# Democratic Primary thread



## Drew

Finally, we're getting some real data tonight. 

As far as Iowa, sounds like it's anyone's race, though Sanders ()and Klobuchar) has been surging and Warren and Buttigieg fading. 

My thoughts, coming into this - with the pre- and post-realignment votes being published as well as the final delegate totals, there's a real possibility that there's going to be a LOT of argument about who actually "won" the caucus, and while I think ultimately you have to defer to the delegate total, I also think in the spirit of intellectual honesty it makes sense to think about what's a "win" before the voting starts, and hold yourself to that afterwards. So....


Most likely outcome is Sanders then Biden or Biden then Sanders, and as long as they're within a single delegate, I don't know how much the order _really_ matters - whoever is on top will call it a win, but it's more symbolic than meaningful. Margins of two or more delegates, or someone else ending up in the top two, that becomes a more meaningful story. 
The interplay between Sanders and Warren should be interesting here, as at least previously more Warren supporters had Sanders as their #2 than anyone else. If Warren tanks, misses the 15% cutoff in a lot of districts, and Sanders DOESN'T win the delegate count, that's a bad sign for him. Conversely, if Warren does better than expected but Sanders still wins the delegate total, _especially_ if he does so while losing the raw vote, that's a pretty good outcome for him - it suggests he's capable of building a broader coalition than is currently believed.
If one candidate "wins" the pre-realignment raw vote but not the delegate count, I think some color on WHY they lost will be important - if someone runs up the margins in a few counties (akin to big margins in CA being responsible for a popular vote win) I don't think that's as meaningful as if someone just does a better job horse trading and building a broader coalition. That's kind of the main difference between a caucus and a regular primary - it's a test of how well supporters of one candidate can convince others to cross over and join them. 
Sanders definitely has some momentum coming into this, with a number of strong polls published this week. That's both a blessing and a curse - it's good that things seem to be going his way, but it also - rightly or wrongly - makes him a perceived favorite to win in a race that really is probably too close to call. If he ekes out a close win, he's merely meeting expectations, and if he loses by a hairs breath, then (wrongly, I'd say) there'll be a perception that he failed to close the deal. His only real upside scenario is to win decisively. Biden suffers from this though to a far lesser extent - if he wins narrowly, well, of course he did, he's the national front-runner, even if he wasn't necessarily perceived as the favorite in Iowa. Ironically, despite all this, I DO think the margin is more important than the order, if Biden and Sanders do finish with the two top delegate counts. 
My only real prediction here is if someone DOESN'T get a clean sweep of the delegate count, post-realignment vote, and pre-realignment vote, there's gonna be a LOT of heated arguing about which camp "won" and who got "robbed" tomorrow.


----------



## bostjan

I predict that the guy from Vermont will place third, despite his momentum, get overly excited, make a funny noise, and then people will make fun of him for years to come. Wait, what year is it? 2004, right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I predict that the guy from Vermont will place third, despite his momentum, get overly excited, make a funny noise, and then people will make fun of him for years to come. Wait, what year is it? 2004, right?


 

Thanks for giving a fuck about my thread no one else seems to give a fuck about, anyway, man.  

(Sanders taking third tonight isn't impossible, but that would be a HELL of a surprise outcome)


----------



## Mathemagician

There is too much actual thought going into this. I came here for a dumpster fire. Like literally almost every thread that’s supposed to be about guitars. And the newest political thread is trying to start discussions? With open ended questions? What do I even do with my pitchfork?


----------



## SpaceDock

I’m hoping for Pete or Amy. I just can’t fully support the others right now.


----------



## Randy

Liz > Amy > Bernie > Steyer > Biden > Bloomberg >>>>>> Pete


----------



## c7spheres

All political party labels are evil. They signify the support of quasi-separatism movements and other such radically violent ideologies and anti-humanitarian genocidic practices such as voting, democracy, the American way, Capitalism, equality, inclusionism, equal rights, human rights, and false peace. It's against all humanity and the peaceful way of the universe. I can't in good conscience take part in such debauchery. Good day.


* This is what's called sarcasm. It's funny. Have a nice day. : )


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Liz > Amy > Bernie > Steyer > Biden > Bloomberg >>>>>> Pete



Definitely read Steyer as Slayer, instantly assumed this was a shitpost ranking the big 4, and immediately started searching for Metallica before I realized I definitely didn't get enough sleep last night.
SSOvision at it's finest. I'd vote for Bernie if he had a maple fretboard. The build quality on the WMI .Bloombergs* are pretty decent too. 

To be vaguely on topic though, I don't really have much of a dog in this race at this point, so I don't even really know who to pull for now. I'm not big on Warren at all, so I guess I'm just in the 'literally anyone else' camp. Still though, really curious to see how this all shakes out. I honestly have no idea how this is gunna go.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> .Bloombergs*


----------



## Randy

Hot take


----------



## Randy

More hot takes (since apparently we can't even have speculative numbers yet)


----------



## Randy

:disco:


----------



## Randy

:Trainwreck:


----------



## Randy

I'll apply Hanlon's Razor to this for now but my current takeaway

1.) The technology issues and tribalism/conspiracy taking hold (rightly or wrongly) is awful for the Democratic Party and 2020 general election viability, and these are self inflicted wounds.

2.) Turnout so far projecting to be 2016 numbers or worse, compared to record years like 2008. Apparently 'stop Trump at all costs' isn't inspiring enough to drive turnout or pushback against skepticism/apathy. Bad for Dems.

3.) Despite somewhat pedestrian turnout, apps and phone systems crashing, and voter registration forms running out all night. Very poorly prepared.

4.) Caucuses not being the same as primary ballots/polls, long wait times have direct effect on outcomes. You have to stick around to be counted, so the longer this goes on, the less it reflects actual turnout. I'm not calling shenanigans, but this is unfair to the people who did participate or at least tried to.

Things off to maybe as bad a start as possible.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Liz > Amy > Bernie > Steyer > Biden > Bloomberg >>>>>> Pete



Why the dislike for Pete?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-mulls-asking-donald-trump-to-run-as-democrat-in-eff-1841432132


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Why the dislike for Pete?



FWIW, I was a mayor Pete guy early in this process and going back to his bid for DNC chair.

Going back to the beginning, he was pushing Progressivism and even used terms like 'Medicare for All' and 'single payer' to outline his position. He's exceptionally well spoken and young, even though it's not a huge town, being mayor of a city gives him executive experience, etc.

Then early on in this primary, he switched over to attacking progressives on the debate stage using rhetoric directly out of the Fox News playbook, first on singer-payer and then on campaign finance (which is the single biggest contributor to our fucked up government). Much like I decried Sanders attacks on Hillary as being headshots, and Hillary's attacks on Obama dog whistling birtherism, Pete's attacks on Progressivism (which, even to a small degree, the eventual nominee would have to give a nod to rally both blocs) are soundbytes the Republicans will use and reuse in the general election.

Then when you dig beneath the surface, you see the guy courting wealthy donors (and more specifically, lobbyists) when he didn't/doesn't need to, you see him stonewalling the people and the press in his hometown over the fucked up police department and their practices, and then for all the "aw shucks" midwest blue collar yokle talk, he was a big shot at a firm advocating for privatization of the postal service.

THAT makes the guy come across as phony. Just putting on whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear, with no actual principals to speak of. A status climber little else. I'd take a blue dog that's at least earnest in their positions and has a better resume over a noob with no loyalties at all. At best, he might betray you when he gets in but at least he's a Dem, at worst this all becomes clear by November and we get another 4 years of Trump. Hard pass.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

RE: last night's Iowa caucus


----------



## Randy

Aaaand, 7:30 on Tuesday and still NO results. I can't imagine this being more disastrous. This is literally at or a hair away from literal absolute worst case scenario territory.

Drew can plug his ears for this one but Hillary passing out at the 9/11 memorial again. Something unpleasant and otherwise benign, but constantly shifting answers that seemingly contain at least one or two lies/inconsistencies in an effort to control spin and deflect rather than being truthful from the outset.

1.) First the De Moines Register thing. Drew took back his position but I still believe SOME kind of projections were appropriate. This concern becomes magnified further based on how the actual polls played out.

2.) Next it was "quality control", which is about as suspicious and black box a term as you can get. That alone SOUNDS like 'we're making sure the results are what we want them to be'. And before I'm accused of being conspiratorial, I say that solely with regard to perceptions and gaslight a narrative that's already out there.

3.) "The app" goes down. Who thought using an app to transmit all of this was a good idea? We know we're being targeted but Russian hackers who seem to be better than our best defenses, and have been greenlighted by the Republicans, and we put our results in the hands of a hastily produced, one time use "app"? Turnout was below projections, so it couldn't even handle LESS people than were expected?

3.) Caucuses were stuck using the phone system to call in and log results on paper. Precincts reporting being on hold literally for hours and being cut off arbitrarily by HQ, which were tallying this all up totally black box, nobody inside besides Iowa DNC officials, no explanations getting out.

3.) Now precincts text messaging their results to HQ with pics of tallies. Wildly ripe for mistakes at best, rigging at worst.

4.) HQ then says no, app didn't go down, phone system didn't go down, there were just "inconsistencies". Super super troubling term. Is it shenanigans? If so, at what level? Locally? At the HQ? Why the shifting answers?

Like I said, i dont even need to indulge in conspiracies here. This is absolutely gaslighting everyone's worst fears about the process and this race. The DNC had a responsibility for at least one clean, concise night to give us some semblance of a consensus trajectory here and the blew it in now historical fashion.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Folks need to get shit canned for fucking up this royal.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

This is worst case scenario. Even if they end up counting correctly, I doubt people will see any of the results from Iowa as legitimate. I cannot comprehend how this was allowed to happen.


----------



## Randy

: democraticparty:


----------



## sleewell

honestly i was watching some of the coverage last night and was just appalled at the entire process. what a complete joke and total eyesore for the party. cast a fucking vote in a booth and go home. this isn't the 1800s anymore. iowa needs to just go away and only be a killer slipknot album.


----------



## vilk

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I doubt people will see any of the results from Iowa as legitimate.



My prediction: People will accept the results if the winner is Bernie or Warren, since actual living human people actually want those candidates. They won't accept the results if it's Biden, because he's been pushed by corporate media despite that no living soul you've ever met actually prefers that guy to Warren or Sanders or even Buttigeg. Well except maybe Drew? I'm still not clear whether he's actually anti-Sanders or if he's just anti-the-existence-of-an-anti-Sanders-conspiracy.

Also: If he were to come out ahead, no one will suspect Sanders of anything shady on account of that he doesn't take money from billionaires... that might go for Warren, too (even though she took some money from a few)


----------



## Randy

This is the stuff of nightmares

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...p-built-secretive-firm-shadow-inc-comes-under

For those inclined to attribute it to stupidity



> Democratic Party officials kept the details of the app as well as Shadow's involvement hidden from the public ahead of the Iowa caucus. But as Monday night wore on and frustration with the delayed reporting of the caucus results boiled over, journalists began scrutinizing the new technology and its developer more closely.
> 
> The _New York Times_, citing anonymous people who were briefed on the app by Iowa Democratic Party officials, reported that the app was hastily constructed in just two months and "not properly tested at a statewide scale."
> 
> "The party decided to use the app only after another proposal for reporting votes—which entailed having caucus participants call in their votes over the phone—was abandoned, on the advice of Democratic National Committee officials," the _Times_ reported.
> 
> "The secrecy around the app this year came from the Iowa Democratic Party, which asked that even its name be withheld from the public," according to the _Times_. "There were concerns that the app would malfunction in areas with poor connectivity, or because of high bandwidth use, such as when many people tried to use it at the same time."



For those inclined to attribute it to malice



> The app, according to several news reports, was developed by the secretive for-profit tech firm Shadow Inc., which has ties to and receives funding from ACRONYM, a Democratic digital non-profit organization. Shadow's CEO is Gerard Niemira, who worked on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.
> 
> "State campaign finance records indicate the Iowa Democratic Party paid Shadow... more than $60,000 for 'website development' over two installments in November and December of last year," _HuffPost_ reported late Monday. "A Democratic source with knowledge of the process said those payments were for the app that caucus site leaders were supposed to use to upload the results at their locales."
> 
> Shadow has also been paid for services by the Nevada Democratic Party and the presidential campaigns of former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, according to Federal Election Commission filings.


----------



## Mathemagician

My expectations is that DNC fears started being realized and that Bernie likely did as well or better than they hoped, and so the plan became “fuck it up and make the story about what a shitshow the process was rather than about Bernie”. 

Now obviously that is 100% conjecture and speculation. But I don’t trust the DNC apparatus any more than I trust the RNC. They are unelected bodies who hold “Kingmaker” status only due to its members fear of losing access to it. Take away their ability to “decide” who wins and what do they have left? 

A caucus is not a primary, but our first past the post system that allows corporate lobbying is ripe for abuses of power.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

The fucking dev team worked for a company called Shadow Inc. 

What the fuck


----------



## narad

It gets worse: I heard the company's full name is Shadow _Hussein_ INC.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

This is Florida circa 2000 hanging chad bad.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is Florida circa 2000 hanging chad bad.



Worse imo, because there was an existing narrative that this feeds right into.

This could've been a clean first day of primary voting, but instead it's Shadow, Inc., no Des Moines poll for the first time in 74 years, no results the next day and conflicting results that at this point are going to be whatever the Iowa Democratic Party says they are, with no quantifiable hard data to go along with it. This was, of a million potential outcomes, the fucking worst one.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Tuesday February 4th, 2020: The day the DNC handed Trump the presidency for the second time. *golf clap*


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

narad said:


> It gets worse: I heard the company's full name is Shadow _Hussein_ INC.



Hah, I get it but this is about optics in politics. An intern could've seen that and been like "nope"


----------



## sleewell

MaxOfMetal said:


> Tuesday February 4th, 2020: The day the DNC handed Trump the presidency for the second time. *golf clap*




this is spot on.


----------



## Randy

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Hah, I get it but this is about optics in politics. An intern could've seen that and been like "nope"



Yeah, it sounds like the company owned by the bad guy in a Captain Planet episode.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Captain Butterscotch said:


> The fucking dev team worked for a company called Shadow Inc.
> 
> What the fuck



You can't make this shit up. 
Republicans are gunna have a field day; Randy is 100% spot on about the 'feeding into an existing narrative' thing.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

*Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process*

I am not a Biden supporter but this really helps him grab the nom. I might've said it before but this is another example of Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> no results the next day and conflicting results



From what i can tell, any "conflicting results" are just speculation/marketing from individual candidates' campaigns, no? 



Randy said:


> with no quantifiable hard data to go along with it.



Well, there's the state-mandated paper trail. So far, they've _said_ that the paper ballots match what the system recorded, but the issue was with the reporting-to-state-HQ. They had a phone-call-report backup process in place, but must have been under-staffed as some polling places gave up after being on hold for 45 mins and planned to call in this morning, and many of the ones that got through, they said they were on hold for over an hour.


----------



## Randy

Captain Butterscotch said:


> *Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process*
> 
> I am not a Biden supporter but this really helps him grab the nom. I might've said it before but this is another example of Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.



WaPo: "Iowa is only 44 out of 3,000+ delegates. What impact could it have?" 

Iowa: Hold my beer...


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'll apply Hanlon's Razor to this for now but my current takeaway
> 
> 1.) The technology issues and tribalism/conspiracy taking hold (rightly or wrongly) is awful for the Democratic Party and 2020 general election viability, and these are self inflicted wounds.
> 
> 2.) Turnout so far projecting to be 2016 numbers or worse, compared to record years like 2008. Apparently 'stop Trump at all costs' isn't inspiring enough to drive turnout or pushback against skepticism/apathy. Bad for Dems.
> 
> 3.) Despite somewhat pedestrian turnout, apps and phone systems crashing, and voter registration forms running out all night. Very poorly prepared.
> 
> 4.) Caucuses not being the same as primary ballots/polls, long wait times have direct effect on outcomes. You have to stick around to be counted, so the longer this goes on, the less it reflects actual turnout. I'm not calling shenanigans, but this is unfair to the people who did participate or at least tried to.
> 
> Things off to maybe as bad a start as possible.


Believe it or not, I agree with all of this. 

Last night was an unmitigated clusterfuck. It hurt the Democratic party by making them look clueless and unprepared and giving Trump another talking point to mock the DNC with (Technically the Iowa Democratic Party, but that's not a distinction anyone is going to give a shit about). It will hurt the eventual winner of last night's caucuses, by robbing them of the typical polling bump an Iowa win would normally have. It'll hurt the eventual nominee by casting doubt on the nomination process. And it will unquestionably fuel the anti-establishment Sanders flame by allowing him to claim that this whole thing was just an elaborate rouse to fuck his campaign, making party unity at the end of the 2020 primary that much harder to acheive.

Of all the bad scenarios for Democrats I envisioned coming into this, the Iowa Democratic Party totally dropping the ball on the caucus and us still not having results for more than 1.9% of the "post-realignment" vote 12:30 the next day was NOT on the list. What the actual _fuck.
_


Randy said:


> 1.) First the De Moines Register thing. Drew took back his position but I still believe SOME kind of projections were appropriate. This concern becomes magnified further based on how the actual polls played out.
> 
> 3.) "The app" goes down. Who thought using an app to transmit all of this was a good idea? We know we're being targeted but Russian hackers who seem to be better than our best defenses, and have been greenlighted by the Republicans, and we put our results in the hands of a hastily produced, one time use "app"? Turnout was below projections, so it couldn't even handle LESS people than were expected?



FWIW, I don't know I'd say that I took back my position - I doon't LIKE the decision not to publish, but from the perspective of the Register I can see how it was the lesser of two evils. It just sucks, especially in light of last night's disaster. 

And, I think the odds of this being related to a Russian interference effort are probably minescule... But if you had to imagine an opening gambit, a one-two punch of torpedoing the highest profile Iowa pollster and getting them to not publish their final poll, and THEN causing the app used to total results (seriously, who thought that was a good idea?) to malfunction, forcing everyone back to tabulating the paper based votes for three seperate voting totals, and delaying the release of the results until at LEAST the next afternoon, would be a pretty tough opening gambit to top. I don't think it's likely, but if I were running the post mortem here it would be on the list of things I need to concretely eliminate. 

I don't think there's anything nefarious about the "data control" - literally, they're checking paper ballots, because the app was transmitting incomplete data (seriously?!). We have good paper records for every stage of the voting, so we'll have a reliable final total. But, the optics are fucking awful, and the Sanders camp is absolutely going to call foul play if he doesn't win, if they're not already doing so. 

I'd love to weigh in on the actual results, but we only have 1.9% of the post-realignment vote in, so the best we have is exit polling that suggests Buttigieg and Sanders had good nights and Biden less so, but even that's pretty vague. 

Short of, idunno, Biden shooting Sanders or vice versa, it's awfully tough to think of a worse outcome than what happened, and that's really saying something.


----------



## Drew

*double post*


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Well, there's the state-mandated paper trail. So far, they've _said_ that the paper ballots match what the system recorded, but the issue was with the reporting-to-state-HQ. They had a phone-call-report backup process in place, but must have been under-staffed as some polling places gave up after being on hold for 45 mins and planned to call in this morning, and many of the ones that got through, they said they were on hold for over an hour.



It's still SUPER shakey. If it was a normal primary with ballots, okay fine. In a lot of cases, we're talking people standing in a room and someone in the front of the room take a head count. Caucuses are already very sloppy, especially when they're not as contentious as this, and then by orders of magnitude when they stretch into the night and people start leaving.

Near as I can tell, the "paper trail" is whatever the caucus secretary wrote down, which at 12:30am and MMS'd to someone in the party offices could be a lot of things.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Believe it or not, I agree with all of this.
> 
> Last night was an unmitigated clusterfuck. It hurt the Democratic party by making them look clueless and unprepared and giving Trump another talking point to mock the DNC with (Technically the Iowa Democratic Party, but that's not a distinction anyone is going to give a shit about). It will hurt the eventual winner of last night's caucuses, by robbing them of the typical polling bump an Iowa win would normally have. It'll hurt the eventual nominee by casting doubt on the nomination process. And it will unquestionably fuel the anti-establishment Sanders flame by allowing him to claim that this whole thing was just an elaborate rouse to fuck his campaign, making party unity at the end of the 2020 primary that much harder to acheive.
> 
> Of all the bad scenarios for Democrats I envisioned coming into this, the Iowa Democratic Party totally dropping the ball on the caucus and us still not having results for more than 1.9% of the "post-realignment" vote 12:30 the next day was NOT on the list. What the actual _fuck._



Totally unfair process to everyone involved. Maybe less unfair to candidates dropped at the first alignment, since that happened at a rational hour but it's definitely going to illegitimize pretty much the entire top-3 stack.

