It's good to have Nevada out of the way. Definitely helps give a clearer view of the overall picture. SC will be pivotal as well.

What are you expecting? Will Biden's "firewall" hold? Can Pete's black voters travel with him and vote in SC?

As of right now the delegate count is:
45 - Bernie Sanders
25 - Pete Buttigieg
15 - Joe Biden
8 - Elizabeth Warren
7 - Amy Klobuchar

Debate is tomorrow night and will include 7 candidates, the above plus everyone's favorite billionaires, Bloomberg and Steyer.

Rumor is that Tulsi is still lurking in the shadows awaiting to unfold her master plan.

I’m sure Biden will do well. Will it be enough for him to get some gotdamn energy and stick his chest out? We shall see.

Also hope some of those never wuz ass candidates drop out. Tulsi, Amy, Tom... time to kick rocks.

i sure hope thats not true.

i am guessing bernie eeks out biden. possibly no one else gets delegates.

whats odd is that this primary is saturday then 3 days later is super tuesday. if you drop out saturday night what effect would it even have on voters 3 days later? i think if you dont drop out before sc you might as well stay in to see what happens in super tuesday.

>i am guessing bernie eeks out biden. possibly no one else gets
>delegates.

Hope you're right, because damn.

I'm going to be skeptical over here, for health reasons.

hopefully when it comes to voting day most of those people chose a real candidate.

54 delegates are up for grabs in SC. biggest prize so far. biden could over take pete. amy and warren could be left a bit behind.

warren could really benefit from coming in third and gaining on petes lead on her.

"A video of Mr Biden’s speech shared widely on social media showed him saying: “My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden.”"

Very little transparency on the final math & delegate apportionment out of Iowa - hope we get better reporting out of Nevada.

Get ready for the "Bernie the Commie!" attacks tonight.


-->

NY Times is still reporting the cause as the coronavirus pandemic, at least for now lol

-->

Something is going to happen with the Sanders candidacy one way or another. Showing our boomer overlords that people really don't care about their hysterical, reactionary views about socialism is one positive outcome that's already occurring.

Next up, showing that young people are willing to morally evaluate America's role in the world the same way they view other countries. When we start wars of aggression abroad and try to crush poor people and minorities domestically, that means America is a villain.

opening for young people to begin understanding the context of the embargo and decades of propaganda we ingested

https://i.redd.it/5bpwli8gf2j41.jpg

they have a lower infant mortality rate than the US

they have an almost equivalent life expectancy

i.e. free healthcare and higher education

I really hope tonight does not become a referendum on socialism

...but at this point, what else do they got...right?

if they have legit complaints go at it but trying to play up these non stories wont work out well for them.

if all the candidates only focus on bernie i think bernie rises. i think all other candidates need to show themselves as a viable alternative and focus on knocking out some of the rest.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-60-minutes-interview-cooper.html

Both Obama and Sanders have (rightfully) condemned the authoritarian nature of the Castro regime. But they also approach the subject with actual nuance and recognize some of the positive aspects and contributions from Cuba - because they aren't children who lack the ability to analyze these issues critically and with layered nuance.

-->

>Next up, showing that young people are willing to morally
>evaluate America's role in the world the same way they view
>other countries.

This is critical to birthing an entirely new viewpoint on how we engage with the world. Young people aren't so quick to buy into propaganda and marginalize entire countries because they don't bend to American hegemony.


-->

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/5/21113779/2020-presidential-delegate-tracker

Then you've even got places like NBC only crediting Sanders with 43 delegates (to Pete's 26):

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/delegate-count

-->

https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1231413594853535745?s=20

-->

One thing I can credit to the Rupugs...is my bullshit meter has been calibrated

I've found, if you let full of shit people talk long enough...they will contradict themselves

IRT, Pete

He continues to perpetuate the Bernie Bro trope...w/o actual receipts

Claims Sanders is divisive, toxic, and polarizing

Seems like an odd claim to throw at the frontrunner

The demographic data, as you are aware of, contradicts his claim

As does the majority of americans, not just democrats, who support his proposed policies

Action on climate change, universal healthcare, end to endless war, free college, etc...

Pete has now become what he is accusing Sanders of by hurling insults and empty rhetoric...at the candidate that is winning the majority of the votes...an overwhelming majority, BTW

SMH, Pete needs to have a seat.

I caught a few minutes of his town hall last night...and turned it off after he made claims about being the most progressive candidate

c'mon

and has clearly embraced the role of being the anti-Bernie. His role will essentially be to attack-dog Sanders at every turn, even if it means helping Bloomberg.


-->

Was it on here or somewhere else I read that Pete might as well go on stage with Con Man tatted on his forehead. I've heard some people are not able to spot psychopaths and I think the majority of Pete's supporters fall into that group.

smh

Although I think other Bernie supporters do need to be muzzled, especially the ones who sent those vile messages to the WOC execs with Nevada culinary union

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22-studies-agree-medicare-for-all-saves-money

actual analysis
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

this reviews several studies for medicare for all including the ones being used to claim medicare for all would cost 50 trillion.

Yup. And the Lancet Study Author Says Sanders' Financing Plan Fully Covers Cost of Medicare for All

https://bernie.substack.com/p/breaking-lancet-study-author-says

Here is the exact breakdown from Bernie's site

https://imgur.com/a/HehQBk1

Every Democrat that rails against Medicare for all has this guy's blood on their hands. It's a crime against humanity at this point.

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1232393688078311425?s=20

in response to Bernie winning Nevada:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2S_yOB6anM

This coming off the heels of Jason Johnson apologizing for trashing Black women leading the Sanders campaign:

https://twitter.com/DrJasonJohnson/status/1231333053773045766

Even Chris Hayes is backtracking and finally calling out the unsupported arguments that "Bernie isn't electable":

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/panic-over-sanders-unsupported-by-data-79372869895?fbclid=IwAR0-_yAzBaptSxdyiBJXbYa9-HPEuhC6C_P0i0VnLY37-niqrmCNNO0-hcU

Ain't that interesting.

-->

running on M4A; Sen Jamie Raskin

...that smear was intentional...

He needs to be removed.

the same way you did with Bloomberg.

How will Biden do ?

How will Bloomberg do ?

I’m gonna hold my prediction until after the debate tonight.

Strong performance from either Sanders or Biden will tip the SC scales in their direction but gonna see how they do first...

(If they both just do okay I’m giving slight edge to Biden)

>I’m gonna hold my prediction until after the debate
>tonight.
>

too easy

>Strong performance from either Sanders or Biden will tip the
>SC scales in their direction but gonna see how they do
>first...
>
>(If they both just do okay I’m giving slight edge to Biden)

That is not strong. You came out before Bloomberg's first debate and said he would bomb. Come on a strong prediction.

Will Bloomberg bomb again at the debate ?

Will Biden bomb at the debate ?

If Bloomberg was an F on the first debate he will be a D now....Still bombing but not as harshly. He will at least sorta look prepared for the attacks even though he won’t have strong answers.

Biden will not bomb, he’s gonna be a B, gonna mention over and over his Black stats and how Obama is his homeboy...

Sanders won’t do too badly, I predict at least one reference to marching with MLK...

Warren will scorch earth it again because her campaign needs it

Pete is gonna Pete, aka be a C....He might actually do worse because I know there will be a lot of Black questions and he won’t have adequate answers...

Amy is going to try to keep her Pete rage in check and might actually be able to pull it off...

>If Bloomberg was an F on the first debate he will be a D
>now....Still bombing but not as harshly. He will at least
>sorta look prepared for the attacks even though he won’t
>have strong answers.
>
>Biden will not bomb, he’s gonna be a B, gonna mention over
>and over his Black stats and how Obama is his homeboy...
>
>Sanders won’t do too badly, I predict at least one reference
>to marching with MLK...
>
>Warren will scorch earth it again because her campaign needs
>it
>
>Pete is gonna Pete, aka be a C....He might actually do worse
>because I know there will be a lot of Black questions and he
>won’t have adequate answers...
>
>Amy is going to try to keep her Pete rage in check and might
>actually be able to pull it off...


These are fair I can agree with most of it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/sanders-obama-primary-challenge/606709/

He was asked that exact question last night on CNN

You're not going to like the answer, if you're looking for controversy

Barry O is not beyond reproach

Apparently, it's still too early to have an honest conversation about his administration.

>He was asked that exact question last night on CNN
>
>You're not going to like the answer, if you're looking for
>controversy
>

Not looking for controversy but I will check out his answer from the town hall.

>Barry O is not beyond reproach
>
>Apparently, it's still too early to have an honest
>conversation about his administration.

Nobody is worshiping Obama just because they question some of Bernie's actions. The Bern supports gotta remove the protective bubble.

Let's say it's all the way true

Bern was actively looking to primary Barry O in 2011

You're not explaining how that effects you, or why you're concerned about it...?

Give you an idea on how he'd govern...you mean, outside of his past 30+ years in office?

He was a mayor in 81'

I'd say there's more than enough evidence of how he'd govern if elected

And you're saying, if he wanted to primary, or a primary challenger to Barry in 2011...that is an example of _______ ?

Mere coincidence this is coming up ahead of the SC primary

>Let's say it's all the way true
>
>Bern was actively looking to primary Barry O in 2011
>
>You're not explaining how that effects you, or why you're
>concerned about it...?
>

It means he can't be trusted at all. He will say anything, and what he did while he was a Senator will not hold any weight if he is willing to lie about this. He will do nothing on issues important to the Black community if he would've primary Obama and had to be talked out of it.

