2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[tarcone]

So its the Russians fault that Americans are dumb?

[Brian Swartz]

The problem with those seat comparisons is that they start at the wrong time. The right time is before Obama was elected, because as the guy at the top of the ticket he is partially responsible for leading the party to the 2008 gains. He had a lot of help from the political situation at the time, but still starting from after he was elected ignores those gains. From that vantage point the House was lost, but the Senate basically didn't move hardly at all.

Then there's also the fact that this just happens. As in pretty much always. It has happened exactly once in the past 70 years that a party has won the presidency three times in a row. The typical pattern is for the out-of-power party to make gains. The same comparisons show Bush losing seats over his tenure in office. Same for Clinton. Obama would have to have been a unicorn for this to NOT happen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Guys who lost every ounce of power the Democratic Party had and got practically nothing accomplished while in power. Just a masterclass in success.

So which Den candidate do you think will lead the blue wave to control of both houses, and overcome resistance to pass meaningful progress legislation? I'd like to know myself, but like I said before, the candidates don't talk much about such things.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So which Den candidate do you think will lead the blue wave to control of both houses, and overcome resistance to pass meaningful progress legislation? I'd like to know myself, but like I said before, the candidates don't talk much about such things.

I don't know. Just wouldn't be taking advice from those grifters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So its the Russians fault that Americans are dumb?

The Russian thing has always been a dumb conspiracy theory. Yes, Russia meddled in our election in some fashion. But it was small on the grand scale of things. Some ad buys online and social media chicanery. There are dozens of dark money groups that played a much larger role.

When all is said and done, it was just some propaganda being spread. No votes were changed, no major events to close down polling stations, etc. We have far worse figures in our own country fighting against any semblance of democracy.

But it became a great excuse for Democrats who fucked up. It'll be another excuse by establishment candidates to target anti-establishment figures. Whether that's used by someone like Bloomberg against Bernie or a never-Trumper against Trump.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

True, the old, "start high" negotiation tactic.

But there's also more to enacting legislation. If Sanders wants 10 and Mayor Pete and Klobuchar and Biden want 7, who is more likely to get 4 or 5? Sanders just because he started higher? Then why not start at 20? Or would it be those more willing to compromise on other things, who can forge better relationships, can selectively use executive power in productive ways, etc. I have no idea. They don't talk about this much.

The true power the president has is going to the people and sounding passionate about a plan. That's how Obama got ACA moving. Sanders strikes me as a very reluctant compromiser. If he goes hard for M4A and gets shot down (as expected), how hard would he really be pushing for expanding the ACA or making small improvements after that major setback? Wouldn't it be better to have someone like Biden, Amy or Pete going hard for the small improvement from the start?

[JPhillips]

The ACA passed only because there were 60 Dem senators and even then it took compromises for more conservative Dems. There's nothing that any president could do to get a handful of GOP senators to vote for M4A.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Russian thing has always been a dumb conspiracy theory. Yes, Russia meddled in our election in some fashion. But it was small on the grand scale of things. Some ad buys online and social media chicanery. There are dozens of dark money groups that played a much larger role.

When all is said and done, it was just some propaganda being spread. No votes were changed, no major events to close down polling stations, etc. We have far worse figures in our own country fighting against any semblance of democracy.

But it became a great excuse for Democrats who fucked up. It'll be another excuse by establishment candidates to target anti-establishment figures. Whether that's used by someone like Bloomberg against Bernie or a never-Trumper against Trump.

Are you Matt Taibbi?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are you Matt Taibbi?

No fucking shit and I like Taibbi. I don't understand him on this at all.

[JPhillips]

And it went much further than some ads. The Mueller Report lays out a pretty extensive conspiracy between at least Stone, Assange, and the Russians. There were numerous contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign. While it's true we have no evidence of votes being changed, we do have evidence of Russian hacking into registration databases.

And most importantly, the hacks into Podesta and the DNC were done by Russians.

[GrantDawg]

I have compared the Bernie Bros to MAGA people, didn't realize that they also deny the Russians attempt to influence the elections.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tarcone]

Dont rip me.

How is this so called Russian interference any different than Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions to win an election?

[JPhillips]

Spending isn't a crime.

Foreign spending on an election is a crime.

Hacking emails is a crime.

Hacking into registration databases is a crime.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Spending isn't a crime.

Foreign spending on an election is a crime.

Hacking emails is a crime.