The only thing I can take away as far as actual results is how surprised I am at Biden's performance. I dunno, I've seen this shuffled and reshuffled a couple times, top 2 looking like Bernie or Buttigieg in either order, but Biden not in the top 3 or 4 or even 5 a lot of places, I didn't expect. It's one state with a small delegate number but, even before you get into the anomalies of final numbers, it's already kinda weird.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Idk, maybe Biden telling his supporters to vote for someone else worked.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Totally unfair process to everyone involved. Maybe less unfair to candidates dropped at the first alignment, since that happened at a rational hour but it's definitely going to illegitimize pretty much the entire top-3 stack.
> 
> The only thing I can take away as far as actual results is how surprised I am at Biden's performance. I dunno, I've seen this shuffled and reshuffled a couple times, top 2 looking like Bernie or Buttigieg in either order, but Biden not in the top 3 or 4 or even 5 a lot of places, I didn't expect. It's one state with a small delegate number but, even before you get into the anomalies of final numbers, it's already kinda weird.


It straight up sucks, no matter WHO you were supporting. Unless you were supporting Trump, I suppose. 

So, exit polling suggested Biden did lag a bit, but we don't know how reliable that is or how much we have to go on. What we DO know, though, is that the issue with the app was that it was passing along incomplete data (seriously, jesus fucking christ, Iowa, get it together). Even a front runner is expected to miss the 15% threshold in SOME areas - Grinnell was an early, unsurprising, anecdotal report - and we only have 1.9% of the vote reported, so that's not entirely surprising... But we also don't know whether the data coming in that's been reported was actually right. 

A potential worst-case scenario (for the party) here is that Biden actually DIDN'T have a bad night, he was just underrepresented in exit polls and of the data that did get published, his support was disproportionately impacted by the flaw in the bug. This would be super problematic because if after all of this Biden ends up being declared the winner, or we get Buttigieg-Biden-Sanders or even Sander-Biden but separated only by a single delegate, the Sanders coalition is going to see this as their worst fears being confirmed, and we might as well just throw a couple Molotov cocktails into the rest of the primary process and be done with it.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> and the Sanders camp is absolutely going to call foul play if he doesn't win, if they're not already doing so.



Right. After Buttigieg's camp got a poll thrown out because his name was omitted in a phone call to one of his staffers. I don't think Sanders camp are the only ones who can, have or will benefit from casting doubt on the process.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Right. After Buttigieg's camp got a poll thrown out because his name was omitted in a phone call to one of his staffers. I don't think Sanders camp are the only ones who can, have or will benefit from casting doubt on the process.



Do we know if any data from the poll was shared with any of the campaigns? If Buttigieg's camp had gotten a preview and then used this as an excuse to bury the poll, that's one thing... But if not, I think their complaints become a little more legitimate, and it certainly appeared he DID have a stronger showing than recent polling would have predicted last night. Idunno. Complex situation there.

I think anyone who either underperformed or didn't win outright will benefit from casting doubt on the process - Sanders maybe has an added wrinkle in that I think he benefits in general from an "establishment is out to get me" narrative.

But, it also hurts, well, whoevcer ACTUALLY won will have their win called into question, and the eventual nominee will have their win tainted by the prospect someone else might have unseated them "if not for Iowa." And it just makes the entire Iowa Democratic party establishment look fucking awful, and drags down the DNC with it.

Idunno. Plenty of people can point to short-term benefits here but this is just a disastrous outcome for the Democratic ticket, no matter who heads it.


----------



## Drew

Seriously, what a fucking mess...


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> My prediction: People will accept the results if the winner is Bernie or Warren, since actual living human people actually want those candidates. They won't accept the results if it's Biden, because he's been pushed by corporate media despite that no living soul you've ever met actually prefers that guy to Warren or Sanders or even Buttigeg. Well except maybe Drew? I'm still not clear whether he's actually anti-Sanders or if he's just anti-the-existence-of-an-anti-Sanders-conspiracy.
> 
> Also: If he were to come out ahead, no one will suspect Sanders of anything shady on account of that he doesn't take money from billionaires... that might go for Warren, too (even though she took some money from a few)


Missed this earlier.  

I'm no Sanders fan - I like a lot of what he stands for, I just don't think he has a workable way to get there and I don't like his methods, I don't trust populists of ANY stripe. But, if he wins, I'll vote for him happily in the general. 

I just don't see any credible evidence that there's a conspiracy to rig the election against him, and I think a lot of the "evidence" getting pointed to is a political Rorschach test where you see evidence because you WANT to see evidence. 

It just really, really, really sucks that we've had such a high-stakes fuckup when Sanders supporters were already running with the "the primary is rigged against Bernie," in a caucus where Sanders was the marginal favorite coming in. If you're pre-disposed to believe that the party is out to get Bernie, then this is a smoking gun with a pretty blue bow on it.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> It's still SUPER shakey. If it was a normal primary with ballots, okay fine. In a lot of cases, we're talking people standing in a room and someone in the front of the room take a head count. Caucuses are already very sloppy, especially when they're not as contentious as this, and then by orders of magnitude when they stretch into the night and people start leaving.
> 
> Near as I can tell, the "paper trail" is whatever the caucus secretary wrote down, which at 12:30am and MMS'd to someone in the party offices could be a lot of things.


No, it's better than that - caucus goers had to fill out paperwork indicating who they supported in the first pre-reassignment vote, who they supported in the second final vote, which were then signed and handed in. Unlike most primaries, the Iowa caucus isn't a secret ballot.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...uses-crashed-and-paper-ballots-saved-the-day/

Of course, since everything ELSE has gone to hell, the one thing that could make this situation worse would be if the signed paper ballots indicated the initial and final choice of every single caucusgoer were lost, damaged, or destroyed, and considering how fucked up things already are I think that's a very real possibility.  But, the paper backup here shhould be VERY good, otherwise.

Even then, though... even if we get perfect accuracy in the final count, the 24 hour wait has caused tensions to flare and fueled a LOT of conspiracy theories, and made the Dems look awful.


----------



## tedtan

Randy, Max, Drew, et. al. have all beaten me to posting, but DAMN what a shit show in Iowa.

This clusterfuck is not insurmountable, but it definitely adds an unnecessary uphill battle to the beginning of the fight against Trump.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> But, the paper backup here shhould be VERY good, otherwise.



I wish I had your rosey optimism. 

"Paper backups should be good!" "Russian interference is unlikely!" "The process probably isn't rigged!". Schrodinger's Ballot Box states that the ballots inside the box exist in a state where they are burned to a crisp, in perfect condition, totally inaccurate to the digital count because of Russian hacking and totally 1:1 with the app results at the same time. But you'll never know until you open the box.

I don't think we're being impatient. The Iowa Democratic Party was unnecessarily black box about the whole process. From withholding the name of the app creator, to not explaining what was going on until very late, to the fact actual caucus secretaries are saying the app doesn't work or the phones are dead, NOPE ALL WRONG, EVERYTHING WORKED RIGHT WE'RE JUST TAKING EXTRA LONG BECAUSE WE'RE COMPARING NUMBERS BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY MORE ACCURATE THAN EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE NOTHING TO SEE HERE, COME BACK AT 5:30PM THE FOLLOWING DAY FOR TOTALLY QUANTIFIABLE RESULTS.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> talking point to mock the DNC with (Technically the Iowa Democratic Party, but that's not a distinction anyone is going to give a shit about)



You break it, you buy it.



> "The party decided to use the app only after another proposal for reporting votes—which entailed having caucus participants call in their votes over the phone—was abandoned, on the advice of Democratic National Committee officials," the _Times_ reported.


----------



## Drew

The Iowa DP made a fucking mess of this, no doubt.

But, paper ballots reflect individual, identifiable, voter preference, signed by that voter, through both rounds of the selection process. It's not that someone just counted people in a room, jotted down that number on a peice of paper, and we have to trust that that's accurate - we have signed statements from all caucusgoers saying who they supported in both rounds.

You're right to be concerned - we're all extremely concerned, this is fucking idiotic - but the paper trail isn't "whatever the caucus secretary wrote down." It's voter-by-voter.



Randy said:


> You break it, you buy it.


If we're going to go down that road, we have Bernie to thank for the fact that we're now reporting pre-realignment and post-realignment raw votes, and not just the delegate totals.


----------



## sleewell

i push my fingers into my eyes....


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Randy, Max, Drew, et. al. have all beaten me to posting, but DAMN what a shit show in Iowa.
> 
> This clusterfuck is not insurmountable, but it definitely adds an unnecessary uphill battle to the beginning of the fight against Trump.


No shit, right? "Hey guys, this really matters, so let's start the most important election since the Nixon era off by _shooting ourselves in the foot_. No one will EVER expect that!!"


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Missed this earlier.
> 
> I'm no Sanders fan - I like a lot of what he stands for, I just don't think he has a workable way to get there and I don't like his methods, I don't trust populists of ANY stripe. But, if he wins, I'll vote for him happily in the general.



lol thank you for the answer. You don't trust populists of ANY stripe... but I'm just curious of your feelings on that Bernie Sanders isn't beholden to the ultra-wealthy, corporate lobbying, etc.? Do you think the ways politicians collect money, how much of it and from whom, isn't a very big deal?


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> lol thank you for the answer. You don't trust populists of ANY stripe... but I'm just curious of your feelings on that Bernie Sanders isn't beholden to the ultra-wealthy, corporate lobbying, etc.? Do you think the ways politicians collect money, how much of it and from whom, isn't a very big deal?



My impression is that Bernie's "tax the rich" "corporations are evil" hyperbolic language is the antithesis of the world Drew lives in where corporations and the wealthy people that own/manage them control industry and thus, the economy. The same economy that we small folk exist in, where we get out jobs, buy our goods and pay for our houses.

So it paints two ways, one, if you do 100% of what the hyperbolic Bernie-bro rhetoric says, he thinks that would be bad. Two, he thinks it's likely disingenuous because it's impossible to change the system in the ways he says, plus he gives very little details on how you would get there anyway (that's my one pet peeve), that it comes across as bombthrowing.

And if you believe he knows he can't deliver on it, and that it's not a desireable outcome anyway, that makes for an entire career founded on a disingenuous argument. He especially doesn't like Bernie's "outsider" reputation despite the fact he's been a career politician for 30 - 40 years.

He's probably also a little salty about how polarized or polarizing his campaign was against Hillary Clinton, who was seemingly Drew's prototypical best presidential pick if the last 4 years of arguing are any indication.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> No shit, right? "Hey guys, this really matters, so let's start the most important election since the Nixon era off by _shooting ourselves in the foot_. No one will EVER expect that!!"



Yeah, it's like a police officer going to handcuff someone, reaching for his handcuffs, and somehow grabbing his gun and shooting himself in the stomach. Can he recover? Maybe, it's not necessarily a fatal wound, but it could have been prevented with a modicum of attention.

Except that the police officer has to make decisions in an instant that can have potential life and death consequences, whereas, in contrast, it appears that the IDC and DNC merely acted out of sheer laziness and incompetence.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> My impression is that Bernie's "tax the rich" "corporations are evil" hyperbolic language is the antithesis of the world Drew lives in where corporations and the wealthy people that own/manage them control industry and thus, the economy. The same economy that we small folk exist in, where we get out jobs, buy our goods and pay for our houses.
> 
> So it paints two ways, one, if you do 100% of what the hyperbolic Bernie-bro rhetoric says, he thinks that would be bad. Two, he thinks it's likely disingenuous because it's impossible to change the system in the ways he says, plus he gives very little details on how you would get there anyway (that's my one pet peeve), that it comes across as bombthrowing.
> 
> And if you believe he knows he can't deliver on it, and that it's not a desireable outcome anyway, that makes for an entire career founded on a disingenuous argument. He especially doesn't like Bernie's "outsider" reputation despite the fact he's been a career politician for 30 - 40 years.
> 
> He's probably also a little salty about how polarized or polarizing his campaign was against Hillary Clinton, who was seemingly Drew's prototypical best presidential pick if the last 4 years of arguing are any indication.



These are, largely, my issue with Sanders, however, his upside is that, even if he is unable to achieve what he talks about achieving, he still moves the bar further left than anyone else. So, for example, even if he can't provide free university access to all right now (and he can't), it may become a reality in another eight, twelve, or sixteen years because Bernie put it on our collective conscience now whereas we definitely won't achieve that without Sanders.

So even if he isn't elected, he's playing an important role in not only introducing these ideas to the US population, but doing so in such a way as to legitimize them in a country that is notoriously anti socialist.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> lol thank you for the answer. You don't trust populists of ANY stripe... but I'm just curious of your feelings on that Bernie Sanders isn't beholden to the ultra-wealthy, corporate lobbying, etc.? Do you think the ways politicians collect money, how much of it and from whom, isn't a very big deal?





Randy said:


> My impression is that Bernie's "tax the rich" "corporations are evil" hyperbolic language is the antithesis of the world Drew lives in where corporations and the wealthy people that own/manage them control industry and thus, the economy. The same economy that we small folk exist in, where we get out jobs, buy our goods and pay for our houses.
> 
> So it paints two ways, one, if you do 100% of what the hyperbolic Bernie-bro rhetoric says, he thinks that would be bad. Two, he thinks it's likely disingenuous because it's impossible to change the system in the ways he says, plus he gives very little details on how you would get there anyway (that's my one pet peeve), that it comes across as bombthrowing.
> 
> And if you believe he knows he can't deliver on it, and that it's not a desireable outcome anyway, that makes for an entire career founded on a disingenuous argument. He especially doesn't like Bernie's "outsider" reputation despite the fact he's been a career politician for 30 - 40 years.
> 
> He's probably also a little salty about how polarized or polarizing his campaign was against Hillary Clinton, who was seemingly Drew's prototypical best presidential pick if the last 4 years of arguing are any indication.


That's coming across a little more personally-directed than normal, Randy. I have no problem with us disagreeing with each other or not seeing eye to eye, but this sounds a little more like you have a personal bone to pick here.

I think it's somewhere in between, to be perfectly honest.

I'm all for getting money out of politics. I don't know what the best way to do it is - overturning Citizens United is going to be hard, but this idea of "corporate personhood" is crap. I don't think there are any political silver bullets, but some serious campaign finance reform would certainly not be a BAD thing, and I don't want to put words into either of your mouths, but I'd imagine your distrust of corporations would have to improve at least at the margins if their ability to dump money into politics was constrained.

Where I agree with Randy is that Sanders is a great big-picture thinker, and a lot of his _objectives_ are things that I fully support, but he's pretty light on substance and detail on how to actually _achieve_ them. That's one of the reasons that, if we;re going to run a progressive candidate, I'd vastly prefer Warren to Sanders. I don't agree with her proposals acoss the board and I'm probably more of a believer in incremental progress than blowing up the system to begin with, but she's a bit (ok, a lot - she has a plan for that) more technically oriented, and she at least has plausible plans for how she wants to achieve policy aims. Some of them are flawed - her wealth tax probably won't pass constitutional muster, though to her credit she's backed away from Medicare for All and rolled out a transitional plan, acknowledging that MFA would take a LOT of work to pull off - but there's a level of planning there that I'm not seeing from Sanders. And where he does have more detailed plans, some of them I don't think he fully gets the unintended consequences - a financial transaction tax would be disastrous for market liquidity, which sounds like a rich person problem, but in practice would be a market crash, lost retirement savings, and a probable recession for Main Street America.

I tend to look at American capitalism as a system that's flawed, but not flawed because capitalism itself is inherently flawed - rather, it's flawed for the same reason socialism has often been flawed, that we've made it too easy for the people at the top to remain entrenched in power and favor themselves. I don't think we need a full scale move away from capitalism to fix that; at the end of the day these are two philosophies dictating the mechanical approach we use to allocate resources. I think what we need is reform at the government level, to ensure that "maximum utility" that capitalism seeks remains aligned with maximizing the _public _good, and doing the most good for the largest number of people. Capitalism or communism can both go astray, the point of a functional government is to try to prevent that from happening. I think it's a government breakdown more than an economic one, augmented by the fact that the economic recovery of the last 11 years has definitely favored labor over capital. That's gotta change.

I want to see a broadening of the tax base, as well as higher progressive rates, and any claim that this will somehow "disincentivize people from working" is a load of crap from people who know just enough economics to not realize how stupid they sound. I think we CAN move to a single payer insurance model and that in the long run we probably should, but also there's a LOT of people - normal middle class Americans - who are employed by private insurers and providers, and if we just flip the switch overnight there's going to be a lot of avoidable job losses so we have to figure out how to do this in a phased approach to break as few proverbial eggs as possible. I think college tuition is getting insane, and if we keep tackling rising costs with easier and easier access to student loans we're just going to feed the bubble, so maybe that's an area where rethinking how we handle state tuition and actually blowing up that system COULD make sense. I think my taxes personally are too low, and I'm not HALF as rich as Randy seems to think I am.

And, at the end of the day, my issue with populism is mob rule. American democracy is imperfect, but it at least attempts to balance the interests of the minority against the majority. Populism doesn't, and when you start mixing anger and populism, well, all bets are off.

For what it's worth, I thought Clinton would have made a perfectly fine president, but that's about as deep as it goes. She's hardly my "prototypical best pick." She was just the best we had on offer in 2016, I thought.



tedtan said:


> These are, largely, my issue with Sanders, however, his upside is that, even if he is unable to achieve what he talks about achieving, he still moves the bar further left than anyone else. So, for example, even if he can't provide free university access to all right now (and he can't), it may become a reality in another eight, twelve, or sixteen years because Bernie put it on our collective conscience now whereas we definitely won't achieve that without Sanders.
> 
> So even if he isn't elected, he's playing an important role in not only introducing these ideas to the US population, but doing so in such a way as to legitimize them in a country that is notoriously anti socialist.


So, why not Warren? She's basically Bernie with some structure. Both will struggle to get anything done with probable Republican opposition in at least one chamber for at least their first two years, but Warren at least has fleshed out policy behind her plans, whereas Sanders has a list of objectives with a couple high level bulletpoints on how he wants them to work.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> So, why not Warren? She's basically Bernie with some structure. Both will struggle to get anything done with probable Republican opposition in at least one chamber for at least their first two years, but Warren at least has fleshed out policy behind her plans, whereas Sanders has a list of objectives with a couple high level bulletpoints on how he wants them to work.



Agreed, though I don't think either are particularly electable unless Sanders wins from a populist angle like Trump did in 2016. Then again, based on the exit polls available at present, both seem to have done better last night than I would have predicted, so if the final results are in line with the exit polls, maybe they have a better shot than I'm giving them at this point.


----------



## spudmunkey

From 2004:
https://politics.theonion.com/democ...zAeVgo02HB0zzCmSbnB330sqFbuOL8FbF-BUY7YGZNKSs

*"Democrats Somehow Lose Primaries"*


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Agreed, though I don't think either are particularly electable unless Sanders wins from a populist angle like Trump did in 2016. Then again, based on the exit polls available at present, both seem to have done better last night than I would have predicted, so if the final results are in line with the exit polls, maybe they have a better shot than I'm giving them at this point.



At this point, I'm trying very consciously to not even speculate on results - exit polls looked good for Sanders and Buttigieg, but exit polls have their own issues, and we have less than 2% of the vote to actually rely on at this point, and trying to project what the overall looks like from that base is just a huge stretch.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> That's coming across a little more personally-directed than normal, Randy. I have no problem with us disagreeing with each other or not seeing eye to eye, but this sounds a little more like you have a personal bone to pick here.



I just get grumpy around lunchtime. Nothing personal  

That was just an approximation of most of the common critiques I hear and maybe some observation. The Hillary thing was the only intentional jab, I didn't mean to imply you're "an out of touch rich guy" I just meant you work in an industry that caters to that group. I don't hold a personal grudge unless you're living off of capital gains, then we need to throw down.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I just get grumpy around lunchtime. Nothing personal
> 
> That was just an approximation of most of the common critiques I hear and maybe some observation. The Hillary thing was the only intentional jab, I didn't mean to imply you're "an out of touch rich guy" I just meant you work in an industry that caters to that group. I don't hold a personal grudge unless you're living off of capital gains, then we need to throw down.


 It's cool. I'm kinda running on fumes at work at the moment anyway, I probably get testier than I should here and there too.  Just wanted to make sure I hadn't accidently hit a nerve or something. 

I WISH I was living off capital gains. 

Anyway, get might actually get some results in about 15 minutes.


----------



## bostjan

Something about Warren just rubs me the wrong way. I'd vote for her if there was a lack of a choice that agreed with me more, but not before researching her a little better.

This whole thing about the company that did the app that didn't work having strong ties to someone with nebulous ties to HRC is a little weird, but I'd bet that there are a lot of tech companies that are 2.5x removed from someone that would make a shady situation seem a lot shadier - it's a six degrees of separation thing, I think.