>Give you an idea on how he'd govern...you mean, outside of his
>past 30+ years in office?
>

What did he do about the prison problem in his state ?

https://www.vpr.org/post/why-are-there-so-many-african-americans-incarcerated-vermont

>He was a mayor in 81'
>
>I'd say there's more than enough evidence of how he'd govern
>if elected
>

Evidence does not explain why he would ask

"Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?"

>And you're saying, if he wanted to primary, or a primary
>challenger to Barry in 2011...that is an example of _______ ?
>

Disrespect and stupidity. If he were new or young that would be one thing but coming from all that time he had in office and suggest something like that.

>Mere coincidence this is coming up ahead of the SC primary

Yeah it's politics but that's not enough to defend it if he said it.

Black specific issues were his biggest blind spot in 15’

IRT primarying Barry...the context of the question is misleading

Bern made statements about challenging Barry in the 11’ primary to move him back to the left, as he moved to the right in office

The story is being presented as Bern wanted to primary Barry himself

...that is not what happened...

<shrug>

Said it wasn't true - and pointed to the fact that he endorsed Obama in 2008 at a time when most of his peers were endorsing Clinton.

But I fully expect them to come out with everything they can on him: be it that he's a communist, was anti-Obama, or even citing his off-beat poetry from 40 years ago. I expect all the smears to come in over the next week.

-->

going back to 7 people is going to be rough. i wonder who will be yang'd and get very little speaking time.

if im bernie i would pivot to trump. spend most of his time focusing on how he is better than trump. signal that the primary is over.

im worried warren might overplay the last debates performance and take it too far. i think she doesnt need to spend a lot of focus on bloomberg, let others do the work. it would make sense for her to try to blunt steyer but do people even realize hes on stage? i would hit pete again on the 8.5% cap on premiums only, focus on how his option will be bad for underinsured.

i wonder if pete readjusts, i think his last debate was pretty bad. hes a smart dude but his emotions might be getting to him. his claims of bernie being divisive while pete makes divisive statements is not working well anymore.

i think amy rebounds but not sure theres much for her to gain anymore.

if biden can repeat the level of his last debate it will be good for him.

He doesn't even sound comfortable saying the words

He will bomb on that topic during the debate and in the primary

Pete gets exposed tonight.

when he does long form interviews he has some good points and opinions. i would think he would be better prepared and learn from last week. wouldnt be shocked if he bombs on it again tonight though. this could be a real weakness of his.

It’s going to be a bunch of accusations that are all explained thoroughly by Bernie in his typical style.

Biden will shit his pants on stage.. literally. I think dude might cry in the middle of one of his answers.

Bloomberg is going to try to sound normal but he ain’t normal.

Pete is going to pull out his Hagwart wand and try to do a magic trick. SC ain’t voting for some gay dude named Booty Gay. The hell type of football locker room name is that shit?

Warren will raise her hand and keep it there. She got heart but it’s too late.

Amy is cooked. She might swing on Pete tonight before she calls it quits.

Tom... he’s going to hurt the Bloomberg and Biden Black vote because dude has been spending in the Carolinas for months. He’s Bloomberg with a real heart.

Tulsi? She’s Rick Santorum in a dress. Just hanging out in the primaries because she FA’s no home to go back to.

SC primary.

Biden wins but still loses because Bernie is a close second and expands his delegate lead on Booty and the bunch.

Amy really might swing.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1232299147455234048

According to this guy (a Bloomberg senior advsior) Bernie said "Toddlers should touch each other's genitals", "women get cancer from having orgasms", "he's written on rape fantasies"

I'm mad the reporter didn't push back other than to gasp. How can you not ask the guy to clarify?

You right about the reporter.

with slick right wing framing.

look at how angry she is questioning bernie on the cost of his proposals.
https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1220903512772620288

she doesnt even get that demonstrative over republican guests who blatantly lie to her face.

I think the folks who don't get a lot of camera time in this one will be happy that it turns out that way.

Absolutely excellent.

All these dummies should consider this an initiation. If Tom Steyer isn't going to be willing to whip that stupid tie off and choke Mike Bloomberg with it, why is he even there?

... as a way of appealing to his experience in this area. Everybody's doing a cartoon version of themselves tonight. It's perfect. Change nothing.

and of course if you call her on that bullshit, she’ll say you're sexist.

SMH!

and that's SAD, BRUH (Boosie voice)

Warren makes a lot of unforced errors that are often not mentioned, trying to find her way through it all. When she's strong you want to root for her.

When she does things that seem like some really bad politics, you punch the desk because you think she's better than that.

And yes, there are some snake tactics. I think the good Black liberals took way too long to support her.

When does the pivot to the general happen?

.

I love how old timey dirty Bloomberg's campaign is. Like his campaign chief is a flim flam man who has names for all his hustles. Hiring people to boo loudly the most common schtick in politics is called "The Cincinnati Tango."

Sanders saying Bloomberg’s only supporters were billionaires

Definitely not paid plants, attending a televised presidential debate: What the fuck did that guy just say?! Let's yell about it!

>I love how old timey dirty Bloomberg's campaign is. Like his
>campaign chief is a flim flam man who has names for all his
>hustles. Hiring people to boo loudly the most common schtick
>in politics is called "The Cincinnati Tango."

It must be a New York scumbag thing.

He really is Diet Trump.

Hell maybe he’d bring Trumps victims to a debate,
fuck it.

Biden and Bloomberg campaigns bought up all the seats I guess lol

he went for the applause line in guns/nra and it fell flat.

not wanting to end the filibuster.

it would just ensure an even more prevalent revolving door for lobbyists and corporate candidates. it would pretty much rob govts of necessary institutional knowledge and it would basically hand over elections to the highest bidder (even more than now).

anyone still pushing term limits should look at what happened in states like nebraska and missouri and also wonder why they are pushing for the same policy as right wing financiers like the koch bros.

that comment about the other candidates showing up after he beat them last debate smh.

Incredibly weird.

What an utterly bizarre thing to unleash. His staff is just building summer homes in their minds.

>What an utterly bizarre thing to unleash. His staff is just
>building summer homes in their minds.

I've got nothing to add. It's just a reflex when I think of angry Joe Biden.

American” and “Clyburn”. Probably well into the thousands by now

to the the rural hospital closures.

i wish he would have taken it further and put the blame where it belongs (repub governors/legislatures). republicans fought hard through the courts to take mandatory medicaid expansion out of obamacare and used their win to prevent increased access in the areas that needed it most.

rural republican voters dont even know that theyre voting for the people literally killing them.

Of public assistance that their republican leaders always wanna slash

>rural republican voters dont even know that theyre voting for
>the people literally killing them.

financed by taxes from blue state and urban economic engines.

all areas that repubs make their voters hate are responsible for providing the money that keeps them alive.

Now somebody's going to hit you for being a prosecutor. C'mon Amy.

Now Bloomberg's going to expose himself as being iffy on legalization for marijuana. Which... that's like malpractice for a Democratic candidate right? If they don't embrace legalization and related criminal justice reform now, Republicans will be running on the former (by itself) soon.

The idea: invade China.

kinda weird that the comments aired on the cbs flagship news program and drummed up a bunch of attention/discussion and they havent even touched on it.

Marco Rubio was backed with fake crowd noise in that debate from the RNC, and here you’ve got fake crowd noise planted for Bloomberg and Pete.

Moderators have lost control - we’ve got candidates talking over each other - and nobody is really able to bring further clarity on their platforms.

The entire panel looks exhausted.
-->

_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

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

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

Good call. When we talk about immigration and climate and terrorism, these issues have nothing to do with coups that occurred in the 70s and 80s.

Also, coups are bad even if they don't splash back on us. Don't do any more coups, United States. I will vote for the only anti-coup candidate on the stage.

and talk about how repubs/mcconnell hamstrung him?

and how repub govs turned away fed money and dhs help for election security?

jewish folks vote overwhelmingly for democrats and are also against much of what aipac and the israeli govt/lobby pushes.

the real question is why aipac has increasingly become a right wing and republican mouthpiece while jewish voters have largely rejected that party.

>jewish folks vote overwhelmingly for democrats and are also
>against much of what aipac and the israeli govt/lobby pushes.
>
>the real question is why aipac has increasingly become a right
>wing and republican mouthpiece while jewish voters have
>largely rejected that party.

well, not necessarily 'CISM more like... 'TISM (as in antisemitism)

Old fight!!!

We will be better off with “tio Bernie” wagging his finger and flailing his hands about against trumps smug and twisted orange face

Ughhh LiZ is so much better...C’est la vie tho

aint no way in hell im subjecting my ears to that shit.

sad to watch

*doesnt talk over his time*

Warren is an opportunist
Pete panders like nobodies business, slick talker that doesn’t seem genuine.
Klobuchar IS boring even tho she says she isn’t
the other rich guy has good ideas and is passionate, but he’s just there
Biden cant formulate a sentence 75% of the time
Sanders is angry and still can’t explain HOW he’s gonna pay for that shit

*face palm*

>Rumor is that Tulsi is still lurking in the shadows awaiting
>to unfold her master plan.

still working on her strategy to defeat the hillary clinton 2020 campaign.

i wonder who is still sending her their hard earned money.

>>Rumor is that Tulsi is still lurking in the shadows
>awaiting
>>to unfold her master plan.
>
>still working on her strategy to defeat the hillary clinton
>2020 campaign.
>
>i wonder who is still sending her their hard earned money.


All three

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2020_08/3240511/20222-tulsi-supporters-al-1557_78f5a5f0a417b7a9f9ebed438c900c83.fit-560w.jpg

Now we know why:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/michael-bloomberg-had-very-enthusiastic-audience-support-at-the-debate-for-some-reason.html

-->

That really had u bothered, hearing saint Bernie boo’d. Everyone agrees it was a stacked crowd. Ur ok, breath

im not sure why bernie folks are doing so much crying over this.

like they werent in there booing other candidates too lol.

bloomberg still came in next to last among dem viewers.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERrMIHvXYAASCj-?format=jpg&name=large

i swear these folks are the most worried about the one candidate that most increases bernies chance of clinching the nomination.

