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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDC IDC IDC IDC IDC

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

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

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


Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters

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

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

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

_______________________________________

I thought they were running too.

-->

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

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

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

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

Or something else?

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

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

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

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

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

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

prototype

stand ur ground, believe in urself,
believe in love, prepare urself for love, remove the negativity from ur life, and accept the love u kno u deserve

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

Not to speak for blkprince, his thoughts may differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

kinda refreshing in the progressive puritanical pageant i guess

just runs counter to the facts of the job.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I don't think those outweigh her blandness

_______________________________________

After the four years this country has been through?

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

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

https://apnews.com/416a6f217c28d58fb11828bb4e3bf825

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

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



_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

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

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

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

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

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Ended up massively disappointed like most of us.

But the dude can rally crowd.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

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

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


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

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

>warren i believe would make the best president.

I think so, too.

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

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

>personally im closer to bernie in terms of ideology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1000% agree.

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

That's right.

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

That's where I am with this.

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

I get that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

I think he has the best chance of beating trump.

But I think Biden has the best chance of winning.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

it’s vital that trump is beaten in November.

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

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

another propped up candidate by the dnc

oodles of gaffs

creep


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

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

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

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

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

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

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

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

It wasn’t so he could win Delaware.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

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


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


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

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

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

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

Nah.

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

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


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


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

how much is she paying? lol

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

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


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


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


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

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

That’s who the rust belt trust the most

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

And great point on why Obama picked him, also.


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


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

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


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

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

And 48% lean Democratic.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

I don't know man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure why but she is an extremely hatable person.

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

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

Fucking witch ass

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

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

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

she was on some bullshit for that one.

---------------------------
Signature

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

Klobucher has baggage

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

---------------------------
Signature

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

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

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

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