But that's not to say that there isn't something potentially fishy about the Des Moines poll getting torpedoed, the app not working, and then the revelation that quite a few key people knew that the app wouldn't work well in advance. That's all a lot more interesting to me. If this legitimately all comes back to HRC and her pizza parlor, I mean, programming company, then I'll be quite surprised.

The Trump supporters are going to be wearing some pretty wide grins over all of this at least until the NH primary. If, somehow, for any reason, NH turns into a shitshow, after this, I just, I don't know...



spudmunkey said:


> From 2004:
> https://politics.theonion.com/democ...zAeVgo02HB0zzCmSbnB330sqFbuOL8FbF-BUY7YGZNKSs
> 
> *"Democrats Somehow Lose Primaries"*





bostjan said:


> I predict that the guy from Vermont will place third, despite his momentum, get overly excited, make a funny noise, and then people will make fun of him for years to come. Wait, what year is it? 2004, right?



I was being facetious, but I think I somehow called it.

Concerning Bernie Sanders, the guy is a Socialist. No, that doesn't mean what your uncle Archie thinks it means, but it is something rather sticky in the USA. He was one of the only people in congress to say "Hey, wait a minute" with the Patriot Act, which I still see as one of the worse pieces of legislation ever penned in the USA, and he was one of the only people to say "No" to the Iraq War, which I still contend was the stupidest decision-for-war that our nation has made to date. He's stood up to Trump and been batted down. He's done some stuff here in Vermont that may have made decent sense at the time based on principle, but ended up costing this state's economy dearly in the long run.

For all of those reasons I dislike him, but I dislike him less than Joe Biden and a lot less than Trump.

I've been pretty consistent about voting Libertarian for presidents, except when I end up thinking I'll like a major party candidate (Obama in 2008 - although I was sorely disappointed) or particularly dislike the Libertarian candidate (Barr, in the same election, may have been the worst choice ever). This year, I was considering breaking that pattern, just because I believe that Trump is doing extensive damage to our future and to our liberties. But, as it is, it looks like the Democratic Party is going to break its leg on its way to the starting line of the race.

At the moment, only NH has had it's Libertarian Presidential Primary, and, after 2016 being the party's biggest election year, satire candidate Vermin Supreme won. Guess I should start making room for my free pony. 



Drew said:


> Anyway, get might actually get some results in about 15 minutes.



Earlier today, the media was reporting that they were promising 50% of the results by 5 PM. I can't recall if that was Eastern or Central Time, though. It's looking like it must be Central, since it's after 5 PM now and no results.


----------



## bostjan

...and there they are: https://www.google.com/search?q=iow...rome..69i57.2006j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Pete and Bernie pretty close (still only 62% results in)
Liz picking up just maybe 3 delegates, and Joe just barely not getting any. Maybe this will change in the next hour or two or three...


----------



## spudmunkey

I'll admit that I haven't given pete much (*cough*any*cough*) attn.

Are there any particular speeches or writings of his that I should start with that are particularly noteworthy?


----------



## stockwell

People surprised by the DNC openly rigging the election against Sanders: where were you in 2016? This isn't a conspiracy theory. I'd call it an open secret if the DNC even cared about keeping it a secret. We have the Podesta emails. The party apparatus did everything they could to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination. And everyone seems to have forgotten, or just didn't care enough. 

Odd to see people still equating Warren and Sanders. That canard doesn't work anymore. Even if they were ideologically similar (they aren't), Warren is clearly not a viable candidate. If you did support Warren, now's the time to switch to Sanders. I suspect most Warren supporters will switch to Biden or Pete, as those candidates closer represent their interests. 

If you're interested in Pete, I'd read up on the Loblaw bread fixing scandal.


----------



## Randy

I'm having trouble understanding why there was such an arbitrary cutoff in results?


----------



## narad

allheavymusic said:


> If you're interested in Pete, I'd read up on the Loblaw bread fixing scandal.



Oh, I know Loblaw. Bob Loblaw. I read his law blog.


----------



## zappatton2

"Oh, I know Loblaw. Bob Loblaw. I read his law blog."

At this point, I think they could all use with A Nu Start.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Predictions:

- DNC moves away from Biden and courts Buttigieg 

- Klobuchar eventually relents and throws support behind Buttigieg

- Biden holds out until "gracefully passing the torch" to Buttigieg

- Warren never endorses Sanders, embittering both sides further 

- We wind up with Buttigieg as the nod and he chooses a milquetoast running mare to seem even more centrist 

- Trump wins

Sorry, I'm just trying to get better at spelling "Buttigieg".


----------



## diagrammatiks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Predictions:
> 
> - DNC moves away from Biden and courts Buttigieg
> 
> - Klobuchar eventually relents and throws support behind Buttigieg
> 
> - Biden holds out until "gracefully passing the torch" to Buttigieg
> 
> - Warren never endorses Sanders, embittering both sides further
> 
> - We wind up with Buttigieg as the nod and he chooses a milquetoast running mare to seem even more centrist
> 
> - Trump wins
> 
> Sorry, I'm just trying to get better at spelling "Buttigieg".



it's like one of those choose your own adventures but the last page is just the same.


----------



## Randy

Sounds pretty accurate to me.

Not saying a progressive would be a slam dunk either, because this party is pretty divided, but I do think the disinterest in Hillary Clinton were primarily among blue collar and progressive Democrats, and a Buttigieg/McCauliffe or Buttigieg/Gillibrand type ticket doesn't deliver that group either. Buttigieg gets an extra boost from the fact he's a midwestern guy with some military service but most people I've talked to cool off to the "hey, who's this new kid from the middle of nowhere that speaks really well?" when they read his resume a little deeper.

Buttigieg could win if the election is 3 or 4 months from now but he's probably going to peak during the summer and he'll be old news by November.


----------



## tedtan

Buttigieg seems to do well with educated white professionals, but he's a tough sell to blue collar workers and the black and Latino (especially Mexican American) demographics, so I don't think he'll get very far, even if the election were to be held within the next few months.

For anyone to have a shot at beating Trump, they'll need a broad support base, and that's just not Buttigieg.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> Sounds pretty accurate to me.
> 
> Not saying a progressive would be a slam dunk either, because this party is pretty divided, but I do think the disinterest in Hillary Clinton were primarily among blue collar and progressive Democrats, and a Buttigieg/McCauliffe or Buttigieg/Gillibrand type ticket doesn't deliver that group either. Buttigieg gets an extra boost from the fact he's a midwestern guy with some military service but most people I've talked to cool off to the "hey, who's this new kid from the middle of nowhere that speaks really well?" when they read his resume a little deeper.
> 
> Buttigieg could win if the election is 3 or 4 months from now but he's probably going to peak during the summer and he'll be old news by November.


Not sure if it's changed or not but irrc Pete is among the worse of the Dem noms when it comes to the black vote, both young and old. Combine that with him not having the appeal to undecided voters or people who've lost faith in their vote being meaningful like Sanders or Warren and I just can't see him being much of a threat to Trump.

Edit: @tedtan just beat me to it


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Predictions:
> 
> - DNC moves away from Biden and courts Buttigieg
> 
> - Klobuchar eventually relents and throws support behind Buttigieg
> 
> - Biden holds out until "gracefully passing the torch" to Buttigieg
> 
> - Warren never endorses Sanders, embittering both sides further
> 
> - We wind up with Buttigieg as the nod and he chooses a milquetoast running mare to seem even more centrist
> 
> - Trump wins
> 
> Sorry, I'm just trying to get better at spelling "Buttigieg".


 

Two areas I disagree. 

I think VOTERS move away from Biden and embrace Buttigieg, if anything. If we're going to buy into this "secretive establishment forces are tipping the scales" stuff, Democratic party elite were always leery of Biden for his age and his habit of talking first and thinking second in public appearances. He's the front runner because he's just very well known and very popular with Democratic voters. A poor showing in Iowa might question his electability argument some, which is a good part of his appeal as "the guy who can beat Trump" but it also might not, and the rank-and-file older Democratic vote where his base has been may stick with him anyway. 

I also think Sanders is still likely to win in NH. Buttigieg is too far back for any bounce to bring him into contention, and neither Sanders nor Warren are close enough. 

If push came to shove, there's bad blood there, but I'm reasonably sure Warren would endorse Sanders, "for the good of the party." I'm less convinced Sanders would endorse anyone else, especially after his fairly tepid support of Clinton in 2016 not giving the eventual winner much incentive to negotiate with him for an endorsement, but even then I still think it's probably more likely than not that he endorses the winner. The fact that he's likely to win the raw vote in Iowa and come in second in the delegate count to someone NOT Biden probably helps - it's hard to argue it's rigged and generate much outrage, while still touting the fact you've won by one measure. 

I'd say Biden is still the modest favorite, but by less so than he was over the weekend, and Sanders' odds of winning are somewhat better than they were. Buttigieg's odds are a LOT better, but that's off an extremely low base and he mostly won the right to live to fight another day in Iowa.


----------



## sleewell

i see bloomberg having a bigger role as each current candidate looks less and less viable. if you really think about it he has the best chance to beat trump. with the right VP choice he would be the only one to have a chance. major pete is going to get crushed in SC.

that person wanting to change their vote after finding out he was gay was hilariously pathetic but should be an eye opener as lots of ignorant ppl still think that way in the states that will decide the general election.


----------



## StevenC

I'm not super well up on the periphery of lefty politicians in America, so if Sanders were to win the nomination who do you guys reckon would be his running mate?


----------



## vilk

He would be a fool not to ask Warren, don't you think?


----------



## wannabguitarist

MaxOfMetal said:


> Predictions:
> 
> - DNC moves away from Biden and courts Buttigieg
> 
> - Klobuchar eventually relents and throws support behind Buttigieg
> 
> - Biden holds out until "gracefully passing the torch" to Buttigieg
> 
> - Warren never endorses Sanders, embittering both sides further
> 
> - We wind up with Buttigieg as the nod and he chooses a milquetoast running mare to seem even more centrist
> 
> - Trump wins
> 
> Sorry, I'm just trying to get better at spelling "Buttigieg".



Barring any major scandals between now and November I don't see any of these candidates beating Trump 

We got:
-Sanders, who has never faced any real opposition campaign. Does very well with blue-collar groups, but socialist is still a dirty word in American politics and he's pretty open about raising taxes. 

-Warren. My personal favorite but she's not going to look good against Trump on a debate stage. People want to be entertained; they don't give two shits about well thought out policy. It's a damn shame because she's a more reasonable Bernie with more well thought out ideas (though fuck wealth taxes).

-Pete. Why is he running again? Mayor of small town in Indiana? Yeah come on. Maybe in another 10 years. 

-Biden. Damaged goods to everyone that supported Trump throughout the impeachment process. Also damaged good to the fringes of the left.


----------



## sleewell

i think it would be a mistake to ask her. he already would have those votes, do you see warren fans voting for trump?

AOC would explode heads on the right.

stacey abrams would be a good choice if she would accept.

amy k would help bring in moderates.

kamela harris would also be a good choice, again if she would accept.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Stacey or Amy would be interesting. AOC is awful and would be a guaranteed loss


----------



## sleewell

yeah no i agree but the butthurt she would cause would be hilarious.


----------



## Drew

Abrams would be a savvy pick. And Harris bailed early likely with an eye on a potential VP pick. 

Sanders picking Warren would be dumb, his biggest vulnerability is his cool/fractured relationship with the establishment, and he's going to have to do something to bridge that. Even Warren would probably need a more moderate running mate.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

I don't think AOC could even be a running mate given she's too young to be POTUS in the event that she would have to assume the role. Warren is the most obvious choice of VP for Bernie even if they had that spat a month ago


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> i see bloomberg having a bigger role as each current candidate looks less and less viable.



I can see Bloomberg falling into that role, too.




sleewell said:


> that person wanting to change their vote after finding out he was gay was hilariously pathetic but should be an eye opener as lots of ignorant ppl still think that way in the states that will decide the general election.



Agreed; there are still a lot of people in the US that are against homosexuality, whether for religious reasons or whatever other reasons they may have, and we can't forget that from a practical and strategic perspective.


----------



## vilk

I went to South Bend to see a BTBAM and Veil of Maya show in 2009 (Animals As Leaders opening, but I feel like their CD wasn't out yet, I only just had two or three mp3s called "Tosin Demo" I don't even know how or where I got them), and it was _rough_. Reminded me a lot of Gary, which I grew up next to. BTW guys, Gary is not a nice place. I'm not sure how much Pete could have done for South Bend just by being the mayor, maybe it's much better now 10 years later? But if not, I feel like being the mayor of South Bend is really not much to be bragging about.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I went to South Bend to see a BTBAM and Veil of Maya show in 2009 (Animals As Leaders opening, but I feel like their CD wasn't out yet, I only just had two or three mp3s called "Tosin Demo" I don't even know how or where I got them), and it was _rough_. Reminded me a lot of Gary, which I grew up next to. BTW guys, Gary is not a nice place. I'm not sure how much Pete could have done for South Bend just by being the mayor, maybe it's much better now 10 years later? But if not, I feel like being the mayor of South Bend is really not much to be bragging about.



At the beginning of this story I was expecting you to run into Buttigieg in the pit.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> At the beginning of this story I was expecting you to run into Buttigieg in the pit.



No he's talking about Pete, not Beto


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> He would be a fool not to ask Warren, don't you think?



Brand is too close if they want to get enough people under the tent. HRC's comments and the Kerry threat already a sign establishment Dems are willing to flush if they don't like the ticket. Amy works, Kiki works, Harris works, Abrams works but I've never been impressed with her resume. Probably doesn't have the resume for it either but as a New Yorker, I've been super impressed with Letitia James. There'd probably be some hand wringing over two white guys on the ticket but Bernie/Pete has an interesting dynamic to it.

Edit: Beto too!


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> No he's talking about Pete, not Beto



This thread is now about what politician you DON'T want to run into in the pit.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Brand is too close if they want to get enough people under the tent. HRC's comments and the Kerry threat already a sign establishment Dems are willing to flush if they don't like the ticket. Amy works, Kiki works, Harris works, Abrams works but I've never been impressed with her resume. Probably doesn't have the resume for it either but as a New Yorker, I've been super impressed with Letitia James. There'd probably be some hand wringing over two white guys on the ticket but Bernie/Pete has an interesting dynamic to it.
> 
> Edit: Beto too!



I'd also like to point out the difference between my thinking on this and establishment Dems.

Blue-Dogs 2016: OH YOU WON'T VOTE FOR THE DEM TICKET JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PROGRESSIVE? YOU'RE BASICALLY GIVING THE RACE TO TRUMP.

Me 2020: The other half of the party may potentially abandon us in the general if the ticket is too one-sides. Rather than having everything I want, how about something that has some appeal for everyone?


----------



## bostjan

https://www.newsweek.com/new-poll-s...er-beating-donald-trump-2020-election-1485852

Buttigieg scores the lowest against Trump out of the potential nominees.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Vyn

I've been following the impeachment trial more closely than this so I've only just caught up. What a fucking mess. I want to think otherwise however from an outsider's viewpoint, IDC just gave November to Trump on a platter, table service and all


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> I've been following the impeachment trial more closely than this so I've only just caught up. What a fucking mess. I want to think otherwise however from an outsider's viewpoint, IDC just gave November to Trump on a platter, table service and all



It's all doom and gloom now, myself included, but let's see how things go over the next couple months. 

The American people have short memories, and I'm sure something will happen in that time that makes this look trivial. 

Or...the DNC continues fucking up royal, which is equally possible.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's all doom and gloom now, myself included, but let's see how things go over the next couple months.
> 
> The American people have short memories, and I'm sure something will happen in that time that makes this look trivial.
> 
> Or...the DNC continues fucking up royal, which is equally possible.



Everything in an election builds off of whatever was happening before, even if people stop talking about it, though. This getting off on the wrong foot thing could be remedied with moderate difficulty, but, on the other hand, whatever mindset people had that led to this will undoubtedly hinder more progress in the future.

But, on the other side of the other side, Trump does so many newsworthy clusters every week that it's difficult to keep track of politics at all. For example, remember when he paid off a porn star to not talk about their affair? Any other politician, and that'd be game over, as soon as that saw daylight. With Trump, that's not even skimming the top ten list of scandals.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe Biden should have told the IDC to "learn to code."


----------



## wannabguitarist

Randy said:


> View attachment 77269
> View attachment 77270
> View attachment 77271



Very weird. None of the candidate's vote totals match with the official total being 2% (154 votes) lower than what that dude is claiming. Steyer and whoever the hell Patrick is actually seem to benefit the most from whatever this fuck up is.




Slow day at work so here's a picture 

I still think this is a major fuck up that looks nefarious because of the party's inability to communicate and plan for worst case scenarios. Software issue+poorly trained individuals+no controls over the process=guaranteed shitshow.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## stockwell

The rational null hypothesis should be that the DNC is rigging Iowa to obfuscate or prevent a clear Sanders victory. It's not a conspiracy theory, considering that we have precedent from 2016. Key party and DNC leaders are openly hostile to Sanders, they didn't release the Des Moines poll, they've moved caucus locations around 6h before the event, there's discrepancies between reported totals and listed totals, they're transferring votes to Steyer and Deval Patrick (there's no world in which Patrick was viable, I didn't even know he was running), and of course there's the app. Yeah, the app is crap, but it's also crap with financial ties to Pete. That's not even considering all the coin flips (nice democracy lol), the difference between popular vote and delegates, and how the slow trickle of results which makes it look like Pete is winning. 

I feel like a crazy person watching people ignore this. But at the same time, Sanders is a leftist, so of course the centrist party is trying to screw him over. You're gullible if you think an unaccountable party apparatus like the DNC cares about democracy more than their ideological interests. 

The Democratic party made a deal with the devil when they moved from the party of labor to the party of urban professionals in the 70s. They've moved right ever since, AND they gave up the populist lane. So now the GOP can use vaguely populist (but actually racist) rhetoric and get it for free, with zero policy changes. Sanders is the reckoning for that. Either the party will split or they'll have to convert.


----------



## Randy

Still only at 91% reported. I thought the totals into the app were fine, no crashes, it was just going slow? What app takes two full days to transfer fucking numbers?


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Still only at 91% reported. I thought the totals into the app were fine, no crashes, it was just going slow? What app takes two full days to transfer fucking numbers?



That's sort of a difficult question to address without knowing how the app was designed. Doesn't sound like the front end or the database. If there were no issues collecting the data, and the reporting on the back end is accurate (if a little slow), I'd personally look at how efficiently the middleware is functioning. But that's just a wild guess.


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> Very weird. None of the candidate's vote totals match with the official total being 2% (154 votes) lower than what that dude is claiming. Steyer and whoever the hell Patrick is actually seem to benefit the most from whatever this fuck up is.


That would be Duval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts, and the last guy to enter the race.

NY Times has been running their own analysis, have caught a number of discrepancies as well, but think most of them look like human error rather than fingers on the scales. In the case of Steyer and Patrick, they suspect it was a spreadsheet error, with a staffer accidently copying results into the wrong column of a spreadhseet and reallocating votes that should have gone to Sanders and Warren to Steyer and Patrick.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Worth a read.



allheavymusic said:


> The rational null hypothesis should be that the DNC is rigging Iowa to obfuscate or prevent a clear Sanders victory. It's not a conspiracy theory, considering that we have precedent from 2016.


It is 100% a conspiracy theory, you just want some way to justify believing something that you have a vested interest in believing. At least be honest with yourself about that.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Still only at 91% reported. I thought the totals into the app were fine, no crashes, it was just going slow? What app takes two full days to transfer fucking numbers?


They're not using the app. This is now a hand count.


----------



## eggy in a bready

Sanders has the DNC shook. They're desperately trying to stop his momentum, as evidenced by this absolute clusterfuck of a caucas. If you don't smell the ratfuckery here, you're braindead


----------



## Randy

My new barometer for best candidate is whoever scares James Carville the most. I'm putting together a team of scientists to reanimate Joseph Stalin for 2024.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My new barometer for best candidate is whoever scares James Carville the most. I'm putting together a team of scientists to reanimate Joseph Stalin for 2024.


----------



## spudmunkey

eggy in a bready said:


> Sanders has the DNC shook. They're desperately trying to stop his momentum, as evidenced by this absolute clusterfuck of a caucas. If you don't smell the ratfuckery here, you're braindead



https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-mulls-asking-donald-trump-to-run-as-democrat-in-eff-1841432132


----------



## sleewell

did anyone see that trump trolls from 4chan kept clogging the phone lines in iowa so they couldn't call in the results? 

and we were just talking about civility right? lol.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Eye for an eye makes the world blind. Same tune I've been singing since the 2016 election cycle- the more vitriol you go after one side with, the more vitriol you're going to get from them in return.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> did anyone see that trump trolls from 4chan kept clogging the phone lines in iowa so they couldn't call in the results?
> 
> and we were just talking about civility right? lol.