Apparently not everyone was able to discern what was happening.
-->

Our presumptive nominee was really rattled by the boos so he needs to get stronger with that ASAP. Living in a echo chamber of ur rabid cult like supporters isn’t going to prepare him for the general

Sorry the boos hurt ur feelings tho doll

Boooooooo

clearly shows how the people don't like him.

your primary source

even p booty is outflanking him on the issue.

do you think its because he would have to admit that his agenda has zero chance of passing under current senate rules?

or maybe hes worried it couldnt even clear a 51 vote majority?

>or maybe hes worried it couldnt even clear a 51 vote
>majority?


The problem with a protest campaign is when it stops being just a protest.

If he wins, he's on the hook for a lot of shit and a lot of stans who think he can do it and are not the compromising type.


Thats the only thing that makes sense to me.


What "revolution" is scared to change rules?

senate republicans offered to put the green new deal resolution up for a vote with no debate or amendments. no interference from republicans.
leave it exactly as democrats wrote it. thats a dream for anyone who actually wants to pass their legislation.

and *democrats* scattered like roaches away from it (even sanders). people like aoc said republicans were playing political games. which they were. by simply putting democrats on record and allowing them to vote for their own untouched legislation. which shows you how politically toxic that legislation was that the co-author didnt even want it brought up for a vote.

a lot of sanders agenda will go that way. you will be asking democrats to vote on proposals that raise middle class taxes, guarantee job loss in certain sectors of the healthcare industry, fossil fuel industry (bye rust belt), etc. people aint tryna destroy their political career supporting an agenda that their own voters wont even support.

its all well and good when you sit on the sidelines and heckle everyone else. its a whole different thing to have to actually get out on the floor and be accountable for the political fortunes of the entire team.

A lot of them knew that thing might hurt them politically, but they did it because they thought it was the proper thing to do (at least that is how the narrative is presented). You know....doing their jobs and shit.

A lot of the stuff Sanders is talking about is not that unpopular. There is quite a bit of public support. It might not be there in the swing districts. But it has broad support. So yeah, some people might lose their seats. But sometimes you gotta take one for the team.

or are potentials arguments against removing the filibuster just scare tactics?

if/when repubs get unified control of govt...they can ram through whatever.

but we have already seen the consequences of the filibuster and how it is being abused now. no progressive legislation will *ever* pass with it unless dems have a senate supermajority. repubs suffer little to no electoral consequences for obstructing everything and essentially refusing to govern at all.

it used to be unimaginable and political suicide if repubs wouldnt pass shit like reauthorization of the violence against women act, voting rights act, child health insurance program, etc. but now its pretty much a certainty.

*nothing* the dems wanna do on healthcare, climate change, infrastructure will pass as long as the filibuster is in place.

- I actually like Tom Steyer. He didn't get much time to talk but highlighting that he ran a campaign to impeach Trump well before anyone else was a good idea. He's sincere. Doesn't seem to be an asshole. The opposite of Bloomberg.

- Bernie. Consistent. Even when he was talked over. Best parts were when he called Benjamin Netanyahu a "reactionary racist" and NO ONE pushed back. People even cheered. The other was when he said that the US overthrows governments, illustrating why he has a better grip on reality than the rest of the field. Liked his answer on marijuana. All of these things seem to be common sense, but since we're in the United States of America, which is fucked up...

- Warren. Smacking Bloomberg didn't have the same effect though I am glad she did it (and that she had an interview afterward explaining why she went there); her answers were mostly good, but she stumbles the way she always does. Trying to fit within the parameters of what the party seems appropriate (the Middle East answer was horrible, but to be fair the question was also bullshit). Queen of Unforced Errors.

- Klobuchar. Nothing much to say here, but they need to put her next to Pete again (more on him later). I had to LOL @ her "making the world better" comment towards the end. Yeah, sure made that teen's life better by sentencing to life in prison off next to zero evidence.

- Biden. Sounded better. His answers, while some of them may have bee bullshit, were confident. His "put a black woman on the Supreme Court" was a cheap pop but effective. At least I know that if all failed and he was the nominee, the Supreme Court would be in much better hands than they would Donald Trump's. I don't feel the same about Bloomberg.

- Pete. THIS motherfucker. Came through with the rehearsed, bullshit answers that belies his tender age of 37. What person born in 1982 thinks the '60s political movements are bad? Your wackass benefited from them! AND TO SAY THAT IN A STATE WHERE SO MANY OF THE VOTERS ARE BLACK?! You dumb motherfucker. Such a kissass, get this motherfucker up outta here, South Carolina.

- Bloomberg. Didn't look good. But was cushioned by an audience who clearly paid to see him. It was still an improvement over the disaster of the last debate. I don't believe he instilled too much confidence in anyone but the kind of folks that would drop $1700 for a one-time event.


The moderators asked some really bullshit questions: tired, establishment bullshit like the question about the troops, like the questions about Cuba (FIDEL CASTRO HAS BEEN DEAD FOR YEARS, ASSHOBBITS), all kinds of things that are made to boost the "moderates" whose constituency I am beginning to question. Fayle being up in that group was like the cherry on top of this laughter sundae.

Whole shit was a mess.

Man, fuck Pete. That dude is a goon (portmanteau) in the worst way.

And yes - that rehearses Pete like about the 60’s should’ve been slammed in his face. Dude was really up there clowning the civil rights era.
-->

US civil rights era. Which would make sense given the MSM hammering Bernie recently on his assessment of Castro.

Meaning he was trying to draw parallels between both 45's and Bernie' reverence for past eras (45 - 50s Jim Crow, Bernie - Castro/Che Guavara revolutionary politics in 60s Cuba)

The civil rights era didn't even cross my mind until I checked twitter and saw that's what younger/Bernie supporters were running with lol

I really don't think that's the correct interpretation. He also later referenced the Cold War, further indicating he was referring to the Bernie-Cuba thing (which even I will admit is a media creation, since Bernie hadn't brought up Cuba once this primary until the MSM started focusing on it lol)



>And yes - that rehearses Pete like about the 60’s
>should’ve been slammed in his face. Dude was really up
>there clowning the civil rights era.
>-->

So clearly he didn't think this out as he was going for another Pete-platitude "zinger":

https://gizmodo.com/pete-buttigieg-deletes-tweet-slamming-both-bernie-sande-1841928248

What he actually said:

“We can’t afford a scenario where it comes down to Donald Trump with his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950's and Bernie Sanders with his nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960's."

Nowhere did he mention "Cuban politics" - and given his reference to the "social order of the 50's" - it's clear he's talking about U.S. political climate.




-->

I think one could just as easily think of the context, i.e the constant Castro/Cuba talk leading up to the debate and during it, and walk away with my interpretation as well. It's the interpretation I heard several network pundits use as well (tho that's not saying much lol)

He probably deleted bc so many were (mis?)interpreting it to mean a knock on US civil rights/MLK.

Haven't checked twitter yet today tho, just assuming its a misinfo cesspool as usual lol


>
>What he actually said:
>
>“We can’t afford a scenario where it comes down to Donald
>Trump with his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950's
>and Bernie Sanders with his nostalgia for the revolutionary
>politics of the 1960's."
>
>Nowhere did he mention "Cuban politics" - and given his
>reference to the "social order of the 50's" - it's clear he's
>talking about U.S. political climate.
>
>
>
>
>-->

his comment was - at best - poorly worded. If he was referring to Cuban politics - he should've said that. It takes a significant leap inference to just assume he's talking about another country in a discussion about U.S. politics.

Clearly he thought he misspoke - otherwise he wouldn't have deleted the tweet.

-->

Maybe he assumed people would automatically get his reference given all the Bernie-Castro-Cuba talk *shrug* It's definitely not a signficant leap, unless you believe there hasn't been a disproportionate media focus on Bernie's views on Castro/Cuba/Cuban Revolution the last few days.

The tweet deletion was probably pre-emptive since he gets swarmed by the Bernieverse on a regular basis lol. I wouldn't read that much into it.

I agree that he probably could have worded it better tho. But I also bet breaking out the little one-liner rhetorical devices during high-stakes presidential debates isn't an entirely nerve-proof process lol


>his comment was - at best - poorly worded. If he was
>referring to Cuban politics - he should've said that. It
>takes a significant leap inference to just assume he's talking
>about another country in a discussion about U.S. politics.
>
>Clearly he thought he misspoke - otherwise he wouldn't have
>deleted the tweet.
>
>-->

Denounce the civil rights movement in anyway, especially when they are making appeals to the Black community, is a fucking IDIOT.

Ur interpretation is clearly correct and their interpretation is clearly post-their latest sip of koolaid.

This is lunacy lol and I commend u for being a lot more polite and kind than me lol

>Denounce the civil rights movement in anyway, especially when
>they are making appeals to the Black community, is a fucking
>IDIOT.
>

Yeah... I was having a hard time envisioning what that debate prep might entail lol

>This is lunacy lol and I commend u for being a lot more polite
>and kind than me lol

Lol! These guys keep me on my toes, that's for damn sure. I used to resent being the lone Pete defender on here since I like others too, but now I just see it as some mental exercise lol

>Denounce the civil rights movement in anyway, especially when
>they are making appeals to the Black community, is a fucking
>IDIOT.

He did it implicitly, not explicitly. That putting down "the revolutionary politics of the 1960's" was probably intended as some kind of bland hippie punching but also, whoops, includes the civil rights movement.