Hacking into registration databases is a crime.

Ive decided you are either Bizarro tarcone or the Anti-tarcone.

I get this. But is the Russian "interference" really interference, or it just a bunch of propaganda the Russians launched to influence an election? And is that any different than soviet interference or american interference in foreign elections?

Why is spending millions of dollars to influence an election okay? Well it is in the good ol' USA. So dont bring that commie crap int my elections unless it is Bernie Sanders commie crap.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Spending isn't a crime.

Foreign spending on an election is a crime.

Hacking emails is a crime.

Hacking into registration databases is a crime.

They aren't Americans, why do they give a shit about our laws? And considering that Stone and others are likely to get pardons (and have already had the DOJ run out to protect them), it doesn't appear we give a shit about our laws either.

It's espionage. They do it, we do it. Don't get me wrong, I think we should have a harsh stance against it. But I also don't think it's the biggest issue facing our country.

Here are some things that are so much worse than Russians buying some Facebook ads, creating troll accounts, and hacking the DNC.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV09J

400 Bad Request

$1.4 billion and counting in spending by super PACs, dark money groups - OpenSecrets News

But let's keep chasing the Russia boogeyman as Republicans close down polling stations, shut down early voting, and purge the rolls of voters in areas that hurt them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Dont rip me.

How is this so called Russian interference any different than Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions to win an election?

Russians spending a few million in ads on Facebook to influence an election is bad. Multinational hedge fund funneling money anonymously to another anonymous group to run negative ads against a candidate is good. Don't ask me why, it apparently just is.

Also when we influence elections around the world (which we do all the time) it's good.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They aren't Americans, why do they give a shit about our laws? And considering that Stone and others are likely to get pardons (and have already had the DOJ run out to protect them), it doesn't appear we give a shit about our laws either.

It's espionage. They do it, we do it. Don't get me wrong, I think we should have a harsh stance against it. But I also don't think it's the biggest issue facing our country.

Here are some things that are so much worse than Russians buying some Facebook ads, creating troll accounts, and hacking the DNC.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV09J

400 Bad Request

$1.4 billion and counting in spending by super PACs, dark money groups - OpenSecrets News

But let's keep chasing the Russia boogeyman as Republicans close down polling stations, shut down early voting, and purge the rolls of voters in areas that hurt them.

We don't have to ignore any of this. Why do you think it's one or the other?

And the "why do they give a shit about our laws" approach would legitimize assassinations. They don't have to give a shit about our laws, but we should. Trump pardoning people also doesn't mean we should all just decide to ignore our laws from now on.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Russians spending a few million in ads on Facebook to influence an election is bad. Multinational hedge fund funneling money anonymously to another anonymous group to run negative ads against a candidate is good. Don't ask me why, it apparently just is.

Also when we influence elections around the world (which we do all the time) it's good.

Funny how you're leaving out the crimes part of things.

Again, it's much more than social media ads.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Funny how you're leaving out the crimes part of things.

Again, it's much more than social media ads.

Bernie Bros much like MAGA people only like facts that fit their world view. Theirs is the only right way, and even those that almost agree with them, but disagree on the most minor of points, must be purged in fire. Only the pure that have sworn allegiance to St. Bernie are basking in the light of truth and righteousness.

[GrantDawg]

This is the reason Bernie is problematic. Imagine Trump's campaign playing snippets of this video over and over again on every form of media.


(Drunk and Shirtless) Bernie Sanders sings "This Land is Your Land" with Soviets 1988 - YouTube

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This is the reason Bernie is problematic. Imagine Trump's campaign playing snippets of this video over and over again on every form of media.

(Drunk and Shirtless) Bernie Sanders sings "This Land is Your Land" with Soviets 1988 - YouTube

Holy crap, that's hilarious.

I don't think this will impact the Bernie supporters now but I can see it impacting the general election.

[Front Office Midget]

grab 'em by the pussy

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And the "why do they give a shit about our laws" approach would legitimize assassinations. They don't have to give a shit about our laws, but we should. Trump pardoning people also doesn't mean we should all just decide to ignore our laws from now on.

It is illegal to show dissent toward the Chinese government. Do you feel obligated to follow their law? Do you feel it would be rightful for them to come and arrest you?

We should arrest people who break out laws. I have nothing against that. I'm saying it is so far down the list of issues with our elections and democracy.