I did NOT see that. Source? If the Dems, as a party, want to push ANY story coming out of that debacle, seizing on the fact that part of the reason there were 45 minute wait times while caucuses were trying to call in results was a direct result of Trump voters fucking with the system is one of the best angles they could take, and makes the decision to use an app (superficially, at least ) less crazy-seeming.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Pete on the issues

Not digging what he's doing. He's basically a younger, gay, Biden-esque centrist. I'm tired of Centrists.


----------



## sleewell

Drew said:


> I did NOT see that. Source? If the Dems, as a party, want to push ANY story coming out of that debacle, seizing on the fact that part of the reason there were 45 minute wait times while caucuses were trying to call in results was a direct result of Trump voters fucking with the system is one of the best angles they could take, and makes the decision to use an app (superficially, at least ) less crazy-seeming.




https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...online-encouragement-disrupt-results-n1131521

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...flooded-iowa-caucus-hotline-top-democrat-says


----------



## vilk

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Pete on the issues
> 
> Not digging what he's doing. He's basically a younger, gay, Biden-esque centrist. I'm tired of Centrists.



He (well I'm sure it wasn't him personally but still) just got caught adding an applause track to a video.


It's really too bad (not because I like Buttigieg), but Americans aren't ready to elect a homosexual leader. There is a very significant portion of the population, probably the majority, that believe there's a literal magic dude in the sky that's going to send them to eternal torture supermax not just for being gay, but even just being accepting of homosexuals at all. Like, it's not even up to them (in their mind).

That's insurmountable, in my cynical pessimist opinion.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...online-encouragement-disrupt-results-n1131521
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...flooded-iowa-caucus-hotline-top-democrat-says


Huh. 

Also, considering Trump is getting mileage out of mocking the Democratic Party for not even being able to hold a caucus, I think we need to seriously explore publicly mocking Trump - say, in a debate - for not even being able to pressure the Ukrainians into investingating the Bidens, with the full weight of the US government behind him. "You call yourself a dealmaker? Shit, it's been more than a year, you blocked three hundred million in aid, almost got impeached along the way, and the Ukrainians STILL won't announce an investigation of the Bidens. We need a president who _gets shit done!_"


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Also, considering Trump is getting mileage out of mocking the Democratic Party for not even being able to hold a caucus, I think we need to seriously explore publicly mocking Trump - say, in a debate - for not even being able to pressure the Ukrainians into investingating the Bidens, with the full weight of the US government behind him. "You call yourself a dealmaker? Shit, it's been more than a year, you blocked three hundred million in aid, almost got impeached along the way, and the Ukrainians STILL won't announce an investigation of the Bidens. We need a president who _gets shit done!_"



You win the internet today.


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> It is 100% a conspiracy theory, you just want some way to justify believing something that you have a vested interest in believing. At least be honest with yourself about that.



Everyone has a bias, but that doesn't mean I'm not right. The Democrats are openly hostile to Bernie and the DNC is accountable only to itself. After all, it's a political party with a ideology that contradicts his. I would be genuinely astonished if they did nothing to prevent a Sanders win. I'm not a mark who believes in the sanctity of institutions that have always been corrupt. 

Here's a visualization of the data (can't vouch for it being perfect but it seems reliable). https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521. It's true that I don't know that the party top-down organized efforts to stop Sanders, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Do you think it's a coincidence that all the errors seem good for Pete and bad for Sanders? We have means, motive, opportunity, and mounting evidence. What do you want me to think, bias or no bias? 

Votes aside, the information was trickled out in such a way that it looked like Pete had a strong lead. Turns out that Sanders won in popular vote and the delegates were essentially identical. But Iowa is essentially a commercial, and it sure seems convenient that the way the information was released in a way that benefited Pete and hurt Sanders. I'm not gonna do the mental gymnastics required to think that a capitalist party and for-profit media aren't fighting an anti-capitalist every way they can. 

Anyway, the takeaway for me is that Biden's campaign is DOA. His only real sell was electability, but it turns out name recognition isn't worth as much as people thought. FiveThirtyEight has Sanders a 1 in 2 chance of winning the primaries (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/). Who's electable now?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

allheavymusic said:


> Anyway, the takeaway for me is that Biden's campaign is DOA. His only real sell was electability, but it turns out name recognition isn't worth as much as people thought. FiveThirtyEight has Sanders a 1 in 2 chance of winning the primaries (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/). Who's electable now?



Biden thinking he has the same equity in 2020 that he did in 2016 or prior, peak Obama/Biden bro-love memes, was a miscalculation. It was a misstep for the DNC to think he had as much of a chance in 2020.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> My new barometer for best candidate is whoever scares James Carville the most. I'm putting together a team of scientists to reanimate Joseph Stalin for 2024.



Wont work he has too many rough edges. 
What need you need a nice smooth Vladimir Lenin. Bonus points he was also a Democratic Socialist.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

So far this has played out similar to how I expected, even Buttigieg, Iowa tends to be smaller towns and probably thinks along a similar tack to that of smaller towns and cities in Indiana. Why wouldnt they guy that speaks their language (and doesnt have much political baggage) do at least decently well. But the whole thing in Iowa seems a little odd.

At this point I dont know whos gonna go against trump but either way its gonna be an uphill fight for whoever get the nod.

@vilk S.Bend is not quite the pit that is Gary, but thats not a hard bar to get over at all. I do really wonder why ANYONE would want to use being mayor of any place in Indiana (save Indy maybe but that has other implications *cough*Eli Lilly*cough*) as a selling point.


----------



## Randy

allheavymusic said:


> His only real sell was electability, but it turns out name recognition isn't worth as much as people thought. ... Who's electable now?



Yeah, that's my main concern. I spent the last three years complaining about Sanders; I think the guy is too old and 'gave in' too much to Hillary after basically painting her as unelectable for a year. But in the current crop, he somehow is the bread with the least mold on it.

Nothing to do with my core beliefs, I just want to see someone beat Trump. We can work the rest out. The problem is that the Democratic Party knows that's a prevailing sentiment, so they're running on that theme and pushing "electability" as their core concern, then elevating their least electable people who, coincidentally, are the most beholden to corporate interests and perpetuating status quo, and otherwise have no identity.

I have a hard time believing those are the core values voters are looking for.

Its hilarious to me that Hillary and people like Carville are out there pushing that electabililty and "ability to deliver on campaign promises" are tethered to eachother. Because Mitch McConnell's Senate is going to pass anything Joe or Pete put up? Only if it's in line with their own directives. So Pete is a quality prospect because he might put up another Wall Street bailout or another tax cut? Military spending increase? 

I'm not sure why populism became a Boogeyman term but the idea that giving people things they want is considered unelectable or far-left is borderline Fox News brainwashing. "Why is Sanders no good?" "because he promises universal health care and he can't deliver it. I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg because at least I know he's not going to give us universal healthcare because he's not going to try". Brilliant!


----------



## stockwell

Populism has become a term to conflate any right and left movements that get broad support. Very telling when "having popular support" is a criticism, but it's the same recycled horseshoe theory over and over. 

When I think of populism, I think of William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, and the People's Party. Not perfect by any means, and working towards very different political aims (bimetallism anyone?), but they fought for regular people against robber barons, and they built a coalition across racial lines. There's a long history of US labor movements that we've all collectively forgotten. Every good thing we have (bans on child labor, minimum wage, 5-day workweek, 8-hour workday, workplace safety, collective bargaining rights, etc.) wasn't reformed into existence, it was fought for by people who called themselves populists, unionists, syndicalists, socialists, and yes, even communists. But that history has been taken away from us by a century of scaremongering and red-baiting. 

Sanders isn't just old, he's a relic. He's a relic of a time before Carter and the Democrats abandoned labor, and before Reagan delivered the coup de grace by breaking the ATC strike. Almost a century of Taft-Hartley and union-busting. GM, Tesla, Amazon, they all openly stamp out any hint of unionization with no legal recourse. Regardless of what he can actually pass or not pass against a GOP congress, having an unabashed socialist in office would take the boot off the throat of organized labor. That would absolutely be a force for positive change.


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local...gh-republican-partys-voter-registration-tent/


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> I'm not sure why populism became a Boogeyman term but the idea that giving people things they want is considered unelectable or far-left is borderline Fox News brainwashing.



Literally because of Trump. Since he was a populist all populists are bad now.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Everyone has a bias, but that doesn't mean I'm not right. The Democrats are openly hostile to Bernie and the DNC is accountable only to itself. After all, it's a political party with a ideology that contradicts his. I would be genuinely astonished if they did nothing to prevent a Sanders win. I'm not a mark who believes in the sanctity of institutions that have always been corrupt.
> 
> Here's a visualization of the data (can't vouch for it being perfect but it seems reliable). https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521. It's true that I don't know that the party top-down organized efforts to stop Sanders, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Do you think it's a coincidence that all the errors seem good for Pete and bad for Sanders? We have means, motive, opportunity, and mounting evidence. What do you want me to think, bias or no bias?
> 
> Votes aside, the information was trickled out in such a way that it looked like Pete had a strong lead. Turns out that Sanders won in popular vote and the delegates were essentially identical. But Iowa is essentially a commercial, and it sure seems convenient that the way the information was released in a way that benefited Pete and hurt Sanders. I'm not gonna do the mental gymnastics required to think that a capitalist party and for-profit media aren't fighting an anti-capitalist every way they can.
> 
> Anyway, the takeaway for me is that Biden's campaign is DOA. His only real sell was electability, but it turns out name recognition isn't worth as much as people thought. FiveThirtyEight has Sanders a 1 in 2 chance of winning the primaries (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/). Who's electable now?


Three points here - 

1) Everyone having a bias doesn't mean you ARE right, either. 

2) The fact there are three seperate vote tallies here really complicate the analysis - none of them are really a "popular vote" because this is a caucus, not a conventional primary. But, even from the first couple percentage points we got in, Sanders was leading both the pre-realignment and post-realignment vote counts, while Buttigieg was leading the State Delegate Equivalent count, which historically has been the only tally reported. None of that really fits the narrative that information was released in an order to help Buttigieg and hurt Sanders. Let's also not forget that coming into this caucus it was widely expected to be a contest between Sanders and _Biden_, not Buttigieg, and Buttigieg's strong performance was a surprise. 

3) I wouldn't could Biden out just yet. Iowa and New Hampshire are both states not expected to be especially strong for him, and 538 has been open in their chats about the fact their model gives a lot of weight to Iowa, but then will be really responsive to national polls for the next week or so. We haven't seen much fresh national polling, but what we've seen suggests that there really hasn't been THAT big a drop in national support. I suspect what we're seeing is just that the model was designed to respond very aggressively to surprises in Iowa, but over time if those surprises don't impact national polling or other state polls, then to let the impact of Iowa fade. And Sanders' narrow 2nd place finish was right in line with ecpectations, for a close race where he was either first or second - the surprise was Buttigieg and not Biden being the other candidate in the top two. If this translates into a pronounced slide in national support for Biden, then he has problems, but until that happens I'd be leery of interpreting that probability - I think this is an information vacuum more than anything at the moment. 

3.) a) Correllary - Biden's case was to be the most electable in the _general_ election, by being able to appeal to moderates. Whether you agree or not, that's not a case predicated on his appeal to _Democrats_ (where he's well liked, but was not the first choice of a majority of Iowans). 


I guess the only other two things I'd mention here, is Buttigieg seems to have become the bogeyman of the Sanders campaign in a hurry since Iowa, and a lot of conspiracy theories are getting kicked around saying the Iowa Democratic Party was intervening to rig it for him, whereas prior to the caucus that was Biden. That seems a little... inconsistent. Also, if the Sanders voters are really concerned that the DNC is really trying to rig the election to name a 37 year old openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as their candidate... Shit, that's progress, ins't it?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm not sure why populism became a Boogeyman term but the idea that giving people things they want is considered unelectable or far-left is borderline Fox News brainwashing. "Why is Sanders no good?" "because he promises universal health care and he can't deliver it. I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg because at least I know he's not going to give us universal healthcare because he's not going to try". Brilliant!






allheavymusic said:


> Populism has become a term to conflate any right and left movements that get broad support. Very telling when "having popular support" is a criticism, but it's the same recycled horseshoe theory over and over.
> 
> When I think of populism, I think of William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, and the People's Party. Not perfect by any means, and working towards very different political aims (bimetallism anyone?), but they fought for regular people against robber barons, and they built a coalition across racial lines. There's a long history of US labor movements that we've all collectively forgotten. Every good thing we have (bans on child labor, minimum wage, 5-day workweek, 8-hour workday, workplace safety, collective bargaining rights, etc.) wasn't reformed into existence, it was fought for by people who called themselves populists, unionists, syndicalists, socialists, and yes, even communists. But that history has been taken away from us by a century of scaremongering and red-baiting.
> 
> Sanders isn't just old, he's a relic. He's a relic of a time before Carter and the Democrats abandoned labor, and before Reagan delivered the coup de grace by breaking the ATC strike. Almost a century of Taft-Hartley and union-busting. GM, Tesla, Amazon, they all openly stamp out any hint of unionization with no legal recourse. Regardless of what he can actually pass or not pass against a GOP congress, having an unabashed socialist in office would take the boot off the throat of organized labor. That would absolutely be a force for positive change.


When I think of populism, I think of mob rule. The thing American Democracy does best is protect the minority from the majority. I have a problem with Sanders the populist for the same reason I have problems with Trump the populist. You may be relatively new here, but Randy and I have had a LOT of conversations about this over the years, and I've been pretty consistent in my concern that populism is a threat to democratic (small-d) institutions, and is content to trample them if it gets in the way of whatever 51% of the country wants.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> 51%



The alternative, however, is the 49% (or frequently 10% or even 1%) trampling the will of the 51%+. Which has been a legitimate issue in this country in a lot of ways and at a lot of times.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The alternative, however, is the 49% (or frequently 10% or even 1%) trampling the will of the 51%+. Which has been a legitimate issue in this country in a lot of ways and at a lot of times.


I think that's more an economic discussion, though, balancing the interests of people vs corporations, and to a lesser extend the rich vs the poor. And that's absolutely something we need to do better at.

But, I don't think populism is really the answer to that, save that I hope things like overturning Citizens' United and "corporate personhood" have broad popular support. Any defense of Sanders as a populist also has to contend with the fact that Trump is a populist and the Tea Party was a populist movement. And in a majority white nation, that's bought us things like the Mexican Border Wall and the Muslim Ban, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord and radically scaling back environmental legislation and opening national parks to drilling. Brexit was the result of a populist wave, too, while we;re at it.

Idunno. Populism makes me _deeply_ uncomfortable, and I'm not saying that as a "have" facing the prospect of a Socialist presidency, because while I've done well enough for myself, I'm nowhere NEAR where Warren and Sanders are targeting. I just think, I guess, that if your critique of my issue with populism is that it disregards the rights of the minority, then pointing out that often times the minority disregards the rights of the majority just because they happen to be in power, isn't really a defense of populism - rather, I think we need to just stop expecting or allowing whoever's in power to rule with impunity and trample on the rights of those out of power, and we shouldn't be focuised on "power to the people," we should be focused oin strengthening the constitutional checks on power and strengthening civil rights and strengthening the minimum protections that _everyone_ in this country gets.

Like, if all populism changes is which particular group of people is getting trampled, that's not really an answer. We need to be building a government that works for ALL Americans, rich or poor, black brown or white, Muslim or Catholic, male female or nonbinary, whatever... Rather than just trying to build up a big enough team to fuck up those other guys. We haven't always been perfect at protecting the minority from the majority, but at least we try, and often times we DO succeed. That's what makes the American form of democracy worth protecting.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Trump is a populist and the Tea Party was a populist movement. And in a majority white nation, that's bought us things like the Mexican Border Wall and the Muslim Ban, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord and radically scaling back environmental legislation and opening national parks to drilling. Brexit was the result of a populist wave, too, while we;re at it.
> 
> I think we need to just stop expecting or allowing whoever's in power to rule with impunity and trample on the rights of those out of power



I started writing something really long but you ended up making my point for me. Most of your gripes on populism can be chalked up as abuses of power just like 1%er abuses.

I personally think the Trump populist items you outlined are legitimate concerns and probably a good reason why he won. Because there's an inconvenient truth behind them. The difference is that Trump dispenses his "solution" to these things with zero empathy and ultimately not a real solution, just red meat for the base.

Removed from the context of Trump, abusing his power and the racism and sucking up to corporations, unvetted immigration (at the southern border and from volatile counties), carbon emission standards that the US are exponentially expected to pay for (while China, India, Russia, etc. polute the most unrestricted), foreign megarich royal families dictating out energy prices, etc ARE real problems that are unfair to people in this country regardless of party. The only problem is that Trump finds the most unapologetic asshole way to address each one in a way that's always a hand out to the racists and to the wealthy.

The problem isn't the concerns laid out by the populists in this country, it's the solutions (or lack thereof).


----------



## Randy

NH predictions?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> NH predictions?



Damn near carbon copy of Iowa. 

Maybe a couple positions will swap by one, but I'm not expecting much surprises. 

Post NH, we'll probably see the <1% candidates drop out.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Biden is really trying to temper expectations in NH which is odd when his entire selling point is his electability. I see Mayor Pete doing well but then going down when we get to states that aren't majority white voters.


----------



## Randy

At least as far as polls go, the Iowa bounce appears to be real. Looking like it'll be Sanders/Pete, Pete/Sanders but if Pete drops to third (unlikely, but possible), I think he loses the momentum and Biden becomes viable again. I've seen too many 4th and 5ths surging and coming back down to Earth to believe Pete goes the distance until I see him win or top 2 in some legitimate states.


----------



## sleewell

i said mayor pete would have a rise a long time ago and lots of people said i was nuts.

i also said bloomberg would be a top contender and i think that is still going to happen. i think at this point most people think he has the best chance to beat trump which should be the main concern at this point.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I started writing something really long but you ended up making my point for me. Most of your gripes on populism can be chalked up as abuses of power just like 1%er abuses.
> 
> I personally think the Trump populist items you outlined are legitimate concerns and probably a good reason why he won. Because there's an inconvenient truth behind them. The difference is that Trump dispenses his "solution" to these things with zero empathy and ultimately not a real solution, just red meat for the base.
> 
> Removed from the context of Trump, abusing his power and the racism and sucking up to corporations, unvetted immigration (at the southern border and from volatile counties), carbon emission standards that the US are exponentially expected to pay for (while China, India, Russia, etc. polute the most unrestricted), foreign megarich royal families dictating out energy prices, etc ARE real problems that are unfair to people in this country regardless of party. The only problem is that Trump finds the most unapologetic asshole way to address each one in a way that's always a hand out to the racists and to the wealthy.
> 
> The problem isn't the concerns laid out by the populists in this country, it's the solutions (or lack thereof).


FWIW, I think this is the main problem with both capitalism AND socialism - people are just really shitty, and if you give _anyone_ the reins of power in any system, they'll abuse it for their own gain if they can. How that helps us here or points to a path forward, fucked if I know. 

Polling suggests Buttigieg and Sanders 1-2, though probably in the reverse order. I think a Buttigieg _win_, especially by a decent margin, would really throw this race into disarray, partly by being a huge upset loss for Sanders (he won NH 60-40 in 2016 and is currently the strong favorite), partly by making Buttiigieg look like suddenly he could be more competitive nationally, although his support amongst black voters is still pretty weak so I think a Buttigieg win here would mostly increase the likliihood of no one winning a majority of delegates, and longer term would probably boost the chances of either Biden or Bloomberg being the nominee. 

We DO have some good polling in the wake of Iowa. Sure enough, Biden has slid in the national polls, is now tied with Sanders in 538's aggregate, and a decline in his perceived "electability" seems to correlate strongly with this change. To the guy up there plugging Sanders as the "electable" candidate, though, it's worth noting that Sanders' support _itself_ really hasn't budged - he's a low ceiling/high floor candidate - so much as Biden's has fallen while Sanders has remained unchanged. Rather, the two major beneficiaries of Biden's drop have been Buttigieg, as expected, and Bloomberg, whose perceived electability jumped as Biden's fell. 