The thing that it reveals is that he's not really a serious thinker, not that he's openly antagonistic to the civil rights movement.

>He did it implicitly, not explicitly. That putting down "the
>revolutionary politics of the 1960's" was probably intended as
>some kind of bland hippie punching but also, whoops, includes
>the civil rights movement.

The point is - as you laid out - that he's not thinking beyond one-ling zingers to even see what he's actually implicitly saying with such a statement.

-->

That he regards the discipline of history with thoughtless ignorance? Doesn't feel like that's any better.

he leans on in a lot of his interviews/townhalls/stump speeches etc he was probably trying to make the bigger point to folks that the next pres should be focused on the 21st century. Like, stop anchoring current politics in politics/perspectives of the past??

..Or something to that effect lol. I've probably watched/read entirely too much Buttigieg, but I guess its handy for moments like this



>Doesn't feel like that's any better.

I don't think he was trying to dismiss the civil rights era in America either, not intentionally at least, but your tremendously generous interpretation still leaves plenty of room for the idea that he simply didn't bother to think that these movements are:

a)meaningfully connected, as the struggle against capitalism and colonialism in Cuba and the civil rights struggle in the United States and elsewhere clearly were

b)relevant to the world as it presently stands

Item "a" is just obnoxious, but the sort of thing I've gotten used to from exactly his type - people who majored in humanities but actively forget everything they learned when they start to make real money. Which is whatever.

Item "b" is more of a problem because it fails to recognize the ways that the United States has created the context for our own disastrous foreign (and domestic) policy decisions. I care about his casual dismissal of Latin American coups in the 70s and 80s much more than him thoughtlessly forgetting that the civil rights movement was part of a global struggle for freedom during that period because those are literally still occurring. And somebody who finds them to be isolated curiosities when we've, in the last six months, tried to upend Maduro and successfully upended Evo Morales is, at best, an extreme idiot and at worst, a dangerous bad actor.

People who say that our foreign activity in the world over the last fifty years doesn't matter are announcing their intentions to do harm.

>he leans on in a lot of his interviews/townhalls/stump
>speeches etc he was probably trying to make the bigger point
>that folks that the next pres should be focused on the 21st
>century. Like, stop anchoring current politics to politics of
>the past..

Yeah, that framing should be rejected. It's harmful.

>I've probably watched/read
>entirely too much Buttigieg, but I guess its handy for moments
>like this

And probably only these moments. In thirty years, knowing this stuff will be like becoming a scholar on the political wisdom of Larry Agran.

Is the notion of American exceptionalism as the indispensable, singularly benevolent nation that is immune from domestic criticism in foreign affairs.

>People who say that our foreign activity in the world over the
>last fifty years doesn't matter are announcing their
>intentions to do harm.

One of the most poignant moments in the 2016 Dem Primary was when Clinton was boasting about her support from Henry Kissinger - and Sanders had the political guts to call out Kissinger and factually point to his disastrous policies in LatAm (and elsewhere).

Pete is yet another apologetic mouthpiece for failed U.S. policy abroad - when what we need is somebody who has the understanding of exactly where we've created geopolitical chaos - and how to rehabilitate our standing in the world via productive/cooperative policy and diplomacy.

-->

>Pete is yet another apologetic mouthpiece for failed U.S.
>policy abroad - when what we need is somebody who has the
>understanding of exactly where we've created geopolitical
>chaos - and how to rehabilitate our standing in the world via
>productive/cooperative policy and diplomacy.

Permitting him this blinkered view of history is ideology by inertia. The saddest part of your absolutely true point here is that he doesn't even have to be an active mouthpiece. He can just casually frame his view as focused on the future, as though it were some airless forthcoming possibility that owes nothing to the present. Permitting us to think the same thing as we've always thought about our destructive role in the world doesn't even require assertion or guidance, just permission. In his case, probably something in the form of "Today we make the possibility of the present the reality of the future" or something similarly headsplitting.

>Is the notion of American exceptionalism as the
>indispensable, singularly benevolent nation that is immune
>from domestic criticism in foreign affairs.

I've been thinking lately about how there's a fairly strong and recurring theme of American Exceptionalism from the left-wing when it comes to *domestic* affairs. Specifically, Bernie often responds to financing questions re: the enormous pricetags of his proposals not with the requested math, but a lot of "In the richest country in the world!..." and "Why does every other advanced nation in the world!...." proclamations instead of simply mapping sufficient revenue sources to his proposed spending... As if America is somehow immune to the economic impacts of poor fiscal discipline (eg. unprecedented deficit spending, debt bigger than the GDP, inflation, hyperinflation, etc.), or that Americans are somehow entitled to certain outcomes despite real structural obstacles.

There's more than enough examples throughout economic history of what happens when governments enact some of the very same fiscal policy Bernie's suggesting, but somehow the "will of the people" overrides that (or any) evidence. It's about as potent an American Exeptionalism as that espoused by neo-cons, just focused internally instead of externally.

Just something I've been mulling over recently lol; you reminded me.

>
>Pete is yet another apologetic mouthpiece for failed U.S.
>policy abroad - when what we need is somebody who has the
>understanding of exactly where we've created geopolitical
>chaos - and how to rehabilitate our standing in the world via
>productive/cooperative policy and diplomacy.
>

And yet Pete's been candid about favoring a foreign policy that is shaped heavily by soft power/diplomacy, peace, and diverting investment from artillery to human capabilities and critical infrastructure, to strengthen US posture against (sometimes hybridized) threats in 21st century spheres like climate, cyber, AI, and bio. I feel like he's spoken on this in multiple speeches. He even made a point to explicity distinguish his position from Bloom during the debate, on the question of deploying/maintaining ground troops abroad during discussion about the middle east.

Tbf I'm not certain where he'd fall on the dove hawk spectrum, in comparison to other politicians. But what gets me is how fixated you guys are on embellishing this soulless, racist, gordon gekko meets neo-con caricature yall need him to embody (to serve as your foil to Bernie lol)... to the point that you'll even attribute foreign policy positions to him that he's literally never endorsed or in some cases has even emphatically denounced. Lol. Just because Pete's not as loud and dogmatic as Sander's doesn't mean he's not also anti-interventionist.

There's a lot of mis-characterization (some honest - some malicious) of what Social Democracy actually is. People conveniently omit the "Democratic" operative word in "Social Democracy" - and just run with the triggered terminology circa the Cold War. This is irresponsible and voters aren't as dumb as people think they are on this.

The reality is this: Sanders is promoting *democratic* socialism - not Cuban/Venezuelan communism. To throw those two distinctively different ideologies in the same box is akin to saying that all free-market systems are fascist. What social democracy calls for is an expansion of social guarantees (like we see in virtually all other industrial nations in the world). The Nordic states are far more emblematic of what Sanders represents: universal health care (delivered at a more efficient cost), guaranteed PTO, paid family leave, more robust retirement security, livable wages, higher standards of living and life expectancies etc. What these social democracies also feature are vibrant, robust and competitive economies.

Indeed, free-market innovation has been a deeply American signature - and this would remain so in a Sanders administration. In order to achieve expansion of social guarantees, a robust, innovative and vibrant free-market should be encouraged and celebrated - but not when *everything* in society is bound to market forces - which leads to instability, gross inequality, and lower standards of living, en masse.

To be clear - I've said on many occasions that your candidate is a very smart, formidable debater - and is clearly talented. I also don't take it lightly what it means to have an openly gay man doing so well in the polls. That's something that should be encouraging. But unfortunately, I don't think that his talent is being used to push forth progress and "turn the page" as much as it's being cleverly marketed to freeze the status quo in place.

Re: foreign policy - I've yet to hear an original idea from Buttigieg (outside of his odd statement about sending the military to Mexico to thwart the cartels lol). The only commentary I've really heard of him (outside of vague platitudes) is when he praised Israeli security forces on the same day that Palestinian protesters were being mowed down. He is center-right to where most liberals are on foreign policy. That may be satisfactory to you - but given the urgency for a paradigm shift in how we conduct foreign policy - that simply doesn't pass muster - particularly with a candidate as inexperienced as Buttigieg - who would assuredly defer to the foreign policy establishment on critical issues.


-->

I'm also really particular about people conflating Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism too tho.

This is why I'm often careful to specify that I support the "social democratic outcomes" that Sanders champions, because other candidates support those outcomes too when it comes to health, education, etc. I would say everyone from the center-left to where Sanders is is proposing reforms to protect, invest in, increase access to, and strengthen the 'welfare state'.

But to imply that nationalizing key industries (in his case, health insurance but also power generation if GND passed), instituting a federal job guarantee and national rent control, and pushing the sort of fiscal policy, trade restrictions, etc. that he favors is regular run-of-the mill Social Democrat territory is pushing it in my eyes. I don't understand why people always try to water down what the man says he is lol. He's a Democratic Socialist, there's a difference *shrug* And it doesn't have to be sensationalized or controversial. It just is what it is.

>Re: foreign policy - I've yet to hear an original idea from
>Buttigieg (outside of his odd statement about sending the
>military to Mexico to thwart the cartels lol). The only
>commentary I've really heard of him (outside of vague
>platitudes) is when he praised Israeli security forces on the
>same day that Palestinian protesters were being mowed down.
>He is center-right to where most liberals are on foreign
>policy. That may be satisfactory to you - but given the
>urgency for a paradigm shift in how we conduct foreign policy
>- that simply doesn't pass muster - particularly with a
>candidate as inexperienced as Buttigieg - who would assuredly
>defer to the foreign policy establishment on critical issues.
>


On this, I'm not sure what to say other than if you were genuinely interested in assessing other candidates in good faith, you could make the effort to actually listen/read their actual proposals. When you say "I've yet to hear" that suggests to me that you've probably made about as much effort to understand Pete's foreign policy as I've made to understand Tulsi's lol. Only in my case, I don't tear down Tulsi's positions or experience because I'm not well-versed in them *shrug*

Speaking of which, wasn't that clash between him and Tulsi about Mexico settled several debates ago?? IIRC, he wasn't talking about sending troops to invade or fight the cartels or whatever, he was talking about security cooperation and trainings - which the US already does with Mexico. And you can't be serious about implying he's anti-Palestinian.

