-2020-presidential-reelection-odds-improve-following-iowa-caucus-fiasco/#4ec388cade08

And all you got from that is I’m complacent?

LOLOLOLOL

by going with the 'good' billionaire because normal lifelong POLITICIANS can't even compete anymore, yes, that is a dangerously complacent attitude

folks are mad lazy.

Bloomberg can win because... he has money

I hate American politics.

“Bloomberg is the only one that can get enough Dem support”

this is such a bizarre claim. like, what on earth is this based off of?

so you’re suggesting, any candidate not named Bloomberg and Democrats just stay home, dont vote, and let Trump have it again.


then she said:
“He’s the only one that scares and intimidates Trump.”

another odd claim.
we dont need Trump to be scared to vote him out of office. like at all.
im confused as to why him being scared matters to you.


you honestly sound like my 70 year old aunt who listens to the news and politics every day and yet is completely clueless to how politics work

Wtf does this mean? ^^^

because he is spending so much on ads.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/bloomberg-ad-campaign-hikes-tv-prices-100572

Michael Bloomberg’s big-spending, shock-and-awe TV ad campaign has made politicking more expensive for everyone from his 2020 rivals to Senate, House and state legislative candidates around the country.

Eight weeks into his presidential campaign, Bloomberg has already spent more money on advertising — $248 million — than most candidates could spend in years. That amount has squeezed TV ad inventory in nearly every state, lowering supply and causing stations to raise ad prices at a time of high demand, as candidates around the country gear up for their primaries.

It probably irks Trump that he has more money but that's not the same thing

and yeah he can run ads but that's really all he has. Hes not exactly mr personality. Part of the problem with the last election that a lot of people felt that we had two terrible choices and that they'd both suck. Many of those people sat it out, voted 3rd party or said fuck it, let's try Trump. How does that improve whe the two options are literally two Republican NY billionaires?

your own political takes.



www.Tupreme.com

You better check your tone.

www.Tupreme.com

i just think some a better chance than others.

whats next, you just feel it in your bones?

must be the money!!!

-->

Wow - that escalated quickly.
-->

Not that i love him or anything but none of these other people have a prayer of beating Trump. Sanders time was 2016, a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist isnt winning a General Election

To cross that bridge but he’s the one “dem” left that I really would have a hard time voting for...

I'm gonna just say "Enjoy Donald Trump".

I didn't like Hillary but I know she would choose different than him on a number of key areas.

I've seen how Bloomberg governs, and all he would improve would be the reduction of ridiculous tweets

not only is he not a Democrat, but a REPUBLICAN.... but more importantly, he does not represent assumed values of the Democratic Party.


he's also a confirmed racist.

>not only is he not a Democrat, but a REPUBLICAN.... but more
>importantly, he does not represent assumed values of the
>Democratic Party.

Assess the way that Bloomberg has been treated by the media/party insiders versus a candidate like Sanders (and to a lesser extent - even to a candidate like Warren who has played ball with them) - it reveals where the bias is.

There is no better example of how corrosive big money is than the prospect of a Trump v. Bloomberg showdown. Special interests control our political process. The sooner we acknowledge that and properly diagnose the problem the better.


-->

Fuck that dude...

I hate Trump... and I hate Bloomberg.

Never thought I would sit out an election but I just might if he is the nom.

https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1227814670318395392

https://twitter.com/blakezeff/status/1227976156936171520


https://www.mcall.com/news/elections/mc-nws-pa-bloomberg-2020-toomey-fitzpatrick-20191113-gzolz4o4izbghny24oqnm46w2a-story.html


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/26/1902046/--Democratic-candidate-Mike-Bloomberg-has-spent-millions-keeping-the-Senate-in-Republican-control

https://twitter.com/sarah_in_ny/status/1227687382985662464


I'll never understand why some Democrats (politicians, voters, talking heads, etc) think more about winning over Republicans than any other group.

Republicans are NOT going to vote for the Dem- period.

Even if you run a dirtbag Republican billionaire with a D next to his name...they still wont.

And a ton of people will just sit it out. A fucking ton.