I'm not sure I like what this says about the rest of the race. Sanders is almost certain to contest this election to the last day even if he's lost all shot of a majority or plurality of candidates, as he did in 2016. There's some natural Sanders/Warren overlap, so unless she drops out early (and she seems more likely to be a crossover candidate than Sanders, so I'm not sure what would drive her to), that seems more likely than Sanders winning outright. If Biden continues to fall, if Buttigieg finishes respectably in NH but fails too win and his campaign never catches fire, then it's pretty reasonable to see Bloomberg becoming the "electability," "beat Trump" candidate. And, while I could see the center rallying behind Bloomberg, and the more technocratic Warren campaign endorsing him and bringing her coalition behind him, a guy who's last name is synonymous with Wall Street investment data terminals is gonna be an awfully hard sell for Sanders' anti-billionare, anti-Wall Street supporters. And, he's a high floor candidate, and looks like he's got a pretty good lock on a quarter of the primary electorate. If half of his supporters hold their nose and vote for Bloomberg because he's not Trump, that's still enough people sitting the election out to pretty much torpedo Bloomberg's (or Buttigieg's, or Biden's, or any other moderate candidate they see as too cozy with Wall Street, but Bloomberg has easily the worst optics) chances in the general election. 

I've held for a long time now that Trump is a modest underdog in 2020, but increasingly I'm starting to worry that we're going to hit the DNC convention with a badly fractured party, and that if so Trump's odds get a lot better (unless he does something TRULY stupid).


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> I've held for a long time now that Trump is a modest underdog in 2020, but increasingly I'm starting to worry that we're going to hit the DNC convention with a badly fractured party, and that if so Trump's odds get a lot better (unless he does something TRULY stupid *that affect his fanbase's viewership of him*).



Bolded for emphasis - he'll always do something stupid, it's just that those who like him are too blinded to realize it.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Bloomberg becoming the "electability," "beat Trump" candidate



A few headlines last week that Bloomberg has the widest margin of victory against Trump (someone linked that article earlier) in a head-to-head but when you make it past that line, he's at 47% vs Trump, then Biden and Sanders both at 46% vs Trump. Not an appreciable difference.

The difference between you and I on this is that the BULK of the angst I'm seeing is a legitimate freakout about the possibility Sanders is the nominee. It's not that we're going to have a fractured Democratic Party or a brokered convention, it's that Sanders might be the nominee.

And I don't say that as, you know, some kind of establishment conspiracy. I'd say it's 20% establishment freakout and 80% "he's an ancient socialist, he's going to get clobbered" assumption. I'm not trying to make you a Sanders fan, I've been harping on this the last couple months because I've hoping to season you to the concept that he might actually end up being the nominee, so lets try to find silver linings, and lets walk back the "OMG we're definitely going to lose" sentiment.

If the Democratic Party is fractured come convention 2020, that's just as much on the establishment wing as it is Sanders camp; maybe more. I personally think a lot of people are feigning a fake freakout about electibility just because they don't want the guy. The idea that the mayor of a podunk town in Indiana as the nominee is calming but a US Congressperson of 30 years is grounds for a total conniption fit is mind numbing.


----------



## Drew

No, I'm definitely seeing some of that too, and for similar reasons (not concern that he wins, so much as concern he's going to get blown out in the general). I'm just looking past that, to what happens next, for two reasons - one, Sanders has never been a perceived front runner until now, and every time someone else has been a front runner, the subsequent scruitiny has hurt them - Biden, for being old and for his son's business dealings, Warren, for her MFA plan being so unworkable even she had to scale back to an "interim" plan, Buttigieg, for the "wine crystal cave billionares' event," etc. The odds of some negative spin or story against Sanders not emerging seems low. And two, because if a whole bunch of people start freaking out about him winning the primary and losing the general, his support amongst voters who value "electability," whatever the fuck that is, is going to plummit, and his support should drop a little. It's possible that, similar to the GOP in 2016, getting 20-25% of the vote in enough states is a viable road to the ticket, but the GOP favors winner take all contests while the DNC usually uses some form of proportional representation, so the most _likely_ outcome is Sanders fades, we cycle through a few other front runners, and there's a growing chance no one gets a majorty.

You want to know my nightmare scenario? Sanders stays consistent in that above scenario, but 2-3 other candidates do well, and we finish with Sanders winning a plurality of maybe 30% of the delegates, with 2-3 other moderates in the 15-20% range and a couple other candidates with single digit support. Say, Bloomberg, Biden, and Buttigieg combine to 60% of delegates split pretty evenly, Bernie takes 30%, and maybe Warren has 10%. Bernie has more delegates than any other candidate, but the "moderates" collectively outperform the "progressives" 60-40.

The three moderate Bs have a clear incentive to do some dealmaking here, and let's say Buttigieg agrees to have his delegates vote Biden in return for the VP spot, while Bloomberg honors his pledge to do whatever he can to beat Trump in November and throws his delegates behind the other two. What sort of meltdown do you think we get from the Sanders camp in this scenario? I mean, shit... It's a perfect storm, Bernie claims he "won" so he should be the candidate, but doesn't have the votes to actually get the spot on the ticket and then accuses the moderates of conspiring against him to rob him of his win. I could be misjudging Bernie here, but I have a hard time believing that if he wins a plurality of the popular vote, but not by enough to stop other candidates from forging a consensus ticket that would give them the majority of pledged delegates, that he's just going to take that without raising hell.

EDIT - Also, @Randy - that "electability" comment was more driven by the fact that Bloomberg's electability polling numbers jumped in lock-step, as Biden's fell. There may be a pretty close race going on there, but he saw the biggest change.


----------



## Randy

I think nightmare scenario was 2016. 

The factured-ness of the Democratic Party on it's own, muchless the Sanders insistence that it was rigged (which was constantly being fed more oxygen by the party's cavalier attitude as details leaked). Then the specifics of the Hillary campaign and her as the nominee, with the endless amount of material they were able to slow walk on her, day after day, week after week. Then the ultimate middle-finger by picking a lap dog as a running mate. Then they gave Sanders or his agents control over the platform, so now you had Hillary "blows in whatever direction the wind is going, but doesn't mean anything she says" Clinton on stage arguing for the same shit she said was bullshit for the 10-months preceding it. That's all before you get into the meddling.

You remove any one of those components. A nominee with less baggage. A decisive CLEAN victory for the nominee. A running mate that satisfies the other half of the party. A platform that's consistent with the nominee's messaging throughout. No meddling. You remove any one of those things and I think you get a victory.

MY nightmare scenarios is Biden or Buttigieg: has baggage and is gaining baggage, contested "fix is in" perception already, picking a Duval Patrick or Amy Klobucher type VP, having to court progressives last minute by taking on policies they turned into a laugh line for the previous 10-months (Pete, especially), and the absolute legalization of foreign interference made possible by the DOJ and the Senate.

And so far, to me, outside of the Bernie trend UPWARD, that ends up looking like the most likely scenario, that looks precisely like a slow-march to 2016 all over again.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> No, I'm definitely seeing some of that too, and for similar reasons (not concern that he wins, so much as concern he's going to get blown out in the general). I'm just looking past that, to what happens next, for two reasons - one, Sanders has never been a perceived front runner until now, and every time someone else has been a front runner, the subsequent scruitiny has hurt them - Biden, for being old and for his son's business dealings, Warren, for her MFA plan being so unworkable even she had to scale back to an "interim" plan, Buttigieg, for the "wine crystal cave billionares' event," etc. The odds of some negative spin or story against Sanders not emerging seems low. And two, because if a whole bunch of people start freaking out about him winning the primary and losing the general, his support amongst voters who value "electability," whatever the fuck that is, is going to plummit, and his support should drop a little. It's possible that, similar to the GOP in 2016, getting 20-25% of the vote in enough states is a viable road to the ticket, but the GOP favors winner take all contests while the DNC usually uses some form of proportional representation, so the most _likely_ outcome is Sanders fades, we cycle through a few other front runners, and there's a growing chance no one gets a majorty.
> 
> You want to know my nightmare scenario? Sanders stays consistent in that above scenario, but 2-3 other candidates do well, and we finish with Sanders winning a plurality of maybe 30% of the delegates, with 2-3 other moderates in the 15-20% range and a couple other candidates with single digit support. Say, Bloomberg, Biden, and Buttigieg combine to 60% of delegates split pretty evenly, Bernie takes 30%, and maybe Warren has 10%. Bernie has more delegates than any other candidate, but the "moderates" collectively outperform the "progressives" 60-40.
> 
> The three moderate Bs have a clear incentive to do some dealmaking here, and let's say Buttigieg agrees to have his delegates vote Biden in return for the VP spot, while Bloomberg honors his pledge to do whatever he can to beat Trump in November and throws his delegates behind the other two. What sort of meltdown do you think we get from the Sanders camp in this scenario? I mean, shit... It's a perfect storm, Bernie claims he "won" so he should be the candidate, but doesn't have the votes to actually get the spot on the ticket and then accuses the moderates of conspiring against him to rob him of his win. I could be misjudging Bernie here, but I have a hard time believing that if he wins a plurality of the popular vote, but not by enough to stop other candidates from forging a consensus ticket that would give them the majority of pledged delegates, that he's just going to take that without raising hell.
> 
> EDIT - Also, @Randy - that "electability" comment was more driven by the fact that Bloomberg's electability polling numbers jumped in lock-step, as Biden's fell. There may be a pretty close race going on there, but he saw the biggest change.



I think Bernie is smart enough that he'll take a moderate for VP. He'll honestly need it for there to be any hope for him. I think the field needs to start self eliminating and drop the I need to win ego once its clear who's going to be the front runner. Just drop out. Get behind the leader and quit with the infighting. It will mean a cleaner election process with more time to plan how to take Trump down. We've got just shy of 9 months. Time to drop the egos. Either way, I'll vote blue. Doesn't matter who it is. They're all better than what we have.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> I think Bernie is smart enough that he'll take a moderate for VP. He'll honestly need it for there to be any hope for him. I think the field needs to start self eliminating and drop the I need to win ego once its clear who's going to be the front runner. Just drop out. Get behind the leader and quit with the infighting. It will mean a cleaner election process with more time to plan how to take Trump down. We've got just shy of 9 months. Time to drop the egos. Either way, I'll vote blue. Doesn't matter who it is. They're all better than what we have.



Yeah, what the fuck are folks with sub-1% doing? 

It's too late in the game for these folks to shift the field either way. 

I think we'll see some drop outs with the NH results. Hopefully.


----------



## Drew

I agree we should expect some serious culling after tonight - at a minimum, Duval Patrick should see the writing on the wall when he doesn't crack more than 2-3% in the state neighboring his, and will probably drop out before he has to get blown out in his home state. He won't move the needle, but I could also see Buttigieg, if he DOESN'T do well in NH (say, top 3) bailing too, as the next couple states aren't especially friendly for him. A surprise 4th behind Sanders, a resurgent Biden, and Warren, and I think he's looking at the calendar, not liking his odds in Nevada or South Carolina, and at least thinking about dropping. I suppose similar scenarios could be painted for Biden, especially if Buttigieg upsets Sanders and gets some real momentum going. 

Otherwise, it's still a close enough race that Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg all have plausible enough chances to hang in to at least Super Tuesday, and Bloomberg's whole strategy is not contesting anything UNTIL then. And right there you have five candidates combined polling with support from 78.4% of the 538 aggregate averages, so ther remaining 11.6% isn't going to move the needle THAT much unless it all goes to one or two candidates. 


Thaeon said:


> I think Bernie is smart enough that he'll take a moderate for VP. He'll honestly need it for there to be any hope for him. I think the field needs to start self eliminating and drop the I need to win ego once its clear who's going to be the front runner. Just drop out. Get behind the leader and quit with the infighting. It will mean a cleaner election process with more time to plan how to take Trump down. We've got just shy of 9 months. Time to drop the egos. Either way, I'll vote blue. Doesn't matter who it is. They're all better than what we have.



But, that's why that scenario I outlined is so nightmarish - Bernie doesn't get to _pick _a VP. He doesn't have the support of a majority of delegates. He absolutely could offer Buttigieg the VP spot, for example, and hope he takes it, but Buttigieg (or Biden, or Bloomberg, or whoever) might decide that he'd rather run with a more idealogically-aligned name at the top of the ticket, and there IS real concern that Bernie may do reasonably well with Democrats, but that a majority of Americans isn't yet prepared to vote for a Socialist. What happens if a moderate puts together a coalition to gain support from a majority of pledged delegates? Will Sanders respect that? Or, more to the point, will Sanders' _supporters _respect that?


----------



## Randy

Getting Drew to imagine Bernie as the nominee is like getting the Fonz to say he was wrong. Words just won't come out.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Getting Drew to imagine Bernie as the nominee is like getting the Fonz to say he was wrong. Words just won't come out.


I think the second most likely scenario, FWIW, right now is Bernie winning an outright majority of pledged delegates, in which case he's our nominee.

I just think it's more likely that his spot as the front runner is just as short lived as Warren's and Buttigieg's were, but his high floor leaves him with a plurality of delegates but well shy of a majority, with a clear majority of delegates clustered around a couple moderate candidates that eventually coalesces into a moderate ticket with the support of a majority of delegates. And if that's the case, I think we get an _ugly_ convention and a divided party. In case this wasn't clear, I'd vastly prefer Bernie win outright than that sort of contested convention, although in either case I think Trump becomes the favorite.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Sanders has never been a perceived front runner until now, and every time someone else has been a front runner, the subsequent scruitiny has hurt them - Biden, for being old and for his son's business dealings, Warren, for her MFA plan being so unworkable even she had to scale back to an "interim" plan, Buttigieg, for the "wine crystal cave billionares' event," etc.



I think that's your biggest miscalculation. It's not like Bernie is invisible. He's the only person that was on track to run against Trump four years ago who's on the ticket this time. They know him and just because he's the consummate 'runner up' doesn't mean he hasn't taken hits because he's not a big enough target yet. 

If anything, if I were on the fence about Sanders, the fact the worst they've had on him is "he's a socialist, he made a million dollars off a book and his wife got a big salary off a college that sunk" should inspire confidence, not tepidness.

As far as the 'bounce' of Biden, Warren and Buttigieg (I think Harris and Yang should fall under this banner as well), I don't think it's because they were the big ones on the stage and took all the shots. I think most of them peaked too early.

Yang and Harris are examples of people who basically had one 'special' move that they used too early, they had no depth beyond that and they got stale quickly. 

Warren is my number one pick, being a progressive that is still a consensus builder is a good look, going to war with Bernie over minutiae was a power grab that ultimately looked petty, so it gave her a quick boost but ultimately drained her quickly (Harris trajectory was similar). 

Biden exhausted a certain amount of his 'good faith' attached to the Obama legacy (like all two terms presidents, people are ready for a change by year eight), then he went on his Presidential world tour two or three years ago (selling the book) and basically peaked at the point when everyone was waiting for him to announce. I was content with the primary season playing out with him, Sanders and a half dozen other people and Biden getting the top pick as a status quo candidate, and taking a 'big picture' person (progressive ideally, but not essential) at VP like Warren. He's probably the one guy that suffered the most from the slings and arrows, I think less about being the front runner and more because he had a LOT of skeletons to reach for, and probably further tainted by Trump's hatred for all things Obama. I'd still put that under the 'peaked too soon' banner.

That's my biggest concern about Buttigieg. For such a small guy, he's got so many scandals already. I wouldn't have imagined the mayor of South Bend Indiana played a pivotal role in lobbying to privatize the United States Postal Service. He had little bouts of peaking early on and kept getting knocked back own over the never ending scandals in the city's police department that should've either not existed or been super easy to fix. The fact things like that fester, or that there's a perception out there about he's a lobbyist/corporatist pick, and then he holds the 'wine cave with crystal chandelier' fundraiser, or that Iowa is a clusterfuck toss-up and he decides to hold a victory speech less than 24 hours after the original closing does NOT bode well for the serving of humble pie he's going to be dealt over the next several months. I like the guy on a communications and organizational level but I've honestly never seen a guy with such a rinky dink resume with some many things hiding under every rock. He absolutely peaked in Iowa, the question is how sharp the downward trajectory is and hopefully that doesn't mean him bottoming out in November.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I think that's your biggest miscalculation. It's not like Bernie is invisible. He's the only person that was on track to run against Trump four years ago who's on the ticket this time. They know him and just because he's the consummate 'runner up' doesn't mean he hasn't taken hits because he's not a big enough target yet.
> 
> If anything, if I were on the fence about Sanders, the fact the worst they've had on him is "he's a socialist, he made a million dollars off a book and his wife got a big salary off a college that sunk" should inspire confidence, not tepidness.


Listen, if he wins, I hope to _god_ you guys are right about him, about his electability.


----------



## vilk

There are all kinds of federal and state laws that act to prohibit bribery of elected officials, even restrictions on the campaigns themselves...

...However, to my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing stopping Bloomberg from using his infinite money to simply purchase as many delegates as he pleases. Right? He can't pull that shit at a caucus, but otherwise we can basically assume that Bloomberg will """""win""""" *cough*cough* the all delegates lacking the integrity to resist his cash, which I will assume is the majority, for rest of the states that don't have anything to stop him.

...but if I'm mistaken about purchasing delegates please correct me on that because I'd like to know.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> There are all kinds of federal and state laws that act to prohibit bribery of elected officials, even restrictions on the campaigns themselves...
> 
> ...However, to my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing stopping Bloomberg from using his infinite money to simply purchase as many delegates as he pleases. Right? He can't pull that shit at a caucus, but otherwise we can basically assume that Bloomberg will """""win""""" *cough*cough* the all delegates lacking the integrity to resist his cash, which I will assume is the majority, for rest of the states that don't have anything to stop him.
> 
> ...but if I'm mistaken about purchasing delegates please correct me on that because I'd like to know.


This gets murky quickly.

By the rules, I think the _first _ballot is pledged delegates only, and is for the most part binding where if you were elected as a pledged delegate for a particular candidate, you're required to vote for them:

No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person’s presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.[11] ”
—Rule 13.I (p. 14)[9]
“ Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.[11] ”
—Rule 13.J (p. 14)[9]

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020

Though, there are a few states that do allow provisions for candidates to change their support if the candidate they're pledged to has dropped out of contention.

Straight up offering to pay delegates to vote for you, no matter how rich you are, probably wouldn't work out very well. To be fair those two rules don't carve in stone the fact that you could change your vote, provided 1) the _party_ doesn't tell you to change, and 2) you believe that your change reflects the sentiments of the people who voted to elect you to support that candidate you're pledged to.

Now of course if you mean use his money to buy a fuckload of ads and convince people to vote for him, then yeah, that's kinda his strategy.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

If Bloom or Buttigieg secure the nom, I'm sitting this one out.


----------



## tedtan

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> If Bloom or Buttigieg secure the nom, I'm sitting this one out.



You'd rather have Trump for another four years?


----------



## SpaceDock

I really think people should stop looking for a candidate that doesn’t have a scandal or checks all their boxes. We need to get behind candidates that have ideas that we agree with, then if they lose, get behind who ever the candidate is.

there is too much worry about scandals, look at the insane Trump scandals. Not one of them has slowed him down. There is too much “oh but they don’t do blank or they just aren’t blank enough.” If we fall on these ideas, Trump will win. This is like the Bernie bro’s that wouldn’t get behind Clinton and I see way too much of this with Warren now. You think Republicans wanted Trump or that he was even the perfect candidate, no way! Why he won is because they fell in line.


----------



## spudmunkey

Maybe it's just my circle, but have never heard anyone say about Bernie, "He's not my favorite, but I think he's OK and I'd vote for him."

It's only ever, "He's my first pick" or "I'll vote for anyone besides Trump". It's like bernie is nobody's runner up...either seen as the pick-of-the-litter, or the last resort.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

tedtan said:


> You'd rather have Trump for another four years?


Bloom and Buttigieg haven't shown me anything that says that they're substantially different from Trump besides being slightly more "civil" in their approach. Do you really want the guy who was fine with "Stop and Frisk" to wield presidential power for 4 years?


----------



## tedtan

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Bloom and Buttigieg haven't shown me anything that says that they're substantially different from Trump besides being slightly more "civil" in their approach. Do you really want the guy who was fine with "Stop and Frisk" to wield presidential power for 4 years?



He's not my first choice by any stretch of the imagination, but if it were to come down to him or Trump, yeah, I'd certainly rather have him than Trump.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Listen, if he wins, I hope to _god_ you guys are right about him, about his electability.



Hey, I want a Warren/Booker ticket so that I don't have to prove shit to anybody


----------



## Randy

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> If Bloom or Buttigieg secure the nom, I'm sitting this one out.



Valuable lesson that "get rid of Trump at all costs" isn't the rallying cry the DNC thinks it is. We need ideas and candidates that inspire or 1/3rd of the potential voters we need stay home.


----------



## bostjan

Sanders ahead but with 14% reporting. Yang is out.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> Valuable lesson that "get rid of Trump at all costs" isn't the rallying cry the DNC thinks it is. We need ideas and candidates that inspire or 1/3rd of the potential voters we need stay home.