Anywho, I've seen you call him and other candidates center-right before but I'm not sure what your system is lol. He's as center-left as they come imo, certainly in terms of economic policy... but since you mean the foreign policy specturm I just googled non-interventionism and this wording from the definition on wikipedia is literally what Pete's said over and over again almost verbatim lol: "avoid interfering in the affairs of foreign nations relations but still retain diplomacy and trade, while avoiding wars unless related to direct self-defense."

Most Americans want MFA and a more robust social safety net. And while most Americans (myself included) are for a competitive, free market -- they aren't necessarily married to the idea of health care being wholly governed by market forces to where pharmaceutical companies & insurance companies engage in speculative price-jacking.

Nobody seriously looking at Bernie's proposals would conclude that we are going to have the state seize control over the means of production in a Sanders administration. That wouldn't happen in his administration - or any other administration. Further - as you stated - virtually all of the candidates running have adopted some form of the Sanders platform (at least for campaign purposes - again - because they are popular positions to take) - so it's hard to say that you think we are teetering on Socialism should Sanders become president when all of the other candidates are essentially agreeing with his core analysis (even if they have differing solutions).

Re: foreign policy - it was actually Klobuchar who recently brought up Pete's comment on using the military to thwart the cartel - but what I'm referring to is his evasive nature in fielding key foreign policy questions when asked by journalists:

https://twitter.com/SPMiles42/status/1225862264072409090?s=20

He's very careful in how vague some of his responses have been - which is indicative of someone who may have a core philosophy on the campaign trail re: foreign policy - but I still don't see him approaching this with nuance - and more/less adopting the status-quo on this (and many other) issues. But again - the "status quo" may not necessarily be bad thing for some people - and I get that.

-->

situation.

>I don't think he was trying to dismiss the civil rights era
>in America either, not intentionally at least, but your
>tremendously generous interpretation still leaves plenty of
>room for the idea that he simply didn't bother to think that
>these movements are:
>
>a)meaningfully connected, as the struggle against capitalism
>and colonialism in Cuba and the civil rights struggle in the
>United States and elsewhere clearly were
>
>b)relevant to the world as it presently stands
>
>Item "a" is just obnoxious, but the sort of thing I've gotten
>used to from exactly his type - people who majored in
>humanities but actively forget everything they learned when
>they start to make real money. Which is whatever.
>
>Item "b" is more of a problem because it fails to recognize
>the ways that the United States has created the context for
>our own disastrous foreign (and domestic) policy decisions. I
>care about his casual dismissal of Latin American coups in the
>70s and 80s much more than him thoughtlessly forgetting that
>the civil rights movement was part of a global struggle for
>freedom during that period because those are literally still
>occurring. And somebody who finds them to be isolated
>curiosities when we've, in the last six months, tried to upend
>Maduro and successfully upended Evo Morales is, at best, an
>extreme idiot and at worst, a dangerous bad actor.
>

He was speaking to the american people, tho. I think we need to be careful about assuming the vast (or even a significant) majority of people are regularly reflecting on the hierarchical parallels between Cuban and Black American revolutionary politics. Very few people would hear what he said and unpack it to this extent. Which isn't to say your interpretation isn't justified, but to say it's possible that someone could be fully aware of these nuances but tailoring their point to the average american.

>People who say that our foreign activity in the world over the
>last fifty years doesn't matter are announcing their
>intentions to do harm.
>


Lol but he literally didn't say any of this tho. And even if someone did, such a view sounds more like a libertarian framework than a neocon one. And to be clear I'm neither, but just want to suggest some guardrails for these extrapolations.

>
>Yeah, that framing should be rejected. It's harmful.
>

You see harm, I see optimism :)

>Lol but he literally didn't say any of this tho.

In my view, you can do the work of contextualizing this for him by filling in the blanks with an assumption that he was preoccupied with a larger conversation about Sanders' (utterly correct, incidentally) view of Cuba.

Or you can care about his literal wording. But that won't work because here's what he *literally* said: "we can't afford a scenario where it comes down to Donald Trump and his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950's and Bernie Sanders with his nostalgia for the revolution politics of the 1960's."

There isn't an honest argument that features both of those moves.

>And even if someone did, such a view sounds more like a libertarian
>framework than a neocon one. And to be clear I'm neither, but
>just want to suggest some guardrails for these
>extrapolations.

Guardrails? He said something thoughtless. I'm describing why that thoughtlessness matters more than forgetting somebody's birthday.

>You see harm, I see optimism :)

Right. Fuck history. That'll probably work out fine.

You're right, I already debated what he "literally" said with Vex.

In that regard, I don't think we know enough about Buttigieg to extend what he said to also serving as a dismissal of underlying factors shaping the Cuban revolution. Meaning, in a (hypothetical) private conversation with Bernie on the subject, I'm sure they'd have more substantive discussion.

Personally, if I hear someone suggest that their country "turn the page"/focus on the 21st century, I don't interpret that as saying history doesn't matter. I moreso hear something along the lines of.. let's take what we've learned from history, move on, and do better. That's not an evil proposition. (In my view anyway)

>
>Right. Fuck history. That'll probably work out fine.
>

lol

when he said 60s it was a bit odd but with the cold war clarification it made sense what he meant.

it would really be trump trying to get back to the 50s while attaching bernie with cold war insults. its not like bernie is trying to go back to the 60s.

outside of florida i dont think its really a big deal. most people will see through that.

Its too bad Steyer didn't run a campaign like Doomberg. I don't know if he has that kind of coin, but he does seem like a better person and is definitely more likable on the stage.

Cosign on the consultant created candidate. I've started to loathe that motherfucker. I think even he is surprised he made it this far. Was just trying to build a rep and maybe get a consultant gig- maybe try again in 8 or 12 years.

And Booker, Castro, and Harris are home?


One thing the past 6 months or so has done that I would have never fucking guessed, is Biden is actually looking better to me simply because of all these other trash choices.

SMH@the free for all first half an hour

The moderators just sat there...and then when folks decided to talk over each other...they decided to start doing their job

As before, Tom Perez needs to step down

Absolutely no point to 7 people on stage, and there is absolutely no debate happening

Fucking shit show

My favorite parts are the attacks on Bern, then the same people play mr me too

Bern's agenda is too toxic, divisive and polarizing

Universal healthcare, me too
Free college, me too
Tax the rich, me too
Etc...

Shit is exhausting

Oh,and Bloomberg was on some refer madness fear mongering with his stats

Colorado legalized marijuana...what...a decade ago

Every issue that we were told would be exacerbated, actually declined

Illegal use amongst teenagers...declined
Use of other drugs...declined
Violent crime...declined
Etc

Matter of fact, I distinctly remember a report last time I was in the area...about the surplus of tax revenue they've generated

It's crazy town watching people lie like rhat.

I thought OKP would be all over that one.

-->

it's like, again, Sanders (not at the debate because I don't think he gave a response) has given the best answer: Stay TFO.

It looks like it was only shown in select markets - curious as to who else saw it.

-->

it just seemed like a mess to me. i dont think anyone looked good. bernie did take some hits and they did stick, i didnt expect that.

im hesitant to say bernie will win SC. biden might hold him off. i feel like everyone below will split and only bernie and biden get delegates in SC. i expect the media story will be biden is back!!!! people reject bernie!!!!!! all until super tuesday.

and Joe.

And, at this point, even getting close is a win for Biden from a narrative standpoint- simply because the media/the establishment/etc don't want Bernie.

"Joe's the new comeback kid!"

Maybe Pete hangs on a little on Super Tuesday?

I think everyone else is done, unfortunately. I think Liz would have benefitted had there not been a debate this week...just ride her hype from the last one.

But...I think she is done and I'm bummed about it.


of course, I'm also bummed the Klobucharge was short lived- how little time we had.


Honestly, if Biden gets some life this next week he should pick a VP that can help him out immediately. All this alleged panic to stop Bernie? Seems like Biden just locking in a young, dynamic woman of color could probably seal the deal- again, assuming he gets some life back this week.

i expect pete to have some pick ups. he and his team is pretty smart about maximizing what they can.

i still think bernie comes out of super tuesday with a big delegate lead.

biden probably a distant second, pete will be somewhat respectable.

i dont know about warren, she has too much support to be doing so poorly. i dont think her momentum from last week would carry all the way to saturday. i dont think she did enough to keep her in peoples minds. maybe in her town hall tonight she will have some clips that will resonate??? doubt it.

steyer and bloomberg are so weird. they both might get a decent share of votes. will they get any delegates out of it?

i think if no one drops out before super tuesday it will be a big boost to bernie as they will just split up the rest of the vote. this will increase the chances he gets all or almost all of the delegates in states that hes very popular in.

Yeah, I don't think there's a victorious path for Warren at this point, which saddens me.

>I think everyone else is done, unfortunately. I think Liz
>would have benefitted had there not been a debate this
>week...just ride her hype from the last one.
>
>But...I think she is done and I'm bummed about it.


_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

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

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

That’s crazy.

and it’s really weird how a win in a state the Dems have not chance of winning in the GE is his saving grace.

as far as I know, yeah. Pete won a state before Biden.