Also the "bad guys want this candidate to win" schtick has been going on forever. Especially with Russia. I think Al-Qaeda was pushing for Kerry in 2004 if I remember the old ads right.

[Edward64]

Sanders by a mile so far. Then Biden, Buttigieg, Warren.

Biden better show up for SC and Super Tuesday.

[GrantDawg]

I love that they are showing some 13-14 thousand votes.. and Gabbard has 8.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

CBS is saying that Nevada is feeling the Bern

[GrantDawg]

Everyone has called it for Bernie, and it looks like it will be a big win. Of course, we won't actually have the results till some time next year.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[bronconick]

They ought to ban caucuses and replace those with a ranked choice voting primary. The Democrats clearly complicated them way too much with three "totals"

[kingfc22]

Klobuchar needs to throw in the towel. Bernie is definitely benefitting some from voters having to split votes between four candidates if they are not voting for him.

[Galaril]

So I am wondering how much of this Sanders support is just R’s going and voting for Sanders since they feel strongly he is the easy win for them in the general?

[panerd]

That seems like it would be a pain in the ass at a caucus.

[Galaril]

Yeah I agree that it might not be as easy in the caucus scenario.

[GrantDawg]

It is quickly becoming no chance anyone but Sanders can win a majority, and very slim chance (single digits percentages) for anyone else to win a pluaralty. No one looks like they dropping out, at least until after South Carolina. By Super Tuesday, this will probably be all over.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[panerd]

At that point I wonder if Bloomberg would run independent. Not sure what the deadlines are but he certainly has the money and to me would be viable to Sanders and Trump. Not sure if that would hand the election to Trump but IMO nominating Sanders hands the election to Trump.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by panerd

At that point I wonder if Bloomberg would run independent. Not sure what the deadlines are but he certainly has the money and to me would be viable to Sanders and Trump. Not sure if that would hand the election to Trump but IMO nominating Sanders hands the election to Trump.

Bloomberg as an independent would be a fascinating scenario. I think he might draw votes close to evenly from Trump and the Democrat nominee. As for Sanders, I don't see how he can put together an Electoral College to get to 270.

[Jas_lov]

I can see Sanders winning the general and don't get why everyone says he can't. Seems a lot like people saying Trump could never win. And some of the socialist attacks I don't think work as well anymore. A lot of the old conventional thinking should have been thrown out the window in 2016. People want authenticity more than ideology or experience and that's Bernie's biggest strength, he's been saying the same thing for 30 years.

I can't see Bernie losing any of the states Hillary won. Nevada, CO and VA are becoming more blue. New Hampshire is his neighboring state. His message plays well in Michigan, PA and Ohio. Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa seem like they're getting more red so then the Dem would have to pick up one of Florida, Arizona or NC. Texas is still probably too big of a reach. Latinos seem to love him, though.

[panerd]

Personally the capitalism is broken message in this economy with this unemployment rate seems like a losing strategy. I agree with the get rid of Trump message, and agree with some of the other candidates on fixing health care and the environment but Bernies message is so extreme and easy to defeat. Again IMO before somebody comes in with the rich keep.getting richer. They elected Donald Trump not sure the electorate cares about that at all.

[panerd]

And one side already fears the "evil Soviets" and the other just spent the last 4 years telling us Russia wants to destroy us and our democracy. So you play some videos of Moscow Bernie...

[albionmoonlight]

This seems insane by the Dems.

[Kodos]

We badly need multiple moderates to drop out so that the moderate vote can consolidate.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Bloomberg as an independent would be a fascinating scenario. I think he might draw votes close to evenly from Trump and the Democrat nominee. As for Sanders, I don't see how he can put together an Electoral College to get to 270.

I agree that I can't see a Sanders Electoral College win. I think an Electoral College win was going to be 50-50 for most of the Democratic Candidates. I think it is probably 60-40 against Sanders. I do think Bernie probably gets the most actual votes, maybe even by a wider margin than Hillary. The Electoral College just works too hard against him.
That said, at this point I just hope I am totally wrong. I think it is going to take something extraordinary to happen for there to be a mass exodus of Trump support. Even looking at 2018, the House was won back by largely suburban, mostly women voters. Suburban women voters are not the most progressive group, hence why they voted for Trump in the first place, even after "grab them by the pussy."

[GrantDawg]

Also, on the Bloomberg run. I don't think he splits the vote even close to evenly, and it would be a Trump landslide.