Bingo! Though, I'm sure I'll probably eat crow come November


----------



## Vyn

Biden 5th. I reckon he's cooked.


----------



## Randy

I'm envisioning an alternate reality where Sanders is the 2016 pick, loses and four years of establishment "ha ha told you so!", so then the party is clamoring for a moderate pick in 2020.


----------



## stockwell

Biden and Warren continue to tank, and apparently they're not reaching the delegate threshold at NH. Now, Biden is supposed to do well in the south...which is exactly where Pete will tank, given that he consistently polls at 0% with PoC. I think Pete's surge is illusory. At least, I hope it is. He could very well be a more dangerous president than Trump, in the long run. Trump is terrible, but he's not committed to a dedicated imperialist project. Pete has a map of Afghanistan's mineral and natural resources in his home. 

Pete, Warren, and Biden crossed the streams by all competing for the moderate lane. If Warren had stuck to the left lane she might have been able to pull support from Bernie. She wouldn't have been able to take the left lane from him, but she could have freed up the centrist lane for one of the Bs. I do think media pushed her disproportionately hard in order to get that type of outcome. Unfortunately for her, her team's tactical instincts are terrible. Every step towards the center and every punch left halved her support with no return from the moderates. 

Bloomberg is a threat. Is he trying to actually get the nomination or is he running as a spoiler candidate? If Bernie gets the nomination, will Bloomberg run independent to prevent a Bernie presidency? As funny as the beef between Bloomberg and Trump is, they share the same class interests. Unless he's extremely petty, I don't see why Bloomberg wouldn't prefer Trump to Bernie. Bloomberg is probably a more dangerous vector for intensifying the police state and sliding towards fascism than Trump is. He has enough aesthetic neutrality to get centrists to look the other way for openly fascist programs like stop and frisk.


----------



## Randy

Buttigieg wins Iowa by .1%, gets two more delegates. Sanders wins NH by 1.5%, both get equal delegates. I keep forgetting why I hate horse race politics. Wake me up in November.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Buttigieg wins Iowa by .1%, gets two more delegates. Sanders wins NH by 1.5%, both get equal delegates. I keep forgetting why I hate horse race politics. Wake me up in November.


Not just that, but, because Iowa was a caucus, that one delegate represents literally 2 people's votes. In NH, Sanders is leading by roughly 3500 votes, but since it's not a stupid caucus with nonsense rules, and 3500 is not 1/24th of the total vote, it kinda makes sense to yield equal amounts.
Darn coastal elites and their attempts at fairness! [/joke]


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Hey, I want a Warren/Booker ticket so that I don't have to prove shit to anybody


Fair.  I could totally get behind that ticket, for what it's worth, I'm still not exactly sure who I'm voting for in Mass, but Warren is short list for me. 

Man, what a clusterfuck this race is becoming.  While Sanders and Buttigieg come out the least bad last night, I think there's reasons for all candidates to be concerned.


Both Biden and, especially, given proximity to MA, Warren should have done better than they did last night. Instead, they both missed the 10% delegate threshold. Biden needs a strong showing in NC to remain viable, and neither Iowa nor NH should have been especially strong states for him, but this is a degree beyond that.
Klobuchar surged on the strength of a good debate performance and a strong showing among late deciding voters, second only to Buttigieg, per exit polling. But, she's polling at 4% nationally, NH was reasonably friendly territory for her, and its really hard to see a path forward for her campaign.
Buttigieg had a strong night, tied Bernie in the delegate count, is now our delegate leader, and came within a couple thousand votes of winning the state, which represents his slightly outperforming expectations though that masks how quickly expectations rose for him after Iowa... But, NH was also theoretically friendly territory for him, and not only did Klobuchar block what would otherwise likely have been an outright win for him, she's now another moderate getting some exposure and muddying his path forward, and Nevada and especially South Carolina are not states where he's likely to do well, so he'll have his perceived momentum stall out coming into Super Tuesday, when he needs to maximize to to block out Bloomberg, to have a chance at the nomination.
Sanders won... but under-performed expectations and won by less than a percentage point and a half, garnering about 28% of the vote, in a state he carried by 60% in 2016. The progressive vote combined between he and Warren is only slightly more than half of that, and exit polls suggest that voters had, in 2016, supported Clinton in the low 60%s and Sanders in the mid 30%s, so either that's some real selective memory going on, or Sanders is simply struggling to turn out voters the way he did four years ago. Someone earlier said it was foolish for Biden to count on the "equity" he would have had in 2016, in 2020 - I think the same needs to be said about Sanders. The electorate seems to prefer a moderate, and while he leads national polling, he's only in the high 20s. That's not a path to a majority of delegates unless he finds a way to broaden his base.

Seriously, from the progressives of all stripes and from Sanders supporters in particular, I'd love some color on how Sanders expects to expand his base, given that moderates are outperforming progressives in both national voting and what states we've seen vote so far, and that exit polls and vote totals both suggests he's struggling to get the support he had in 2016. If Sanders is the front runner, I'm legitimately curious what the case is for "moderate" voters to support him, as well as for "electability" focused voters to support him, because he really seems too be struggling to make inroads into those two groups, and it looks like that represents the majority of the Democratic public right now.

The 538 model now thinks no candidate winning a majority is only a couple percentage points less likely than a Bernie win, something like 34% to 37%, but honestly I think some reversion to the mean is likely unless Bernie does tack towards the middle, and subjectively I think no candidate winning an outright majority is the most likely outcome.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> moderates are outperforming progressives in both national voting



That's a silly red herring of a challenge. Progressive politics on the national stage is in it's infancy. AOC, Tliab and Omar are the first progressive Democrats people have seen on the national stage that weren't crusty old men like Bernie or Kucinich. The fact that we're only like, 2 to 4 years max into the progressive national movement and we're trying to read into viability on random races is deliberately misleading. Progressives are massively overperforming based on their resources alone.


----------



## thraxil

I think it's also the case that many progressives are somewhat disenfranchised within the Democratic primaries. I won't necessarily argue that in a general election a progressive would do better than a moderate, but in the primaries that are closed off to anyone that hasn't jumped through the hoops to participate (significant in some states), candidates who toe the more moderate party line have an advantage.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That's a silly red herring of a challenge. Progressive politics on the national stage is in it's infancy. AOC, Tliab and Omar are the first progressive Democrats people have seen on the national stage that weren't crusty old men like Bernie or Kucinich. The fact that we're only like, 2 to 4 years max into the progressive national movement and we're trying to read into viability on random races is deliberately misleading. Progressives are massively overperforming based on their resources alone.


In the long run, I fully agree.

In 2020, two to four years into the progressive national movement, it's an incredibly relevant consideration for the 2020 race. The progressive wing of the party is smaller than the establiishment or moderate or centrist or whatever you want to call it wing. A progressive candidate has two paths forward - either build a broader coalition and win over enough moderates, or hope the moderate vote stays divided so that they can hijack the process with minority plurality support. Of the two, if Bernie is going to potentially be our nominee, I'd _vastly_ prefer he try to do the former.

EDIT - and, I think you know this, Randy, but it's not that I necessarily have a problem with progressive politics. I share a lot of Sanders' goals, though I disagree on a lot of the ways to get there, and ten years from now I hope what's considered "progressive" today is pretty mainstream Democratic politics, in a lot of the way that the party has already moved pretty far leftwards since 2016. I just think that unless Bernie wants to try to win in the general election as a factional candidate who gets the nomination by dividing the moderate majority, he needs to be thinking about how he's going to win over moderates. And most Sanders supporters are harping on either 1) that he beats Trump in a head to head matchup (which all the Democrats do) or 2) taking shots at all the other candidates. And neither strategy is really likely to win over supporters.


----------



## Randy

My whole gripe for the last... at least 4 years but probably 12+ years is that progressive politics are about ideas, and my prototypical Democratic superhero is FDR, who was ALL moonshot ideas. He was able to show that not only could big ideas work, but they could be done at times of significant hurdles (Dust Bowl, Depression, World War), often solving those issues and having resounding effects almost 100 years out.

I don't know when the Democratic Party became the party of coming to the table with 50% as their first offer, but it's astounding Democrats still try to argue negotiating from a position of pragmatism when something like Obamacare was one siding saying "lets figure out a way to make healthcare affordable and accessible to everyone" and the Republicans rebuttal was LITERALLY "Let 'em die!".

The idea that Democrats needs to shelve all issues because their Republicans counterparts are an assumed immediate "no" is a concept that's way past it's shelf life, especially after they cried austerity for 8 years and then they let their gold child run up the deficit by orders of magnitude. If this country is going to move ahead with the rest of Western society, they're going to have to start at what's good for the people and campaign on getting rid of people that deny them that. Being the party of 5% different than the Republicans isn't going to get you there.


----------



## stockwell

Bernie's appeal is to working class people. He's got overwhelming support among people under 30. Unfortunately, those are the people who are least likely to participate in electoral politics. People either can't get time off work (national holiday for primaries and elections when?) or don't feel any politician is on their side. It was especially disheartening to hear that 48% of NH voters decided within the last few days. I think most people don't believe their vote will do anything. And after decades of right vs. center-right, I don't blame them. 

I am underwhelmed by the NH results. That said, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada represent a very small share of the total number of delegates. It's 3,000 or so, right? Nevada will probably not be great for Bernie. It's another caucus, rules were shuffled around last time, and there's a culinary workers union that mobilized its members against him in 2016. Which is not in the interests of the members, but that's another discussion. 

Iowa/NH/Nevada are an advertisement. I think Bernie's achieved something by showing that he's solidly in the lead. But I do agree that without overwhelming support, he can't spearhead a takeover or split in the party, which is what has to happen for the left to gain ground. I guess we have to wait for Super Tuesday to have reliable predictions. 

Respect to Yang, I think he was very misguided but he seemed like a decent person.


----------



## stockwell

A quick comment on the Republican Primary. It seems several states have cancelled their primary and are allocating all their delegates to Trump. This is why centrism is so dangerous. Centrists are afraid to wield power, whereas the right has no qualms about doing so. Centrist politics will always cede ground to the right, as we've seen with Obama and Clinton perfectly setting up for Trump. Nothing about a centrist politics rooted in protecting capitalism can meaningfully contest the right. This is why I'm so concerned about a moderate candidate (especially Bloomberg or Pete) coming into power. Trump is awful, but there are far worse out there with the international rise of authentic, full-throated fascism. 4 years of quiet suffering under neoliberal austerity could easily set up for a more extreme shift rightwards, especially when you account for climate change.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My whole gripe for the last... at least 4 years but probably 12+ years is that progressive politics are about ideas, and my prototypical Democratic superhero is FDR, who was ALL moonshot ideas. He was able to show that not only could big ideas work, but they could be done at times of significant hurdles (Dust Bowl, Depression, World War), often solving those issues and having resounding effects almost 100 years out.
> 
> I don't know when the Democratic Party became the party of coming to the table with 50% as their first offer, but it's astounding Democrats still try to argue negotiating from a position of pragmatism when something like Obamacare was one siding saying "lets figure out a way to make healthcare affordable and accessible to everyone" and the Republicans rebuttal was LITERALLY "Let 'em die!".
> 
> The idea that Democrats needs to shelve all issues because their Republicans counterparts are an assumed immediate "no" is a concept that's way past it's shelf life, especially after they cried austerity for 8 years and then they let their gold child run up the deficit by orders of magnitude. If this country is going to move ahead with the rest of Western society, they're going to have to start at what's good for the people and campaign on getting rid of people that deny them that. Being the party of 5% different than the Republicans isn't going to get you there.


Without taking a stance on the relative merits, I think Clinton popularized the line of thinking that running on what you think you can actually get done, and delivering, was a more viable path forward than running on what you'd like to do, damn the torpedoes. 

That's a conversation for another time, though, and probably over a couple rounds of beers.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Without taking a stance on the relative merits, I think Clinton popularized the line of thinking that running on what you think you can actually get done, and delivering, was a more viable path forward than running on what you'd like to do, damn the torpedoes.
> 
> That's a conversation for another time, though, and probably over a couple rounds of beers.



Like I said, look at FDR. A more skeptical person would say "run on what you can actually get done" can also be interpreted as "run on how far your donors will let you".


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Without taking a stance on the relative merits, I think Clinton popularized the line of thinking that running on what you think you can actually get done, and delivering, was a more viable path forward than running on what you'd like to do, damn the torpedoes.
> 
> That's a conversation for another time, though, and probably over a couple rounds of beers.



I think that evoking the idea that you're going to run on a certain set of moderate and agreeable ideals and then being more progressive once elected is a recipe for handing the keys back once up for reelection. I think we're in a state of, a certain amount of radical shift is necessary to move forward and back away from the constant shift toward the right and fascism. Continuing with moderate candidates is a capitulation to the shift right. So much so, that the country in general views Clinton and Obama as Liberal. When you look at them respective to the actual ideologies, they were for the most part right leaning Democrats with authoritarian tendencies. This shift has made the american public think that a moderate Democrat is somewhere to the right of Obama. We need to shake up what Americans think this stuff means by resetting the definitions of these understandings to what they actually mean.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I think that evoking the idea that you're going to run on a certain set of moderate and agreeable ideals and then being more progressive once elected is a recipe for handing the keys back once up for reelection. I think we're in a state of, a certain amount of radical shift is necessary to move forward and back away from the constant shift toward the right and fascism. Continuing with moderate candidates is a capitulation to the shift right. So much so, that the country in general views Clinton and Obama as Liberal. When you look at them respective to the actual ideologies, they were for the most part right leaning Democrats with authoritarian tendencies. This shift has made the american public think that a moderate Democrat is somewhere to the right of Obama. We need to shake up what Americans think this stuff means by resetting the definitions of these understandings to what they actually mean.


Eh, I question that, if nothing else because Obama - I always thought, anyway - WAS seen as a moderate Democrat. The whole "post partisan" thing, trying to govern from the center. Which is an approach that's not without its risks - you do have to wonder if we would have gotten an ACA with a public option, if Obama hadn't outsourced most of that process to Congress and let them sort out what sort of a proposal even the blue dog Democrats could get behind - but so too is running as an idealogue. But, I also don't deny that it's entirely possible that my seeing Obama as a moderate/centrist didn't stop most of this country from seeing him as far left. I just remember universal healthcare, now a progressive goal, always being most closely associated with Ted Kennedy, who has a progressive streak for sure but probably not in exactly the sense the term is used today. 



Randy said:


> Like I said, look at FDR. A more skeptical person would say "run on what you can actually get done" can also be interpreted as "run on how far your donors will let you".


Hey, I'm neither endorsing nor condemning either approach. I just think Clinton's win, at a time when Democrats had struggled to gain national traction since, what, the Kennedy/Johnson years, probably had a lot to do with shifting strategy for the party. And it seemed effective for a while - it wasn't that long ago when the death of the Republican Party and the rise of a "permanent Democratic majority" were serious topics of conversation, and even today, as shitty as things are, it's not impossible that what we're seeing is the death throes of the old white male grip on politics.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Deval Patrick out.


----------



## spudmunkey

allheavymusic said:


> there's a culinary workers union that mobilized its members against him in 2016.



I'm sorry, I can't let this go...so a Union mobilzed itself against the candidate of "democratic socialism", of which labor unions are one of the marqee hallmarks?


----------



## Thaeon

spudmunkey said:


> I'm sorry, I can't let this go...so a Union mobilzed itself against the candidate of "democratic socialism", of which labor unions are one of the marqee hallmarks?



It would appear that that is correct, yes. 

The irony is not lost.


----------



## Drew

No surprise about Patrick - he won less than a percent of the vote in a state where he was a recent, and popular, mayor. The word last night was the only reason he didn't concede then and there was there was a super PAC doing some heavy spending in SC on his behalf, and he wasn't sure what they would do if he quit the race.



spudmunkey said:


> I'm sorry, I can't let this go...so a Union mobilzed itself against the candidate of "democratic socialism", of which labor unions are one of the marqee hallmarks?


...and are doing it again in 2020, evidently. They didn't endorse anyone last cycle and haven't endorsed anyone in 2020, but they sent a communication out to their members that a Sanders win would cause their - very generous, very popular, union-won - healthcare plan to go away and be replaced with Medicare, which would be less generous than what they currently had.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Hey, I'm neither endorsing nor condemning either approach. I just think Clinton's win, at a time when Democrats had struggled to gain national traction since, what, the Kennedy/Johnson years, probably had a lot to do with shifting strategy for the party. And it seemed effective for a while - it wasn't that long ago when the death of the Republican Party and the rise of a "permanent Democratic majority" were serious topics of conversation, and even today, as shitty as things are, it's not impossible that what we're seeing is the death throes of the old white male grip on politics.



I was pretty sure the future of the Republican Party was going to be the Marco Rubio wing, by growing the tent and bringing in religiously conservative minorities (Hispanics are a big one) and continuing to push fiscal conservatism. A movement like that could've sustained the Republican Party for another decade. 

What I didn't expect was the face of the Republicans to be the fat Atlantic City spray tanned baby boomer con-artist type. I mean, I said early on the Republican primary that he was basically the Frankenstein's Monster of that party's policies over the last 40 years, but I didn't necessarily expect him to be the standard bearer. In that sense, I think the movement could die under the weight of one too many Big Macs.

Like it or not, Trump's success is an overcorrection of the "overly" inclusive polices of the modern Democratic Party and things like electing an elitist black man. The fear I have is that there weren't enough old guard racist Republicans to sustain the party into another cycle, but the stoking of White Supremacists spinning off into a generation of Pepes may legitimize exclusionary politics for the Republicans for another 60 years.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I was pretty sure the future of the Republican Party was going to be the Marco Rubio wing, by growing the *tent*



Speaking of tents...

https://babylonbee.com/news/msnbc-r...deliberately-rams-unsuspecting-van-in-florida


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> It would appear that that is correct, yes.
> 
> The irony is not lost.



Unions don't mean what they did 30 years ago. My father in law was a proud telecom Union work that spent a lot of days on the picket line, and he's never voted for a Democrat a day in his life.

Trumpism and modern conservatism is basically the concept of life being stable because of all the work done by previous administrations, and then coasting by for a decade and saying "see, this ain't so hard. what do we need all these safety nets for?", cutting and things getting miserable, then the next cycle of people put in place to fix the problem before for people to get cozy and forget about again, etc.

The idea of the Union being in place to protect them against the will of predatory employers, and then voting for people to further empower those predators is completely lost on those people.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Like it or not, Trump's success is an overcorrection of the "overly" inclusive polices of the modern Democratic Party and things like electing an elitist black man. The fear I have is that there weren't enough old guard racist Republicans to sustain the party into another cycle, but the stoking of White Supremacists spinning off into a generation of Pepes may legitimize exclusionary politics for the Republicans for another 60 years.


Yeah, I share this concern. And that the Tea Party/White Supremacy resurgence on the right is going to spark its OWN reaction on the left, though god only knows what - pushing the party further into inclusive/identity politics, pushing the party AWAY from inclusive/identity politics, becoming more coastal, urban, and elitist, anti-elitism, or - judging from this primary, this is probably most likely - segmenting the party by pushing various coalitions in basically all of the above directions.

That doesn't bode well for 2020... But something voters on the moderate AND progressive sides of the Democratic electorate should probably be thinking about he is what exactly is it that unifies us, that we all agree in, and trying to run it on that. Hopefully it goes beyond "stop Trump," but if that's as far as it goes, well, it's *a* platform...

EDIT - and yeah, I also admit that that last paragraph was probably the single most assinine, self-evident thing I've posted in this thread in weeks.


----------



## Randy

Turnout in Iowa and NH seem to indicate that's not an especially rousing message. Potentially worth concluding both "sides" are wrong if progressives nor establishment are driving people to get out there.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

A significant amount of the "anyone but Trump" coalition probably doesn't care enough to vote in the primary. They know they're voting blue regardless of who the candidate winds up being, so they don't participate till the big show.


----------



## Randy

Optimistic but viable.


----------



## Drew

By the way, I should clarify:



Randy said:


> Like I said, look at FDR. A more skeptical person would say "run on what you can actually get done" can also be interpreted as "run on how far your donors will let you".



This is actually pretty telling, I think, and why I'm considering voting for Warren in the primary, but not Sanders.