Yeah the primary schedule makes no sense. You think there would be at least *some* major say by swing states.


Just tell me, with votes not polls, who Dems are going to come out for in WI, MI, and PA.

Doesn't even look like many swing states vote on Super Tuesday...? None of the three I mentioned do.

they need to implement a lottery, the states with the 5 closest vote totals in the last presidential election get to vote first in the primary. the cavs and bulls would go first most years..wait

Biden and Sanders will split the donkey's share of delegates, with Steyer possibly eking out a few. I agree about the post-vote media spin.

>im hesitant to say bernie will win SC. biden might hold him
>off. i feel like everyone below will split and only bernie and
>biden get delegates in SC. i expect the media story will be
>biden is back!!!! people reject bernie!!!!!! all until super
>tuesday.



_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

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

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

Check out the poster https://imgur.com/3FVfaTq

In 2020 Bernie has the support of Boots Riley, Chuck D, Killer Mike, Brother Ali, TI, Tony Toni Tone, The New Power Generation. In 2016 he had the support of Scarface (who even phonebanked for the campaign), Planet Asia, Royce and EPMD (who performed at a rally) and J Cole said he would have voted in the General if Bernie was the candidate. I haven't seen those people weigh in this time yet.

We can’t guarantee a coronavirus vaccine will be affordable for all...because we can’t control the price

Hmm...if only there was a solution

Seriously, people are fighting to keep their shitty private insurance...wtf

>Seriously, people are fighting to keep their shitty private
>insurance...wtf

people who stand to gain from shitty private insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies with whom they're assfucking are fighting to protect their butter biscuits

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-race-looks-like-if-biden-wins-or-doesnt-win-south-carolina/

pretty interesting. only states they are showing could go to someone besides bernie or biden on super tuesday are Minnesota, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

also, good point about california results. this could be bernies biggest win but the results wont come out until late at night to days or weeks later.

It don’t mean shit.

even take a lead among total delegates.

get momentum among the media as the comeback kid.

and then completely tank on super tuesday.

all because he is running a shitty campaign.

his campaign infrastructure barely exists in super tuesdays states.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1232767006539239430

this anecdote about his *1* field office in *california* is crazy.

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1233024027809198080

even arkansas dem party chair is calling him out for being invisible in the state.

https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/1233142403512643585

you can tell his heart isnt even really in it.

dude thought him and corn pop were gonna waltz into the nomination off the strength of his association with black prez magic and legacy af am voters.

even in a state like sc...where biden polls well...a lot of that lead could evaporate just because of poor organization and gotv operation.

It was a great reminder why I was down on Biden for so long, but horrific to read.


I was just starting to come around a little on him too (me!) in comparison to having say Bloomberg or fucking Pete (I might refer to him as 'fucking Pete' henceforth).

I was starting to think if Biden picked a good VP and let Obama carry his corpse across the finish line, it might be okay....


but...what the fuck?


Does he think SC is really all it takes?


Nice reminder that my biggest beef with Biden in 2020 is that I don't think he can win. Seems like he and his team either agree with me or really think the nomination will just be his if he does well in SC.

That sort of laziness/entitlement does not scream electable to me.


Bernie seems incapable or unwilling to at least try to make centrist Dems feel better, Warren can't get traction no matter what she does, Biden is running a campaign that makes you miss Hillary, Bloomberg is...well, Bloomberg.

And the shit show debate seems to have all of their favorables down.

I'm fucking disgusted.

are never trump republicans. the most delusional group in politics.

theyre on twitter acting like a biden resurgence in sc is gonna propel him across the entire country. the bernie campaign will be killed by its own hubris in counting biden out. and the 'chattering class' will have to do an about face for buying into its own pro-bernie narrative.

Gonna go hard. He should ran in 16, when he had more vigor, and maybe we wouldn’t be on this mess of a trump president. He needs to drop out if he doesn’t do well on Super Tuesday

...that was his subconscious speaking out loud. He knows he's too old for this and doesn't have the energy or sharpness he used to.

but after Iowa when I watched his speech it was clear he doesn’t want this.

Did the Hunter thing scare him off?

Ionno but dude is a walking corpse.

Not even sure he wins SC.

damage to himself or Hunter, so I don't think any of his problems are directly because of that. He probably just knows he's having too much cognitive decline for this.

That could be all it took for him to realize he doesn’t want this type of scrutiny for his family.

Ain’t even touched on his son hooking up with his dead sons wife.

It’s prolly mostly age but it sure seems like networks crowned him and he’s like nah... this shit is more work than I want at this age.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-a-south-carolina-island-generations-of-black-voters-confront-their-democratic-presidential-options/2020/02/26/9665c822-2684-11ea-b2ca-2e72667c1741_story.html

Crowded fields over all aren’t good imo and all these debates have not helped....that’s not the main thrust of the article or even the point but it’s there.

Democrats like to fall in love with candidates, with all this year plus of all them, rising and falling, pivoting and modifying positions, attacking each other, it really depresses interest

Now we will go into the General with a candidate who a good portion of the dem electorate will not be excited about and will just be voting for as a rebuke of trump, a desperation to get him out.

Remnants of 2004 all over again (and I imagine how repugs felt in 2012)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER6jgP3WsAAyLLH?format=png&name=medium

over double what it was in 2016 dem primary. might be mostly energized white democrats. or could be the result of the concerted effort of republicans in the open primary to vote for bernie because they think he is the weaker nominee.

either way...the black ballot count remaining mostly flat is not a good sign for overall dem turnout in the state (primary and general).

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-run-by-former-oil-advocacy-group-frontman/

Elizabeth Warren Now Has The Largest Super PAC In The Democratic Field

https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-warren-now-has-the-largest-super-pac-in-the-democratic-field-183614192.html

beating the next nearest candidate (sanders) by over 20 pts.

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1233905007717736450

since 1980 the winner of sc (who isnt from sc) has gone on to win the nomination every time.

looks like them polls showing bernie closing the gap with black voters in sc were greatly exaggerated.

bernie got 14% of the black vote in 2016. 17% in 2020.

in 2016...voters under 45 made up 35% of the vote.

in 2020...in a primary with increased turnout overall...they only made up 28% of the electorate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER-uakFXsAIWPfF?format=jpg&name=large

even tho sanders dominates with young voters...they just havent been showing up to vote at the highly energized level he claims would help propel him as the nominee.

The Elder Black Vote making a statement.

now that this is done, I hope all the whining about which states vote first can end.

As long as it's not Bloomberg. I want him ending with 0 delegates.


I have 0 confidence in Biden beating Trump.
And say that comes to fruition, that "I Told You So" is gonna be loud af.

Moderates don't win the Presidency. Populists do.

even those who self identified as liberal and very liberal.

https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/1233910883224629248

biden just killed it with black voters across the board in the 1st primary state where their vote was truly representative (not a caucus).

from 1992 on...no dem has won the nomination without winning the majority of black voters. itll be interesting to see how black voters split on super tuesday.

Despite u Bernie supporters lie in the, excuse me pie in the sky, proclamations.

Stop talking bullshit and do ur part to get Black voters on board with Y’ALLs candidate

My girl Nina was heavily deployed in SC and it amounted to basically nothing

What is sanders going to do to unite this party behind him, as a whole? I remain unconvinced

He also won first-time voters and voters under 45. But the older voters dominate the SC primary - there simply wasn't enough younger voters for Sanders to make up that disparity. If that trend continues throughout the country - that could be problematic for Sanders - but I wouldn't bank on that happening in Super Tuesday states if I were Biden.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls
-->

among black voters under 30 (38%-36%). then he got smashed in every group after that (including all black voters under 45).

>He also won first-time voters and voters under 45.

2 groups whose turnout collapsed compared to 2016. isnt bernie supposed to be running a campaign that inspires them to turnout?

>But the
>older voters dominate the SC primary - there simply wasn't
>enough younger voters for Sanders to make up that disparity.
>If that trend continues throughout the country - that could be
>problematic for Sanders - but I wouldn't bank on that
>happening in Super Tuesday states if I were Biden.

you seem to be under the impression that winning older voters isnt that important. voters over the age of 45 make up nearly 60% of people who vote (even moreso in primaries). its not just sanders losing them. the margin is important too.

but then again, Hilldawg won 73% of the vote in 2016.

Black voters in SC go with who they know.

>but then again, Hilldawg won 73% of the vote in 2016.
>
>Black voters in SC go with who they know.

Exactly. It's the most predictable voting demo out of the early states.

This also obliterates the long-standing pundit talking-point of S.C. voters "picking a winner" -- they didn't care that Biden tanked in the first three states. They didn't vote for a "winner" here - they voted for who they know and who has the deepest roots with the traditional wing of the party.

-->

states in the nation and 2/3 early states being unrepresentative super low turnout caucuses. those drove a lot of the media framing of winners/losers in the race.

p booty and klo klo would prolly already be in the dust bin by now instead of whatever temporary resurgence they got after the 1st 2.


>but then again, Hilldawg won 73% of the vote in 2016.
>
>Black voters in SC go with who they know.

bernie folks spent the last 3-4 years in sc trying to build a relationship and make some headway with black people (again). only for a minuscule boost in support.

it will be interesting to see if bernie made any real gains with black voters in other southern states. if not...that failure is entirely on him and his campaign.

All on the same day. Let all segments of the dem Party have say on the same day

also make them all primaries and no caucuses.

the effect on turnout that we have seen so far between primaries and caucuses makes caucuses inexcusable going forward.

and that boosted him in later states (including South Carolina)

everytime it comes up, "oh, if only we started with a less-white state"
then Nevada caucus comes up, Bernie KILLS it with Latino voters (like Obama was doing in many states).