Panicking and giving the party to this asshole would be a huge mistake.


If he *really* was about it- even as a moderate Dem- he'd be funding Dems in the senate, etc.

There was an incredible turnout for the Dem primary. This is great news re: voter engagement/excitement.

The way to defeat Trump is to excite the base, bring out disaffected/young/new voters, and swarm the polls. This should be encouraging to Democrats.

Also: For those who think Bloomberg is the one - he's not going to excite any of this emerging/new voter energy.

Sure - he'll get a few center-right moderates to vote for him - but that won't be nearly enough to beat Trump.

Just ask Tim Kaine.

-->

hmm, wonder where we heard this before...

i think this is valid in NH but might not be in closed primary states or ones that have a heavy lean one way or the other.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/482830-new-hampshire-primary-turnout-is-a-boost-to-democrats

As the final ballots are counted in New Hampshire’s 2020 primary, some are comparing impressive turnout numbers to 2008, when nearly 288,000 voters logged their preference in the Democratic race. But to appreciate what happened Tuesday night, it’s important to compare apples to apples — or in this case, elections to elections.

Three other times in the past 24 years — once every eight years to be precise — the presidential primaries have featured an out-of-office party seeking a nominee to face an incumbent president. 2008 was a free-for-all, with both Republicans and Democrats searching for a new standard-bearer.

But with President Trump firmly entrenched as the GOP’s leader, one of the biggest questions heading into Tuesday was whether Democrats and independents (and as always in a state like New Hampshire, some curious or mischievous Republicans) would demonstrate more enthusiasm than similarly positioned challengers in 1996, 2004, and 2012.

In ’96, Republicans battled to prevent President Bill Clinton from earning a second term. New Hampshire voters handed Clinton an easy victory on (as expected) low turnout. On the GOP side, Patrick Buchanan scored a narrow upset over Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), leaving about a half-dozen candidates in their wake. A total of 208,740 ballots were cast for Republicans. That November, Clinton was re-elected comfortably.

Eight years later, with George W. Bush in the Oval Office, it was the Democrats’ turn to pick their nominee.

In New Hampshire, John Kerry handing Howard Dean a second consecutive defeat, propelling Kerry into a frontrunner role he never relinquished. But while his 38-percent share was impressive, only 219,787 people voted Democratic — a lukewarm five percent jump from Republicans’ 1996 total. Kerry lost that November.

Fast-forward another eight years, and it’s once again the Democrats’ turn to protect their claim to the White House. While Barack Obama breezed through the primaries, the GOP race witnessed several lead changes in the fall of 2011.

Former Massachusetts Governor Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) got hot at the right time and scored a sizable New Hampshire win, netting 39.3 percent of the vote. 248,485 GOP ballots were cast — an 11.5 percent increase over Democrats’ 2004 total. Obama defeated Romney in November.

And that brings us to this week in New Hampshire. With about 97 percent of ballots counted, Democratic candidates have received 294,707 votes — 15.7 percent higher than Republicans’ 2012 total. When the counting is completed, the jump likely will exceed 16 or 17 percent.

That is meaningful. Will it continue throughout the primary season? Who knows. Many factors contribute to voter turnout. But after a disastrous Iowa caucus, this is the jolt Democrats needed. Compared to smaller turnout bumps from 1996 to 2004, and then from 2004 to 2012, this year’s jump shows New Hampshire voters are highly invested in who becomes the Democratic nominee.

B.J. Rudell is associate director of Polis: Duke University’s Center for Politics, part of the Sanford School of Public Policy. In a career encompassing stints on Capitol Hill, on a presidential campaign, in a newsroom, in classrooms, and for a consulting firm, he has authored three books and has shared political insights across all media platforms, including for CNN and Fox News.

Over 300,000 cast ballots in the Dem primary in NH - a new record.

-->

Wanted to show they didn’t support sanders

p booty and klo klo (especially her) overperformed.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html

it def looks like moderates turned out more than expected.

bernies base is overestimated imo.

for example trump was on the ballot with like 10 other candidates and still cleared 35% of the vote. the next nearest had 15% (20+% margin). thats a big base there.

bernie barely cleared 25% in the state next door to his own (where he ran and won in 2016 by 20+%) and an unknown mayor was right on his heels.