Part of it is how big the things you set out to do are, absolutely, and whether or not your goals are even acheivable. But, a large part of it too (and, I'd argue, the part that MAKES goals potentially achievable vs pipe dreams), is the plans oyu have to GET to those goals. Sanders is a big picture thinker - has lots of goals that I think are worthy, but is pretty disinterested in the details of how he gets there and isn't concerned at all with some of the byproducts and unintended consequences of those plans, to the degree that I wonder if some of them are features and not bugs (the financial transaction tax that's supposed to pay for his college plan would have a significant negative impact on capital market liquidity, causing the price of risk assets to fall? Gosh jolly gee, what a real shame). Warren, however, is a total policy wonk. She has similar big ideas, but she has very granular plans to _execute_ on those ideas, has a good understanding of the impact of some of those plans, and has clearly given some thought to how they'd play out in practice. Will getting a Republican Senate behind any of them be extremely hard if not impossible? Yeah, of course... but if she actually pulls it off somehow, she's got a road map on how she plans to deliver. Bernie, I don't see that level of thought.

EDIT - other thing I'll say is turnout was up in NH, slightly in excess of the governor's optimistic projections. Iowa was low, but caucuses are weird so I don't know what to make of that anywa.


----------



## bostjan

Tangent topic, but State politics here in VT... we have three major parties in congress: left Progressives, center Democrats, and right Republicans. I'd say our Republican state congresspeople are probably more left leaning than the democrats in a place like Wyoming or Montana. We've had hippies here for a few decades that really pushed the public policy to the left. I live in the NE part of the state, which is the most conservative (but it's still mostly democratic). Lots of Trump supporters here, but these are people who might have never seen a non-caucasian human before, and I don't think that's hyperbolic. There are quite a few towns with only four or five families. Hunting here is a means of survival for a portion of the population, not just a passtime. The larger towns are vehemently anti-corporation and full of free public housing and stuff like that. So, no big box stores or fast food jobs, just food stamps.

Anyway, Bernie was a big part of the split up of the Democratic party here. He's been a progressive for decades. If the nation went the way of VT (it won't) and the GOP got to a steady-state of about 25-30% of the legislature, and people like the squad split off into a new leftwing party, with 20-25% support, maybe the nation as a whole would be more centrist, you'd think. But for Vermont, it's been rough. Mom and Pop businesses here do okay, but prices are high, because minimum wage is high, because cost of living is high, because taxes are high, because there are a lot of free social services, because big businesses with good jobs were pushed out of the state. Even though we pay 3rd or 4th highest taxes in the US, our roads are crumbling apart and schools are having to consolodate to cut budgets. We enjoyed clean air and stuff for a long time, but it's been getting much worse the past few years, since the state started strictly regulating trash, making it a crime to throw away plastic or paper in the garbage, when we have very limited recycling capabilities in small towns. So more trash ends up as litter, since it can't go to a landfill.

It's not awful, but there is a hefty price for every new regulation or aggresive policy.

I don't think progressivism is going to get people cool jobs or boost the economy. But maybe that's a lot less concerning in 2020 than it was in 2016.

IMO, what the Democratic party needs is someone who will push the social agenda slowly but not flip the economic canoe with the waves of change. Maybe if someone had Al Gore's enthusiasm for tech and business, with Sander's enthusiasm for social programs, but will Bill Clinton's economic smarts and I dunno, charisma.


----------



## Randy

Food for thought.



> As efforts in political persuasion go, this contingent puts forward an openly hostile argument. Sanders is the only electable candidate, they suggest, not just because of his policies, but _because of the single-mindedness of his followers_. The reason _you_ should vote for Sanders is that _we_ won’t vote for anyone else. You don’t want Trump to win again, do you?
> 
> Yes, it sounds like ugly hostage taking—not a brilliant persuasive strategy but a crude ego-boosting exercise for a group of leftists who can’t resist the impulse to lord some power over an electorate that doesn’t normally consider them relevant. But that’s exactly what makes it so normal, even understandable, in a depressing “we’re all human” sort of way. Because the truth is this: Every threat these Sanders stans are explicitly making is one the venerated Centrist Swing Voter makes implicitly—and isn’t judged for. The centrist never even has to articulate his threat. The media narrates it for him. “What does the swing voter want?” is the kind of question that rescues this brand of voter from owning or even admitting any moral consequences at all. The question is framed as sensible, and so is its subject. The swing voter—which, let’s be clear, is diminishing in this political landscape—is typically treated as the antithesis of a Bernie stan: as a rational and passionless subject (as if contemplating just not voting in an election were a morally neutral choice). That the swing voter is arguably worse than the Bernie or Bust crew—in that in lieu of just staying home and not voting at all, he might actually vote for the other guy—doesn’t even register. That’s how accustomed we all are to being held hostage to the centrist concerns. As for leftists, who are undeniably real? Well, the Democratic machine has never wondered what they thought; it’s simply taken them for granted. After all, who _else_ are they going to vote for?



https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/bernie-or-bust-is-bad-but-i-get-it.html


----------



## vilk

To be fair, I bet the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters would vote for anyone with similar policy proposals. If Warren were crushing the primaries instead of Bernie, I'm certain that they'd get out to vote for her. I think the "Bernie or bust" narrative is slightly dishonest; it's really "Left or bust".


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

What’s a stan?


----------



## Randy

stan
/stan/
INFORMAL
_noun_

an overzealous or obsessive fan of a particular celebrity.
"he has millions of stans who are obsessed with him and call him a rap god


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> To be fair, I bet the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters would vote for anyone with similar policy proposals. If Warren were crushing the primaries instead of Bernie, I'm certain that they'd get out to vote for her. I think the "Bernie or bust" narrative is slightly dishonest; it's really "Left or bust".



Hey, I don't consider it my job to apologize for or make excuses for other people.

I talk a lot about Sanders on here just because of his experience, the fact he's consistent and the belief that 'ideas' poll better than likeability over a variety of demographics and over time. And that's not to say he's a slam dunk candidate or my favorite person, my only real point over the last, like 4 or 5 years was just "hey, don't count him out". That article seems to point of the double standard rather well.

As far as "bernie or bust" people, I'm sure they're out there and I'm sure they're really annoying. Luckily I'm not on any social media besides this, so my interactions with people regarding politics are basically in person, on here and what I see on cable news. I know I've met people who think literally everyone other than Bernie is the devil (Elizabeth Warren included), I think that maybe says a little bit about SOME of the people his campaign has attracted but I don't think that's a knock on him just because SOME of his followers are overzealous.


----------



## vilk

Randy said:


> stan
> /stan/
> INFORMAL
> _noun_
> 
> an overzealous or obsessive fan of a particular celebrity.
> "he has millions of stans who are obsessed with him and call him a rap god


So this has to be derived from the Eminem song, right? That's hysterical.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Tangent topic, but State politics here in VT... we have three major parties in congress: left Progressives, center Democrats, and right Republicans. I'd say our Republican state congresspeople are probably more left leaning than the democrats in a place like Wyoming or Montana. We've had hippies here for a few decades that really pushed the public policy to the left. I live in the NE part of the state, which is the most conservative (but it's still mostly democratic). Lots of Trump supporters here, but these are people who might have never seen a non-caucasian human before, and I don't think that's hyperbolic. There are quite a few towns with only four or five families. Hunting here is a means of survival for a portion of the population, not just a passtime. The larger towns are vehemently anti-corporation and full of free public housing and stuff like that. So, no big box stores or fast food jobs, just food stamps.
> 
> Anyway, Bernie was a big part of the split up of the Democratic party here. He's been a progressive for decades. If the nation went the way of VT (it won't) and the GOP got to a steady-state of about 25-30% of the legislature, and people like the squad split off into a new leftwing party, with 20-25% support, maybe the nation as a whole would be more centrist, you'd think. But for Vermont, it's been rough. Mom and Pop businesses here do okay, but prices are high, because minimum wage is high, because cost of living is high, because taxes are high, because there are a lot of free social services, because big businesses with good jobs were pushed out of the state. Even though we pay 3rd or 4th highest taxes in the US, our roads are crumbling apart and schools are having to consolodate to cut budgets. We enjoyed clean air and stuff for a long time, but it's been getting much worse the past few years, since the state started strictly regulating trash, making it a crime to throw away plastic or paper in the garbage, when we have very limited recycling capabilities in small towns. So more trash ends up as litter, since it can't go to a landfill.
> 
> It's not awful, but there is a hefty price for every new regulation or aggresive policy.
> 
> I don't think progressivism is going to get people cool jobs or boost the economy. But maybe that's a lot less concerning in 2020 than it was in 2016.
> 
> IMO, what the Democratic party needs is someone who will push the social agenda slowly but not flip the economic canoe with the waves of change. Maybe if someone had Al Gore's enthusiasm for tech and business, with Sander's enthusiasm for social programs, but will Bill Clinton's economic smarts and I dunno, charisma.



Some things are just better done on the national level.

Everyone will always need functioning infrastructure (roads, communications, power, etc.), healthcare, waste removal/sanitation/recycling, etc. The costs of those things is fairly equal for everyone, at its core. So pooling national resources to gain efficiency will just about always yield better results than relying on communities with finite populations and resources. Businesses call these things "cost centers". They're vital to the strategy of the business, but aren't themselves self sustaining. A good example would be advertising and marketing. 

It’s one of the reasons small towns tend to lag behind in those metrics. You'll never generate the revenue to take care of everyone and everything with a population of under 10k.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> As far as "bernie or bust" people, I'm sure they're out there and I'm sure they're really annoying. Luckily I'm not on any social media besides this, so my interactions with people regarding politics are basically in person, on here and what I see on cable news. I know I've met people who think literally everyone other than Bernie is the devil (Elizabeth Warren included), I think that maybe says a little bit about SOME of the people his campaign has attracted but I don't think that's a knock on him just because SOME of his followers are overzealous.


I'm more active on social media than you and am a mostly-passive member in a few left-leaning political groups. Trust me, you have no idea how bad they are.  We've absolutely gone from "Biden is too compromised because of Burisma, it's time to move on to a clean candidate like Bernie," to "Buttigieg/Warren are too beholden to corporate interests, we need a true free spirit like Bernie" to "DON'T YOU DARE POINT OUT THAT PROGRESSIVES ARE ONLY GETTING A MINORITY OF THE VOTE, DON'T ATTACK THE FRONT RUNNER ps Pete doesn't get any support from black voters, don't support him."  

I think your argument on swing voters vs Bernie or Bust voters is interesting... but I think has two problems that make it tough to equate the two. There are two basic premises, I guess. First, the problem with Bernie or Bust voters is they're "hostage taking" and are threatening to vote for no one but their candidate. Second, the problem with "swing voters" is they're... I guess expecting to be bribed, and will only vote for a Democrat if they're offered things they want. So, the problem with "My Candidate or Bust" voters (I shouldn't be naming Bernie explicitly here because it's not unique to his campaign, just at the present far more pronounced there than anywhere else) is they're TOO rigid and will only consider one choice, while the problem with "swing voters" is they're too flexible, and are considering too many choices? Candidate or Bust voters are too principled and won't compromise at all, but swing voters are too unprincipled, and don't have firm enough convictions to take a side? Idunno... I see where this person is going here, but I think these are two separate problems, and the real issue is that BOTH types of voters are just too far out, along different sides of the same axis. I think ultimately that article is a condemnation of BOTH "My Candidate or Bust" voters, AND "swing voters." One has too much conviction and is blinded by it, the other has too little conviction and won't stand for anything but their immediate expediency. 

I'm also not convinced there are much or any "swing voters" to begin with, and I'm gradually coming around to one of the current lines of thinking in political science that the "fiscally conservative socially liberal" moderate swing voter is really more a mirage of the - predominately duelist, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, but still usually politically aligned - american media than it is an accurate reflection of the views of "most Americans." I think ultimately the winner of this election is going to be the party that does the better job both uniting its base, and turning out partisan voters to the polls. 

If that's the case, then an ugly protracted primary is going to be extremely damaging to the Democratic party, but their electoral chances are still ok if, in Scenario A where Sanders loses, the "Bernie or Bust" voter is NOT a traditional Democratic vote, and these were votes outside the political landscape that wouldn't normally turn out anyway, and the eventual nominee does a good job uniting the rest of the party and drumming up voter enthusiasm, or in Scenario B where Sanders wins, he manages to do a decent job of outreach to more moderate, typically voting Democrats and get them fired up to come out and vote, and/or in either scenario Trump has already driven off a not-immaterial traditionally moderate Republican voters and doesn't do a good enough job firing up the broad Republican electorate beyond his core base. 

Thinking out loud here, of course... But I think a legitimate risk Sanders poses is he doesn't seem like he's likely to put much thought or effort in to how to appeal to "moderate" Democratic voters - _not_ swing voters, but the typical rank-and-file Democrat who reliably turns out to vote for Democratic presidents - and to broaden his appeal beyond his progressive base. I think that's going to be a challenge for a moderate Democrat at the top of the ticket, too, but I guess I - call it naive, maybe, but I don't think I'm wrong - think someone like Buttigieg or Biden will put more work into building a coalition including the progressive left, than Bernie will spend reaching out to a center-left Democratic establishment he sees as tainted by corporations and special interests. And, again, that's not because he's a progressive - I could see Warren doing a decent job at party unity. I just feel like Bernie doesn't give a shit about the center-left, and his "stick to his principles" things the progressive left loves about him is going to make it hard for him to appeal to the rest of the Democratic party, much less any "swing votes." 

This turned into another musing about my concerns with Bernie, sorry about that.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Tangent topic, but State politics here in VT... we have three major parties in congress: left Progressives, center Democrats, and right Republicans. I'd say our Republican state congresspeople are probably more left leaning than the democrats in a place like Wyoming or Montana. We've had hippies here for a few decades that really pushed the public policy to the left. I live in the NE part of the state, which is the most conservative (but it's still mostly democratic). Lots of Trump supporters here, but these are people who might have never seen a non-caucasian human before, and I don't think that's hyperbolic. There are quite a few towns with only four or five families. Hunting here is a means of survival for a portion of the population, not just a passtime. The larger towns are vehemently anti-corporation and full of free public housing and stuff like that. So, no big box stores or fast food jobs, just food stamps.
> 
> Anyway, Bernie was a big part of the split up of the Democratic party here. He's been a progressive for decades. If the nation went the way of VT (it won't) and the GOP got to a steady-state of about 25-30% of the legislature, and people like the squad split off into a new leftwing party, with 20-25% support, maybe the nation as a whole would be more centrist, you'd think. But for Vermont, it's been rough. Mom and Pop businesses here do okay, but prices are high, because minimum wage is high, because cost of living is high, because taxes are high, because there are a lot of free social services, because big businesses with good jobs were pushed out of the state. Even though we pay 3rd or 4th highest taxes in the US, our roads are crumbling apart and schools are having to consolodate to cut budgets. We enjoyed clean air and stuff for a long time, but it's been getting much worse the past few years, since the state started strictly regulating trash, making it a crime to throw away plastic or paper in the garbage, when we have very limited recycling capabilities in small towns. So more trash ends up as litter, since it can't go to a landfill.
> 
> It's not awful, but there is a hefty price for every new regulation or aggresive policy.
> 
> I don't think progressivism is going to get people cool jobs or boost the economy. But maybe that's a lot less concerning in 2020 than it was in 2016.
> 
> IMO, what the Democratic party needs is someone who will push the social agenda slowly but not flip the economic canoe with the waves of change. Maybe if someone had Al Gore's enthusiasm for tech and business, with Sander's enthusiasm for social programs, but will Bill Clinton's economic smarts and I dunno, charisma.


Great post and as someone quite a bit further out on the progressive spectrum than I, I'm surprised to be seeing this. I'm sure this isn't at ALL a coincidence (they make no bones about the fact that Sanders is an affront to their classical liberalism), but the Economist did a piece about the Vermont economy last week, where they were talking about a lot of the same concerns - wage growth and state GDP growth have both been low in absolute terms and lagged the national average, inflation has been a bit high so affordability has been a growing problem, etc.

And it sucks, because Vermont is one of those places it's hard not to love if you spend any time there at all. I went to school in Vermont and always kinda thought I'd end up there msyelf, but the gravitational pull to Boston won out. I still visit as much as I can, though.

I guess more on topic, the candidate you describe is someone I could definitely get behind, though with Warren's wonkiness added in.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

https://www.gq.com/story/bloomberg-sexism

So this dropped today....


----------



## stockwell

With regard to the culinary union mobilizing against Bernie, it's not ironic. Unions are corruptible like any organization, and there's always gonna be pressure from capital pitting union management against its members. Thanks to right to work and similar laws, modern unions are largely powerless, and that makes them vulnerable. This would be the real benefit of a Sanders presidency: having our first pro-union president in a century. 

Some clarification on the Bernie or Bust thing. I'm not committed to Bernie for his own sake. Ideologically I have a lot of differences with him (although it's hard to say how much he's had to water down his positions over time). If there was a viable candidate further left of Bernie I would probably jump ship. But again, we haven't had anything like Sanders since Eugene Debs. An American leftist with a shot at real power is rarer than an albino unicorn with two horns. 

The Bloomberg story isn't new. At least, I've known about various incidents for months now. Bloomberg is absolutely cut from the same cloth as Trump. The reason people don't know more about Bloomberg's history is simple: he's bought the media. For-profit news make their money off of advertisements, and Bloomberg has spent 350 million on his campaign, mostly on the constant ads.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> With regard to the culinary union mobilizing against Bernie, it's not ironic. Unions are corruptible like any organization, and there's always gonna be pressure from capital pitting union management against its members. Thanks to right to work and similar laws, modern unions are largely powerless, and that makes them vulnerable. This would be the real benefit of a Sanders presidency: having our first pro-union president in a century.


I mean, I think it's a LOT more plausible that unions are also self-interested, and if their current plan is better than Medicare, then they have an incentive to preserve their current plan. Union leadership doesn't have to answer to the entire country, whose medical coverage might improve; they have to answer to their members, whose coverage would decline.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I mean, I think it's a LOT more plausible that unions are also self-interested, and if their current plan is better than Medicare, then they have an incentive to preserve their current plan. Union leadership doesn't have to answer to the entire country, whose medical coverage might improve; they have to answer to their members, whose coverage would decline.



It's still short-sighted as those benefits expire when the contract does. In this day and age there's no guarantee they'll keep those gains. Especially with Right To Work out there. 

They're in a good spot now, but ask the Teamsters and non-Big Three UAW how quickly things can change. 

Full disclosure: I'm a UAW member, shop steward, and contract committee person. 

Unions need to start thinking about the long game.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's still short-sighted as those benefits expire when the contract does. In this day and age there's no guarantee they'll keep those gains. Especially with Right To Work out there.
> 
> They're in a good spot now, but ask the Teamsters and non-Big Three UAW how quickly things can change.
> 
> Full disclosure: I'm a UAW member, shop steward, and contract committee person.
> 
> Unions need to start thinking about the long game.


Yeah, but what's their leadership's incentive? Gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the current contract doesn't expire for several years yet, and not until after the next leadership election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Yeah, but what's their leadership's incentive? Gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the current contract doesn't expire for several years yet, and not until after the next leadership election.



The contract expires Fall 2025. General election for committee members and officers takes place after ratification of following contract. 

I know what you're saying, but I still think it's in the overall union's best interest to not blackball a particular candidate. It's fine to not want to support one in the primary, or at all, but to be outwardly hostile to an especially labor friendly one is against their greater interest, the good and welfare of the labor movement.


----------



## Randy

#DreamTeam


----------



## MaxOfMetal

For anyone worried it's from the New York Post. It's basically The Hard Times for conservatives who lack self-awareness.


----------



## Ralyks

If that were true, it'd be like he's trying to lose on purpose.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> If that were true, it'd be like he's trying to lose on purpose.



It would be a great way to court establishment Dems. 

But, I'm sure this is baloney. The two characters pushing it the hardest are Steve Bannon and Matt Drudge. That should be all anyone needs to know.


----------



## Randy

Well the follow-up to that would be Drudge and Bannon pushing that narrative because they don't want Bloomberg to be the nominee.


----------



## Mathemagician

Bro tax me whatever you need to just let everyone be able to go to a fucking doctor. Holy shit how is letting people die even considered a fucking option?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Well the follow-up to that would be Drudge and Bannon pushing that narrative because they don't want Bloomberg to be the nominee.



Or they just like meddling and sowing chaos, which is sort of their MO. Heh. 

Anything to get Clinton in the news cycle, as few things fire up the base more.



Mathemagician said:


> Bro tax me whatever you need to just let everyone be able to go to a fucking doctor. Holy shit how is letting people die even considered a fucking option?



Because this is America, where we care about freedom, especially the freedom to die sick, broke, in pain, and a burden to the ones you love.


----------



## stockwell

It was smart for Sanders to pick M4A as his central issue in this campaign. It's a no-brainer for most people. But the "freedom to choose" narrative pushed by neoliberals allowed Reagan and his ideological descendants to heighten privatization and deregulation. It's an incredibly disingenuous rhetorical flourish, but even after 40 odd years it still sorta works (see: Pete's "Medicare for all who want it" talking point). The waffling about positive versus negative rights is another one that annoys me. 