"oh, if only we started in a state where there were more older, black voters that would skew toward the right-wing Democrat that our donors and party apparatus like"

foh.

let democracy do its thing.

the only thing that needs to change is that caucuses need to die and actual votes need to be the measure. less foolery in the tallies.

>and that boosted him in later states (including South
>Carolina)

so you agree with the rest of us that ia shapes the resulting media narrative following the caucus or...?

do you agree or disagree that ia is largely unrepresentative of the entirety of the party?

p booty did exceedingly well in ia and nh (1st and 2nd in delegates). got a ton of media coverage with him among the democratic frontrunners. a boost of energy, organizing, and money for his campaign based on media coverage from those early results.

after only *2* more state contests his campaign is officially done and over with. thats an indisputable real world testament to what we are saying.


>everytime it comes up, "oh, if only we started with a
>less-white state"
>then Nevada caucus comes up, Bernie KILLS it with Latino
>voters (like Obama was doing in many states).
>
>
>"oh, if only we started in a state where there were more
>older, black voters that would skew toward the right-wing
>Democrat that our donors and party apparatus like"
>
>foh.
>
>let democracy do its thing.


the rest of us are saying get rid of caucuses and let a *group* of states (*including* ia, nv and sc) go first together to get a truly diverse representative snapshot of our partys voters at once. aka the pinnacle of democracy. not just 1 or 2 states that are unrepresentative of the party base but has an outsized influence over the politics/portrayal of the race.

you somehow turn that into some muddled anti-establishment bernie-persecution rant where youre defending lily white ia going first...and you call a pretty straightforward consensus opinion galaxy brain?

care to clear this up?

or stick around till after Super Tuesday?

On one hand you have the early narrative to keep you around until SC kicks the shit out of you.

On the other hand if you win one of four states on the first day of voting I think you stick around for Super Tuesday.

I know I would...

I still lean towards putting them on the same day or much closer so you don’t have weeks of fake ass hype after one state.

'p booty and klo klo would prolly already be in the dust bin by now instead of whatever temporary resurgence they got after the 1st 2.'

that was written last night. we learned today that p booty is indeed in the dust bin after the 1st 4 contests lol. klo klo should follow but is staying in for some strange reason.


>On one hand you have the early narrative to keep you around
>until SC kicks the shit out of you.
>
>On the other hand if you win one of four states on the first
>day of voting I think you stick around for Super Tuesday.
>
>I know I would...

thats assuming you would still win 1 of the 4 states in the new system/order. p booty went with a top heavy approach where he flooded ia and nh with resources simply because they were 1st...and he thought a good showing would change the course of his campaign because those states (especially ia) have an outsized effect on the early election prognosis.

now imagine him having spread those resources out over 4 different states. or him putting his resources mostly into 1 or 2 states and nearly abandoning the 2 others. theres no guarantee things play out the same way. and more importantly...theres less benefit to concentrating to heavily on those small delegate states when theres little additional incentive past the delegate count (like media coverage, fundraising surge, etc).


>I still lean towards putting them on the same day or much
>closer so you don’t have weeks of fake ass hype after one
>state.

fake hype before and after. niggas spending *months* at county fairs and 20 person pub rallies all to win a state with like 1% of the delegates. candidates have dropped out because they didnt poll well or didnt raise enough money to finish strong in this *1* state. even tho their outlook was better in nv, sc, etc.

>'p booty and klo klo would prolly already be in the dust bin
>by now instead of whatever temporary resurgence they got after
>the 1st 2.'
>
>that was written last night. we learned today that p booty is
>indeed in the dust bin after the 1st 4 contests lol. klo klo
>should follow but is staying in for some strange reason.
>


Klob said she going small but that was before SC

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/klobuchar-s-new-delegate-strategy-focuses-going-smaller-n1141976

She got problems

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/01/amy-klobuchar-rally-canceled-protests-118571

and realized he'd probably pull SC

lol - but looks like a huge victory for Biden. His team bet everything on S.C. - and they're getting some ROI tonight for sure.

But the early data seems to be showing that older voters (over 50) came out in high numbers. South Carolina is also a very Conservative state (even the Dems are conservative). Given the Obama brand - S.C. was always Biden's haven.

Looks like Sanders will finish as a clear second as the only other candidate to receive delegates. He's got to feel pretty good about that.

-->

than he did in 2016. barely beating out tom steyer who nobody knew before 2017.

this despite bernie maintaining a presence in the state for the last few years and having universal name recognition this go round (an excuse his campaign used last time was that nobody knew him).

you honestly think he feels good about this showing?

He got 30% of the AA vote in Nevada. The AA vote is not monolithic as you well know. S.C. is about as conservative as it gets - and the Dem electorate there (and in many parts of the Deep South) features some of the least progressive Democratic voters in the country.

Let's see how Sanders performs on Super Tuesday -- that will be far more representative than just looking at S.C. in a vacuum.

>you honestly think he feels good about this showing?

I think Sanders feels very good after the first 4 contests. He's winning the race and is the clear front-runner with the most enthusiasm behind him. He was never supposed to win S.C. - this wasn't a surprise. In fact, Biden was up by 50 points in S.C. for the better part of the last year. The onus is on Biden to prove that he can gain broader support across the country. Sanders has already proven that.


-->

bloomberg...if he wasnt a megalomaniac...would end his campaign and throw his money/organizing behind biden (who is the only moderate candidate with a real shot at the nomination) before super tuesday.

https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/1233938907810717696

lets see if he endorses anyone.

https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/1233159877897244672

out like theyre low info and out of touch with the rest of the party.

especially bernie supporters. people like this:
https://twitter.com/CaccioppoliMike/status/1233198521953607680

its a really condescending view of people who you are supposedly fighting to earn support from and lead.

the winner of sc has won the nomination every year since 1980 (except edwards who is from sc).

so clearly those voters are in line with the majority of the party.

nobody talks about white folks in ia or nh as low info. despite the fact a lot of them think things like medicare for all and green new deal can pass without nuking the filibuster. whats more low info than voting for someone promising something with no realistic pathway to enact? how different is that from voting for a wall that mexico will pay for?

Being from New England I know their ilk well and he's right. They *are* low info voters but I've never heard anyone in media or elsewhere refer to them that way.

Give me a couple mil bro! But good, he had no path forward and hasn’t ever really had one, I appreciated him in being in the race but the amount of money spent on his ads is just repulsive

Hopefully he uses that money now to support down ballot races

https://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP/status/1233843553341710336

https://twitter.com/MikePrysner/status/1233928934112129024

no talk of actually winning anymore. just staying in the race up until the convention and getting as many delegates as you can?

after finishing 3rd, 4th, 4th, and 5th in the 1st 4 contests...she should def give a good luck to dropping out. especially if she doesnt have a real path to a plurality after super tuesday.

From what I understand, he doesn't have much activity going on in super Tuesday states.

I'm curious to see if this result is due to his concentration of resources in SC, or if the narrative of Sanders' surge was overblown.

Biden jumps up to 2nd - with Sanders in the lead.

But the field will really be quite defined after Super Tuesday - when 34% of all delegates are in play in a singular day.






-->

especially people who aren't online or are but missing niche info like king's reporting on biden as a fraud.

just today he admitted he wasn't arrested in south africa. to see NELSON MANDELA. that's disgusting.

“After he got free and became president, he came to Washington and came to my office. He threw his arms around me and said, ‘I want to say thank you.’ I said, ‘What are you thanking me for, Mr. President?’ He said: ‘You tried to see me. You got arrested trying to see me.’”


how could people not be moved by that? well the info doesn't reach the masses. is this a lead story on "cable news"? i highly doubt it. are mass media and the public at large discussing information on his history of lies and how it collapsed an earlier presidential run? i doubt it.

this new story and this reporting history will be ignored or not seen by those who need to see it most.


"2 truths and 31 lies Joe Biden has told about his work in the Civil Rights Movement
Since the early 1970s, Joe Biden has been a serial liar when it comes to his "work" in the Civil Rights Movement. It's the equivalent of stolen valor and is fundamentally disqualifying."

https://shaunking.substack.com/p/2-truths-and-31-lies-joe-biden-has

" I’ve counted at least 31 different lies he has told about being an activist, organizer, sit-in demonstrator, boycott leader, voter registration volunteer, Black church trainee and more in the Civil Rights Movement, but every single time I dig, I actually find more interviews, more lies, more fabrications, more tales he told to voters, reporters, historians, and more. "

is not the way to get /black voters.

smh

you after a supposed arrest thanking you for it.

i don't believe any of the campaigns used or would use this label/excuse. i doubt any sanders surrogates fell into that labeling, if we focus on his second place slowing of momentum. i wouldn't be surprised out of thousands and thousands of volunteers you had many use that phrasing.

i'm acknowledging if you somehow came upon this very underreported and severe aspect of biden's baggage and STILL voted for him then you probably are a low information voter, or somehow don't care that this guy would do this. the enormous amount of white voters would be less likely to care obviously.

people online, unconnected with the campaign except that they're voting for it.

the PUMAs never got this much attention

yes, many voters are "low info". so that should be a narrative everywhere. especially when Buttigieg was "winning" in previous contests

going undiscussed / unquestioned here should remind us all about the narrow nature of information we access in the corporate media landscape. king's findings are explosive but are either ignored by the voting and engaged public including this space, or swept aside.

If he did it would be smart and he should pick Kamala.

and if I’m Kamala why would I agree to be his VP this early?

Lol yikes
-->

I'm a bit protective of people coming at the neck of older black church going voters because, mofos they the reason you got a right to vote!!!