[JPhillips]

The most likely results of a Sanders presidency are... very little. The Senate will block everything. No new taxes. No M4A. No free college. etc.

So if you see that as more threatening than Trump, you were Trump curious the whole time.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The most likely results of a Sanders presidency are... very little. The Senate will block everything. No new taxes. No M4A. No free college. etc.

So if you see that as more threatening than Trump, you were Trump curious the whole time.

It also means no hardcore conservative judges either.

[BillyMadison]

Stunning landslide result for Nevada, which is much more representative of the rest of the country than Iowa or New Hampshire. Like it or not, Bernie is building a multi-racial, multi-generational coalition. And all the polling shows he's just as electable, if not more, than any of the other Dems in the general. I was right about Buttigieg as he got something pathetic like 3% of the African American vote. He is toast with those numbers.

And here's the thing. The more moderate, older, lifelong Democrats who have voted in every election are far less likely to sit out in apathy or a protest vote than the younger generation vote and minority vote. They're going to vote no matter what. And in Bernie we're seeing a candidate who is inspiring youth turnout, and building a coalition of latino and black support (still a work in progress, but if you look at the numbers, he's gaining substantially on both fronts) whom if there was a candidate those demogaphics felt little connection to -- say Buttigieg with minorities, Biden with youth and Bloomberg with all of the above -- they'd easily sit out and turnout would be low and it'd be a disaster of a general election. So the older, moderate vote will have a choice to get on board or vote for Trump, and I hope it's the former. And once they realize their medicare and social security is at stake under Trump, hopefully they will.

And to all the naysayers saying Bernie won't get EVERYTHING he says done in office: we know that. Answer me this: What President has? But you have to aim high, and then compromise for less. Not aim low and compromise for nothing like all of the other candidates. And you have to shift the dialogue and move the needle and that's what Bernie is doing. It's a movement. People are inspired by the movement, more so than even the candidate. And on that point, lets not forget that Sanders HAS been productive in office: Passing more amendments than anyone, getting billions for community health centers & passing landmark veterans legislation.

We shouldn't coronate him yet of course, but it'll be interesting who Bernie's VP would be if he gets the nomination. Lot at stake on and on the line with that. Do you go with someone with less national experience like Nina Turner, or Stacey Abrams, for the identity politic appeal? Or someone slightly more moderate to assuage the center like Liz Warren? For those worried about Bernie or on the fence, what VP pick would give you a little more faith in the ticket, I'm curious?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

And to all the naysayers saying Bernie won't get EVERYTHING he says done in office: we know that. Answer me this: What President has?

James K Polk

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

James K Polk

OK so we have to go back to 1840, and 30+ Presidents to find one who achieved his full platform in its entirety. Point made.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Galaril

So I am wondering how much of this Sanders support is just R’s going and voting for Sanders since they feel strongly he is the easy win for them in the general?

None. Nevada has closed caucuses. They’d have to switch party registration to Democrat.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

We shouldn't coronate him yet of course, but it'll be interesting who Bernie's VP would be if he gets the nomination. Lot at stake on and on the line with that. Do you go with someone with less national experience like Nina Turner, or Stacey Abrams, for the identity politic appeal? Or someone slightly more moderate to assuage the center like Liz Warren? For those worried about Bernie or on the fence, what VP pick would give you a little more faith in the ticket, I'm curious?

Nina Turner would be a complete disaster. I think she would turn off more people than she could pull in. Stacey Abrams would be a good pick, but would it turn off Bernie supporters that she is a bit more moderate than Bernie? Liz fits more philosophically with Bernie, but would she be interested?



I would think a minority woman that has more establishment ties would be best. Any woman over a man should at the very least be a preference. Someone who can reach the suburban moms. Also, they need to be younger. Bernie age is already troublesome. Someone in there 50's, no more than mid-60's.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by panerd

Personally the capitalism is broken message in this economy with this unemployment rate seems like a losing strategy. I agree with the get rid of Trump message, and agree with some of the other candidates on fixing health care and the environment but Bernies message is so extreme and easy to defeat. Again IMO before somebody comes in with the rich keep.getting richer. They elected Donald Trump not sure the electorate cares about that at all.

Originally Posted by panerd

And one side already fears the "evil Soviets" and the other just spent the last 4 years telling us Russia wants to destroy us and our democracy. So you play some videos of Moscow Bernie...

Agree on all points!