...is kind of disingenuous. Vermont and New Hampshire are pretty different states. Vermont has been overwhelmingly Democratic since like 1992. New Hampshire not so much. HRC ***barely*** took NH in 2016. Only times it could be considered going "strongly" Democratic was under Obama. Otherwise, Kerry barely took it in 2004 and it went to Dubya in 2000. Bill Clinton barely won it in 1992, but won solidly in 1996.

So it's not like it's a Democratic stronghold. It's also right next door to Massachusetts, and no one ever assumed that Warren should be carrying it either.

I'll also add the effort to Cuban B that Sanders took the state is in general pretty lame.

I lived there for a couple of years and the conservative lean is palpable. Folks mean well and want to *think* they're more progressive than they are. They end up voting moderate.

It isn't a bastion of liberal or progressive philosophy.

im not sure we should be using one (losing) partys primary to categorize the entire state.

trump won the republican primary in ny and ca in blowouts in 2016. you see what im getting at.

Yes, Bill Clinton won it comfortably in 1996, but, again, he barely took in 1992. And then Gore lost it 2000. HRC won the state by the slimmest of margins in 2016. Again, this is not a deep blue state where someone like Sanders holds a lot of appeal.

On a myriad of issues - the state legislature of NH has often been dubbed "the Mississippi of New England" lol.

The fact that Sanders won *twice* in NH - despite it being the most moderate/center-right leaning state of all of its neighbors is pretty remarkable. It's really a purple state - and the Dems that typically do well here are not Sanders-style progressives like AOC or Omar. They are far more in line with moderate/center-right Democrats. This is another way that Sanders has an anomalous appeal to voters not just in NH - but nationwide. You simply can't use a cookie-cutter analysis to explain the Sanders voter. It's a voter that defies convention and features genuine intersectionality across both demographic and geographic lines.

The fact that Sanders won two primaries in a row in NH is pretty unheard of in the Granite State - which is always contrarian. Look at the history of NH primaries and count how many times a candidate (who isn’t president) has won two primaries in a row. It’s extraordinarily rare. And he has won against the odds - first defeating the Clinton behemoth with all the advantages in the world - and then winning a jam packed field with a lot of excellent candidates who appeal to voters all across the politically diverse spectrum.

And N.H. and Iowa aren’t even states that feature demographics most favorable to Sanders. They are older/white states. Sanders thrives in diverse, younger states.

Finally - The whole “neighboring state” analysis is pretty lazy. Did it help Warren in N.H.? Did it help Klobuchar in Iowa? As you noted - NH features very different voter dynamics than Vermont and Massachusetts.

The attempts to spin the Sanders strength is getting comical.

-->

>The fact that Sanders won two primaries in a row in NH is
>pretty unheard of in the Granite State - which is always
>contrarian.

always contrarian to what? 4 of the last 5 before sanders went on to become the nominee. and bill clinton coming in a strong 2nd (vs 3% in iowa) kicked off his 'comeback kid' storyline. nh if largely credited for saving his campaign.

the fact sanders came out on top in 2016 actually strengthens the 'neighboring state' theory in this case.



>Look at the history of NH primaries and count how
>many times a candidate (who isn’t president) has won two
>primaries in a row. It’s extraordinarily rare.

well its rare because the candidates who have won nh (non incumbents - gore, kerry, hilldawg, etc) dont usually run for president in a following election lol.

its hard to win nh in the next primary when you arent even running lol.

i think the only nh primary winner to run again in recent history was gary hart. and i assume you know why gary hart wouldnt win it on the 2nd run lol.



>And he has won against the odds - first defeating the Clinton behemoth
>with all the advantages in the world - and then winning a jam
>packed field with a lot of excellent candidates who appeal to
>voters all across the politically diverse spectrum.

if you mention the clinton advantages in 2016 then you have to mention the sanders advantages this year. fundraising, name recognition, and the fact hes basically been campaigning in the national spotlight since 2015. and the split field actually helped him (p booty and klo klo voters overlapping/cannibalizing as evidenced at the precinct/county level).