I grew up in a very politically active household and community and yes alot of those folks lean Biden. I ain't mad at them, its not their fault we got Trump. In fact, the reason we got Trump is because the young progressive's now calling them low information voters were the dumbasses who sat at home when Hillary got the nomination because they thought there was no difference between Hillary and Trump.


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

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

I agree with everything you are saying but I’m still mad at their loyalty to the old heads like Hillary and Biden.


I think it’s loyalty to a fault. Granted, it’s part of the reason I thought Biden would be in it until the end because of name recognition but the way his campaign started and the way he has carried himself makes me nervous. He really didn’t do anything to show he was the best candidate on stage in debates or even at his own rally’s and town halls.

I’m not following him closely so maybe he is better than I’m giving him credit for but ionno. Dude just seemed like he mailed it in and waited for the old Black vote to give him a W.

and it’s his first W.

and while I won’t call our older voter low info, I really have a hard time with using stated like Alabama, South Carolina as proof a candidate can win the Black vote in the GE. Those states aren’t in play.

I got people on my FB timeline pointing at the Selma event and Bernie’s absence as proof he doesn’t get us but shit... Bama isn’t going to win this election.

He’s making up entire stories

Unless his strategy is casting Biden as the lead in Forest Gump II...you really have to question his mental acumen given all of the recent gaffes

...and that’s without factoring his past...

Let’s be real, Barry threw him a lifeline...Biden didn’t do Barry any favors.

I dont understand how under 35 black liberal/progressive voters as well as the conservatives (maybe one of yall can break it down to me) how you could vote for someone who has been caught in lies, befriends segregationist, vote for the Crime Bill, freeze SS, desegregation of bussing, lied about aparthied/civil right movements, etc.?

or are they voting from a place of TRAUMA? stockholm syndrome? or cynic? or they NOT to be toyed with when it comes to voting, even if it dont make sense but it does make sense?


yet these older seasoned black voters waste they money on bingo/lotto tickets still trying to hit their way out of poverty.

the other day this older lady ask me to go bingo and i declined. told her i have a TSP fund I need to max and a Vanguard account with index funds. she look puzzled and i proceeded to explain to her about my investments "im more likely to be a millioniare at her age vs waiting on the big one at her age".

you started telling her about your portfolio.

moreso its running in to her group over 55, conservative and buying a scratch off ticket cuz all the voting they've done thus far- they're still not financially stable.

and I'm trying to understand why black voters in SC voted for Biden?

there's a good chance they are right.

Trump.....i hope you're right.

he needs to go. take care and good luck with your portfolio. :)

She prolly like “Here she go again talking about her investments and shit”

always egging me to go to the casino up in Hanover. i aint got thousands of dollars to play poker or crap shoots game.

It's its namely because I think he is a decent man who has devoted his life to public service (or as decent as an older white guy can be) who tries to do the right thing and though he has made plenty of mistakes has done more good than bad.

I give it another 5 years before all the woke progressives will be completely tearing down Obama the way they doing Biden now (and yeah they have already begun) and yeah I understand that's what younger people do and that's how you change the page of history and move forward but it's a litle annoying to have 20 somethings explain to older black folk how terrible the 90s crime bill was (not talking about you specifically (I don't know how old you are), just keep seeing it in other places).

The fact of the matter is we are coming down to four 70+ white people candidates so it seems like we aren't really going to change the page of history completely this election.

I think this tweet better explains how I feel about it.

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1234239472788742144

Older Black Voters are trying to manage the downside more than hope for the upside. The downside of Bernie and Warren is we nominate another Mcgovern and Trump gets re-elected.

I really don't care what polls say today, putting up Bernie is a huge unknown for general election voters and if we put up Biden his worst detractors know that instead of voting for the unknown, for a familiar presence and will likely get a third term of Obama with Biden.


>I dont understand how under 35 black liberal/progressive
>voters as well as the conservatives (maybe one of yall can
>break it down to me) how you could vote for someone who has
>been caught in lies, befriends segregationist, vote for the
>Crime Bill, freeze SS, desegregation of bussing, lied about
>aparthied/civil right movements, etc.?

As far as this? *Shrugs*

- They will all get caught in lies (some bigger than others)

- If you have had a long career you can understand how it's possible to have a relationship with someone's whose views you detest.

- We were all overly concerned with crime and deficits in the 80/90s.

- I don't think its clear Bussing was a success and the best way to improve black education (I personally think the better solution was invest more in black school).

- who cares if instead of arrested in South Africa, he was detained?

etc., etc. You just don't have a long career, especially in politics, without making mistakes and telling tale tells. Hey the older I get the more my stories are getting bigger and bigger.

But don't get it wrong. I am not arguing that Biden is this non-racist great person, I just don't understand the argument that Biden is somehow degrees worst than the other candidates remaining.

I am pro-Warren and I am still hoping there is a path for her to get the nomination, but if it's not her I will have no problem voting for Biden and will gladly do it.



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

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

Bloomberg prolly the only one that would really frustrate me..

But I would do it.

My issue is people like you who imply voting for Bernie would cause slavery to return to the south.

I’m being hyperbolic but you get what I’m saying. The chances of beating a sitting prez is slim regardless of who wins the nominee.

Just tired of hearing my people vote like scared bitches.. after 2016 we should be off that shit.

certain desegregation policies would cause his kids to grow up in a racial jungle.

basically insinuating blacks as monkeys and bamboos...yet black ppl, young or old, are voting for him.


"shrugs"

i didnt expect pundits to also throw in "biden now has more votes than bernie" in but pretty much the reaction i expected. i didnt think biden would win by this much. polling was showing a late surge but this exceeded what i thought. bernie getting delegates an no one else is also significant.

steyer dropping out moves the needle a bit. possibly helping someone reach 15% in a state or two.

in the end this was one state, just like nevada. kind of but the race back to where it was polling before iowa...

You fucking coward.

https://twitter.com/McClatchyDC/status/1234583638567772161

youth turnout down. 1st time voter turnout down. record turnout overall tho.

a lot of that came in those growing suburban population centers where dems made dramatic gains in 2018 and flipped a lot of former republican districts/counties blue.

(double post)

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1234641413230469120

did michael moore say ia and nh werent representative of the united states?

these folks do realize they are gonna need to win over moderate democrats, crossover republicans, and older black voters if bernie is the nominee right?

>these folks do realize they are gonna need to win over
>moderate democrats, crossover republicans, and older black
>voters if bernie is the nominee right?

crossover Republicans are not going to vote in significant numbers for a Democrat.

If Bernie is the nominee, and the moderates and older Black voters want Trump out because that's their chief concern?

they'll vote Bernie, period.

But a moderate candidate offering nothing besides "Not Trump" is just gonna repeat Hillary. Possibly worse.

TRUMP is an incumbent, with all the structural support on his side now, unlike 2016. He survived a sham of an impeachment, which he will turn on any Democrat running. It doesn't matter what mistakes he makes. Like 2004, but worse.

You need ALL the votes you can. Going "moderate" in the Democratic way means you're going to lose against something like that for sure. there is no historical precedent otherwise.

>crossover Republicans are not going to vote in significant
>numbers for a Democrat.

all the previously red districts and counties that went blue for the 1st time in decades or ever.

george hw bushs former district went d in 2018 for first time since 1966.

eric cantors for first time since 1970.

newt gingrichs for first time since 1978.

much coveted va-10 for first time since 1980.

the entire orange county ca (former reagan republican stronghold up through 2016) went *completely* dem in 1 election cycle.

new dem governor in *kansas* (and kentucky in 2019).

arizona with the 1st dem senator in 30 years and 1st majority dem congressional house delegation in 50 years.

you think those happened solely because of democrats voting in those areas? lol.

those were all due to coalitions of dems, indies, and *repubs* and powered by *moderate* candidates (like *39* of the 40 house majority flips).

if you can point me to *any* evidence that a bernie-style 'progressive' has won in the last 3 years in these close/competitive types of environments where you need to successfully put together a broad alliance of voters from the *entire* ideological spectrum...i would be happy to see it.

bernie is running a 30% campaign with no desire to appeal to the broader mainstream dem electorate. and he isnt even bringing many new voters into the 'political process' *hand circles*...which is his entire pitch for why he believes he is the best general election candidate.

people like beto and stacey abrams were more successful turning out new voters in a *midterm* year than bernie has done in a *presidential* year.

where is this political revolution taking place for sanders that has yall projecting so much confidence in his general election chances?

didn’t the Ds lose a bunch of seats in 2010 and still win the WH?

the keys are the geographic/demographic trends and the swings/margins.

and all 'progressives' did was keep already blue seats blue.

but if midterms dont mean anything to you...

can you point me to an example of a further lefty doing well in a presidential election in modern history? all im coming up with is mcgovern getting beat by the largest popular vote margin in history and losing 49 states.

Seriously... I have no idea if anyone can beat this fool. He beat all the GOP establishment picks.

we didn't know he was going to advance neolib policies then. landslide electoral college victory. united the tent on a "move on from George W. Bush disaster" platform including universal healthcare (fail) and more. also was first black candidate that didn't get completely torpedo-ed in the primary (like Jackson's Rainbow Coalition in 1988).

he also won Iowa and was competitive in New Hampshire (which changed his fortunes in the South who was heavily with Clinton before).

50-state strategy that was aimed at the working class primarily.

2008 Obama was LeBron James, Kobe, and Michael Jordan all combined as a candidate as far as how rare he is.

because he is the toughest opponent? this whole idea of moderates being pro Bernie (and Tulsi, as seen on okayplayer) is strange to me. Even if Bernie gets the nom, do they not worry about losing the house and not gaining the senate?