>Finally - The whole “neighboring state” analysis is pretty
>lazy.

well...except nh primary history.

https://www.wbur.org/politicker/2016/02/05/new-hampshire-primary-candidate-neighboring-state

Also - these races are complex and multi-layered. Relying on "but but neighboring states!" arguments or a standard "this race is now about moderates v. progressives!" analysis isn't going to get to the heart of the matter. But they are useful tools if you want to push propaganda about the purported "weakness" of a candidate who has in actuality shown real durability and resolve.

>if you mention the clinton advantages in 2016 then you have to
>mention the sanders advantages this year. fundraising, name
>recognition, and the fact hes basically been campaigning in
>the national spotlight since 2015.

The Clintons have been the head of the snake of the Democratic Party for decades. Sanders has always been an outsider. The advantages Sanders has built have nothing to do with the party infrastructure bolstering his candidacy. In fact, it's the opposite. The party has tried to blunt his impact in every way imaginable - which is why his durability as a candidate has been underrated at every turn.






-->

(overwhelmingly white) right down to income/education.

youre looking at the entire electorate as a whole.

but even with that...sanders was an immigration protectionist for his senate run in 2006 (along with his most favorable rating in over a decade from the nra). and then gradually moved left with the party. so lets not make it out like vt is san francisco.


>It's also right
>next door to Massachusetts, and no one ever assumed that
>Warren should be carrying it either.

this was absolutely part of the coverage (the fact that she was underperforming in the neighboring state that people expected her to do well in.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1227452415420616705
https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1226009976818282496
https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1227332861516242944
https://twitter.com/POLITICOPress/status/1228332185863757824

nh has a strong history of supporting candidates from neighboring states. this isnt a narrative. its history.

https://www.wbur.org/politicker/2016/02/05/new-hampshire-primary-candidate-neighboring-state

you mentioned kerry (ma). dukakis and romney (both ma) also got a boost in nh.

5 of the last 6 dem primaries with candidates from a neighboring state have gone to that candidate.

I think we need to be careful about interpreting a singular primary like this as a showdown of “moderates” vs “progressives”. There are many reasons (some of which have nothing to do with ideology) why voters opted for Amy, Bernie, Pete & Liz respectively. The media may be super excited to make the argument that N.H. means Americans want a “moderate centrist” - but this is awfully presumptuous logic.

-->

Didn’t want sanders and that it’s extremely unlikely that any of Pete’s, Amy’s or Biden’s supporters would support him or his policies

Sanders actually was first in the realignment vote in the Iowa Caucus - which means an awful lot of voters chose him as their second option. Further, in poll after poll sanders is the clear second choice for Biden, Warren, Steyer, Yang & Tulsi voters.

That’s a far cry from the erroneous narrative that nobody will vote for him if their first choice isn’t viable.

Sounds an awful lot like “nobody likes him”.
-->

>Sanders actually was first in the realignment vote in the
>Iowa Caucus - which means an awful lot of voters chose him as
>their second option.


IA 2nd alignment (raw vote gains after realignment)
source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa
===================================================

1) Pete Buttigieg +5678
2) Elizabeth Warren +2323
3) Bernie Sanders +2143
4) Amy Klobuchar -1353
5) Tom Steyer -2641
6) Joe Biden -2692
7) Andrew Yang -7170

I guess CNN updated since posting this before, but still... Bernie only ended up with the highest popular vote in IA's realignment because he had the highest popular vote in the first alignment. He didn't actually pick up that much realignment support compared to Buttigieg and Warren (Bernie's +2143 v. Pete's +5678, or even v. Pete's and Warren's combined +8001).

Polling and vote/caucus distributions do kind of hint towards Bernie's support having a ceiling of ~25%-30%...which is what I've been expecting based on what we know about his base demographics... I guess we'll see tho *shrug*

I’m referring to the first alignment vote.
-->

"Sanders actually was first in the realignment vote in the Iowa Caucus - which means an awful lot of voters chose him as their second option."

you clearly stated '*re*alignment' and 'second option'.

-->