I think I've got a rough guess about Bloomberg's plan, assuming he's not stupid or irrational. If he runs in the primary he'd only split the centrist vote. If he runs in the general, he could be an effective spoiler candidate for a Sanders nomination. So my guess is that he's acting as a sword of Damocles over the left wing of the Democrats, to put additional pressure on the party to run a centrist. I doubt he thinks he can win the general, but he seems to know he can make sure Bernie doesn't. That'd be the sensible strategy, given his class interests. I can't assume he his brain is within a solar system of a reasonable person's, though.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

allheavymusic said:


> It was smart for Sanders to pick M4A as his central issue in this campaign. It's a no-brainer for most people. But the "freedom to choose" narrative pushed by neoliberals allowed Reagan and his ideological descendants to heighten privatization and deregulation. It's an incredibly disingenuous rhetorical flourish, but even after 40 odd years it still sorta works (see: Pete's "Medicare for all who want it" talking point). The waffling about positive versus negative rights is another one that annoys me.
> 
> I think I've got a rough guess about Bloomberg's plan, assuming he's not stupid or irrational. If he runs in the primary he'd only split the centrist vote. If he runs in the general, he could be an effective spoiler candidate for a Sanders nomination. So my guess is that he's acting as a sword of Damocles over the left wing of the Democrats, to put additional pressure on the party to run a centrist. I doubt he thinks he can win the general, but he seems to know he can make sure Bernie doesn't. That'd be the sensible strategy, given his class interests. I can't assume he his brain is within a solar system of a reasonable person's, though.


I still blows my mind that Bloom is so wealthy that he can basically run for president for fun using only his own money for ads and promotion. Just to throw a wrench at the guy who plans to tax him at an increased but still laughably small rate. I can't imagine being _that _greedy.


----------



## stockwell

A billion dollars, much less 50 billion, isn't something you earn by any reasonable means. It's a system that rewards those most willing to exploit and steal. Of course Bloomberg is a greedy psychopath: that's what's supposed to happen. 

Inconsequential but hilarious: Mayor Pete's head spokesperson, Lis Smith, accidentally revealed that she was behind a twitter account called "Chinedu" claiming to be a Nigerian Pete supporter. After the Pete campaign used stock photos of a Kenyan woman and falsely claimed that black community leaders supported his Douglass plan, I'm starting to see a pattern. 

It's wild that the viable Democratic options for this primary are Pete, the Stop and Frisk guy, a former segregationist, someone who pretended to be Native American, and Sanders. How is Sanders not the winner by far?


----------



## Adieu

allheavymusic said:


> A billion dollars, much less 50 billion, isn't something you earn by any reasonable means. It's a system that rewards those most willing to exploit and steal. Of course Bloomberg is a greedy psychopath: that's what's supposed to happen.
> 
> Inconsequential but hilarious: Mayor Pete's head spokesperson, Lis Smith, accidentally revealed that she was behind a twitter account called "Chinedu" claiming to be a Nigerian Pete supporter. After the Pete campaign used stock photos of a Kenyan woman and falsely claimed that black community leaders supported his Douglass plan, I'm starting to see a pattern.
> 
> It's wild that the viable Democratic options for this primary are Pete, the Stop and Frisk guy, a former segregationist, someone who pretended to be Native American, and Sanders. How is Sanders not the winner by far?



Because even Comrade Kim of North Korea is more electable than this gaggle of rejects and oddballs

As to Bernie... he's an old Jewish socialist in a country that likes to vote for youthful* Christian capitalists


*not young-youthful, but... "pussy grabbing", intern or porn star scandals, etc. actually seem to REASSURE the American public that their chief alpha male is still viable


----------



## Thaeon

Adieu said:


> Because even Comrade Kim of North Korea is more electable than this gaggle of rejects and oddballs
> 
> As to Bernie... he's an old Jewish socialist in a country that likes to vote for youthful* Christian capitalists
> 
> 
> *not young-youthful, but... "pussy grabbing", intern or porn star scandals, etc. actually seem to REASSURE the American public that their chief alpha male is still viable



If this is actually America, fuck America. Let the masses burn it and themselves down.


----------



## Mathemagician

Man I just wanted funded healthcare and knowing old people won’t be set to die from sepsis from a bad tooth.

And Pete is accepting money from donors that are adamantly opposed to that. And Bloomberg is running just to make sure Sanders doesn’t get the nomination.

My call: Bernie will get hit with a Trump ‘16 question of “If you do not get the nomination do you PROMISE to support whoever does?”

And whereas Trump said “nah I’m running”. I believe Bernie would cave and agree to stop. He’s the only actual progressive candidate as Warren is losing steam fast.

In general, I don’t think individuals should hit the 25-30% tax bracket until income above $1-4mm. Instead of where it is now which just punishes hardworking Americans (doctors, lawyers, small business owners, career professionals, etc) And I absolutely believe there should be a wealth tax above $1billion. However I’m not too into messing with people at net worth’s of only $30-50million. That’s just “sold a business” territory.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> It was smart for Sanders to pick M4A as his central issue in this campaign. It's a no-brainer for most people. But the "freedom to choose" narrative pushed by neoliberals allowed Reagan and his ideological descendants to heighten privatization and deregulation. It's an incredibly disingenuous rhetorical flourish, but even after 40 odd years it still sorta works (see: Pete's "Medicare for all who want it" talking point). The waffling about positive versus negative rights is another one that annoys me.
> 
> I think I've got a rough guess about Bloomberg's plan, assuming he's not stupid or irrational. If he runs in the primary he'd only split the centrist vote. If he runs in the general, he could be an effective spoiler candidate for a Sanders nomination. So my guess is that he's acting as a sword of Damocles over the left wing of the Democrats, to put additional pressure on the party to run a centrist. I doubt he thinks he can win the general, but he seems to know he can make sure Bernie doesn't. That'd be the sensible strategy, given his class interests. I can't assume he his brain is within a solar system of a reasonable person's, though.


Bloomberg won't run as an independent in the general. He's previously said as much explicitly, that he didn't run as an independent in 2016 because he was worried if he did it would get Trump elected, and that in 2020, win or lose he's going to dedicate a significant amount of his personal wealth to getting Trump out of office in 2020. 

I think a _public option_ is a no brainer, but as you put it, universal single-payer is a no brainer for "most people." If someone wants to spend their own money on private insurance, I don't see anything wrong with that, provided we have a system that provides public subsidized health care for anyone who wants it as Medicate does today. And I think that's worth keeping in mind here, with the Nevada labor union raising awareness to Medicare For All necessitating the elimination of their (very popular) health care plan - if they can acheive something better for their members than Medicare, and we're in a primary where the choices are "private insurance but with a public Medicare option" or "Medicare for all," well, their stance here is pretty sensible. If it was the general election and "Medicare for All" vs "Gut the ACA and let phrama companies charge even MORE for life saving drugs," that's a very different proposition. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Or they just like meddling and sowing chaos, which is sort of their MO. Heh.
> 
> Anything to get Clinton in the news cycle, as few things fire up the base more.


+1 for any excuse to trot out the old hits from 2016 for an encore, plus Trump vastly preferring to run against a socialist than a centrist. New York Post, for what it's worth, hasn't been terribly friendly to Trump of late, but I think that has a lot less to do with politics (I always saw them as sort of lowbrow conservative) and more to do with unabashed New Yorkerism as a fuck you to a guy who's snubbed their city.


----------



## Drew

Timely 538 piece on Sanders' potential paths to winning the nomination: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ut-there-are-still-several-ways-he-could-win/

Nate's probably a little more bullish on his chances than I am, though also raises the prospect of a contested convention where Sanders has a small but not very dominant plurality. 

I think the one thing he _doesn't_ really cover, though, is any attempt for Sanders to try to expand his base and actually win over moderates. He notes in the opening that that's a surprising theme from the NH rally, where there was no attempt at all to try to win over people who weren't already supporters, before then going into a discussion that questions the relevancy of "ceilings" and "floors" here as instead it's more that Sanders' support has been pretty "sticky" and not very volatile in any direction. 

I do think it's an interesting thought experiment though, in what areas could Sanders pivot and make concessions to appeal to moderates, while not alienating his base.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Bloomberg won't run as an independent in the general. He's previously said as much explicitly, that he didn't run as an independent in 2016 because he was worried if he did it would get Trump elected, and that in 2020, win or lose he's going to dedicate a significant amount of his personal wealth to getting Trump out of office in 2020.
> 
> I think a _public option_ is a no brainer, but as you put it, universal single-payer is a no brainer for "most people." If someone wants to spend their own money on private insurance, I don't see anything wrong with that, provided we have a system that provides public subsidized health care for anyone who wants it as Medicate does today. And I think that's worth keeping in mind here, with the Nevada labor union raising awareness to Medicare For All necessitating the elimination of their (very popular) health care plan - if they can acheive something better for their members than Medicare, and we're in a primary where the choices are "private insurance but with a public Medicare option" or "Medicare for all," well, their stance here is pretty sensible. If it was the general election and "Medicare for All" vs "Gut the ACA and let phrama companies charge even MORE for life saving drugs," that's a very different proposition.
> 
> 
> +1 for any excuse to trot out the old hits from 2016 for an encore, plus Trump vastly preferring to run against a socialist than a centrist. New York Post, for what it's worth, hasn't been terribly friendly to Trump of late, but I think that has a lot less to do with politics (I always saw them as sort of lowbrow conservative) and more to do with unabashed New Yorkerism as a fuck you to a guy who's snubbed their city.


For what it's worth, in the UK plenty of unions have their own health plans and plenty of jobs offer private healthcare as a job perk, despite our NHS.


----------



## possumkiller

StevenC said:


> For what it's worth, in the UK plenty of unions have their own health plans and plenty of jobs offer private healthcare as a job perk, despite our NHS.


The same in Poland.


----------



## Mathemagician

That’s the dream. Guess what? Those UK insurance firms all salivate at coming to the US to sell insurance w it h no public competition, AND they lobby to defund the public options back home.

Because then the work option HAS to be as good or better than the public option to be attractive to talent.


----------



## Adieu

That's the beauty of throwing enough money behind a political position: the opposite view becomes INVISIBLE.

Ppl seriously think that if they were to get free "commie" healthcare as an option, they'd HAVE to wait in line with all the plebs with their runny noses and kids getting stitches... even if they wanted to pay someone else.


Not true.


And, btw, anyone who has been to an American ER with something less than potentially fatal SHOULD really know better, since even WITH expensive insurance you're STILL waiting in line 10 hours LONGER than for "free care" in a "free" healthcare country... And if you WERE choosing to pay in one of the "free" countries, there's typically NO WAIT WHATSOEVER.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> For what it's worth, in the UK plenty of unions have their own health plans and plenty of jobs offer private healthcare as a job perk, despite our NHS.





possumkiller said:


> The same in Poland.


Yeah, it's a fairly common model worldwide, more so than single payer as I recall, and one that has generally worked well where adopted. 


Mathemagician said:


> That’s the dream. Guess what? Those UK insurance firms all salivate at coming to the US to sell insurance w it h no public competition, AND they lobby to defund the public options back home.
> 
> *Because then the work option HAS to be as good or better than the public option to be attractive to talent.*


Bolded for emphasis - and because this competes both ways, a public option sets a baseline for care, and if you want to compete as a private insurer, you have to be able to offer clear value in excess of the public option, either by providin comparable care for less, or better care. In either case, outcomes should improve. 

Long run I'd expect a public option to put private insurers out of business, and if it does, great, we're getting care for less. And if I'm wrong, great, the private sector is able to offer a better value proposition for at least some consumers, and in both cases the cost relative to the benefit received has improved from the perspective of the consumer.


----------



## Mathemagician

That’s the problem with many voters though. They see individuals competing against each other as “freedom” but agree with companies when companies say they should not have to compete and to be allowed to just buy up all their competitors. You know, the standard oil model.


----------



## stockwell

I've been seeing a lot of discussion about the new Lancet study on M4A (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext). I no longer have access to paywalled studies, so I can't go through the methodology. That said, it claims that a universal single payer system would save 68,000 lives and 450 billion on healthcare expenditures a year. Even if that's a high estimate, I don't see what else there is to say. We're running an inefficient system that leeches money from suffering people to prop up an industry that shouldn't exist. 

A public option would be the ACA all over again. The realistic long-term outcome of a public option is probably the UK's situation. The Tories have been cutting the NHS for decades, and now they're trying to sell it off to US corporations. A public option would be dismantled a term after it's instituted, either by a different party or by pressure from the insurance industry. A public option + the invisible hand of the market ignores that insurers profit from the system staying broken. 

I'm not naive enough to think that Sanders would single-handedly be able to establish M4A. M4A is a wedge. It draws a dividing line not between parties, but between business interests and everyone else. After that, we can see how democratic the US actually is. Forcing the state to put its money where its mouth is, you could say.


----------



## Vyn

The large group of Americans who don't want to pay more in taxes to fund a public system without realising that they are the ones who would actually really benefit from having a public system is insane.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> The large group of Americans who don't want to pay more in taxes to fund a public system without realising that they are the ones who would actually really benefit from having a public system is insane.



I understand the apathy of some. 

Our taxes go to some pretty stupid and awful things, and we get so little return on all that, it's easy to brush off more taxes as just more stupid shit we'll never individually benefit from.

Not that it's right, but that's the mindset some people are in. 

The right has done everything they've could to hamstring having a functional, for the people, government in order to sow distrust in the government's ability to make programs like M4A work.


----------



## JSanta

allheavymusic said:


> I've been seeing a lot of discussion about the new Lancet study on M4A (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext). I no longer have access to paywalled studies, so I can't go through the methodology. That said, it claims that a universal single payer system would save 68,000 lives and 450 billion on healthcare expenditures a year. Even if that's a high estimate, I don't see what else there is to say. We're running an inefficient system that leeches money from suffering people to prop up an industry that shouldn't exist.
> 
> A public option would be the ACA all over again. The realistic long-term outcome of a public option is probably the UK's situation. The Tories have been cutting the NHS for decades, and now they're trying to sell it off to US corporations. A public option would be dismantled a term after it's instituted, either by a different party or by pressure from the insurance industry. A public option + the invisible hand of the market ignores that insurers profit from the system staying broken.
> 
> I'm not naive enough to think that Sanders would single-handedly be able to establish M4A. M4A is a wedge. It draws a dividing line not between parties, but between business interests and everyone else. After that, we can see how democratic the US actually is. Forcing the state to put its money where its mouth is, you could say.



The abstract:

_Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.
_
One thing to note (for those of you curious): The Lancet is a peer reviewed journal and is also considered an authoritative source of medical information. For anyone that wants to refute the findings, you're going to need to find similar (i.e. peer reviewed literature) to support your position.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> The abstract:
> 
> _Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.
> _
> One thing to note (for those of you curious): The Lancet is a peer reviewed journal and is also considered an authoritative source of medical information. For anyone that wants to refute the findings, you're going to need to find similar (i.e. peer reviewed literature) to support your position.


Well, there's one caveat here. Savings of 13% _compared to what_?

Reading this, it doesn't really specify, but my guess is compared to the _current _health care system - if someone has a login and confirm that, I'd be much obliged.

This is important to keep in mind, because we're not debating between two choices - this isn't "either we do nothing, or we move to universal single payer." It's possible that when we get to the general election, the eventual winner will be running on a single-payer platform, and if so, then yeah, this becomes incredibly relevant, as we WILL be faced with a "do nothing" vs "Medicare for All" choice.

But, I can see a few things that ARE left to say, @allheavymusic, or more specifically, _ask _- how does a public option compare when run through the same model, and with reasonable assumptions on private insurance needing to compete with the public option? Is the long run benefit greater, comparable, or less? How do the up front costs and frictional costs of implementation (such as employment changes) compare?

I don't think anyone in this thread, save for the occasional MAGA troll, is arguing we SHOULDN'T expand health care access, so a study saying that M4A is better than what we have today isn't the end of discussion - the real question for Democrats in the primary is, _*is single payer unequivocally better than a public option?*_ And one of the reasons I personally like a public option is that if the government really can provide health care at a higher quality and for less than the private sector, then they're eventually going to drive the private sector out of business, and we'll still get single payer, just without the unintended consequences of putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work when we flip the switch overnight.

So, this study is compelling evidence that we have to do something, because there ARE options that are better than the status quo, that will likely improve people's quality and longevity of life, and save money in doing so. But it's hardly the end of the story, because it's only evaluating one option here, and doesn't prove that single payer is necessarily better than the introduction of a non-age-and-needs-tested public option. I'd love to see a reputable study of that, and how all the various plans candidates have proposed stack up. This study basically is evidence that the Democrats are right, that it makes sense to revamp the American health care system somehow. What it isn't, without further studies, is proof that Bernie Sanders is right and, say, Pete Buttigieg is wrong. It doesn't even attempt to address that question.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Well, there's one caveat here. Savings of 13% _compared to what_?
> 
> Reading this, it doesn't really specify, but my guess is compared to the _current _health care system - if someone has a login and confirm that, I'd be much obliged.
> 
> This is important to keep in mind, because we're not debating between two choices - this isn't "either we do nothing, or we move to universal single payer." It's possible that when we get to the general election, the eventual winner will be running on a single-payer platform, and if so, then yeah, this becomes incredibly relevant, as we WILL be faced with a "do nothing" vs "Medicare for All" choice.
> 
> But, I can see a few things that ARE left to say, @allheavymusic, or more specifically, _ask _- how does a public option compare when run through the same model, and with reasonable assumptions on private insurance needing to compete with the public option? Is the long run benefit greater, comparable, or less? How do the up front costs and frictional costs of implementation (such as employment changes) compare?
> 
> I don't think anyone in this thread, save for the occasional MAGA troll, is arguing we SHOULDN'T expand health care access, so a study saying that M4A is better than what we have today isn't the end of discussion - the real question for Democrats in the primary is, _*is single payer unequivocally better than a public option?*_ And one of the reasons I personally like a public option is that if the government really can provide health care at a higher quality and for less than the private sector, then they're eventually going to drive the private sector out of business, and we'll still get single payer, just without the unintended consequences of putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work when we flip the switch overnight.
> 
> So, this study is compelling evidence that we have to do something, because there ARE options that are better than the status quo, that will likely improve people's quality and longevity of life, and save money in doing so. But it's hardly the end of the story, because it's only evaluating one option here, and doesn't prove that single payer is necessarily better than the introduction of a non-age-and-needs-tested public option. I'd love to see a reputable study of that, and how all the various plans candidates have proposed stack up. This study basically is evidence that the Democrats are right, that it makes sense to revamp the American health care system somehow. What it isn't, without further studies, is proof that Bernie Sanders is right and, say, Pete Buttigieg is wrong. It doesn't even attempt to address that question.



One of the only things I like about working at a University - access to all the things!

Direct quote:
"Specifically, we calculate that the Medicare for All Act would reduce national health-care expenditure by more than US$458 billion, corresponding to 13·1% of health-care expenditure in 2017."

And then later on in the paper: "Through the mechanisms detailed previously, we predict that a single-payer health-care system would require $3·034 trillion annually (figure 3; appendix p 5), $458 billion less than national health-care expenditure in 2017.40 Even after accounting for the increased costs of coverage expansion, our data-driven base case includes $59 billion savings on hospital care, $23 billion on physician and clinical services, $217 billion on overheads, and $177 billion on prescription drugs (figure 3; appendix p 11). Consequently, annual expenditure per capita would decrease from $10 7396 to $9330, equivalent to a 13·1% reduction."

And in response to your comments about the comparison between candidate plans: I have not seen anything that I think would be constituted as factual, yet at least.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> One of the only things I like about working at a University - access to all the things!
> 
> Direct quote:
> "Specifically, we calculate that the Medicare for All Act would reduce national health-care expenditure by more than US$458 billion, corresponding to 13·1% of health-care expenditure in 2017."
> 
> And then later on in the paper: "Through the mechanisms detailed previously, we predict that a single-payer health-care system would require $3·034 trillion annually (figure 3; appendix p 5), $458 billion less than national health-care expenditure in 2017.40 Even after accounting for the increased costs of coverage expansion, our data-driven base case includes $59 billion savings on hospital care, $23 billion on physician and clinical services, $217 billion on overheads, and $177 billion on prescription drugs (figure 3; appendix p 11). Consequently, annual expenditure per capita would decrease from $10 7396 to $9330, equivalent to a 13·1% reduction."


Thanks - so, it IS in comparison the the health care system as it stands in 2017, with a partially-gutted ACA, and it compares expenses and outcomes compared to a no-change scenario? I was a little hesitant to make that leap based on that one line in the abstract, but it sounds like if you keep going through that article they make it a little more explicit? 

If so, then I stand by my post above - knowing that Medicare for All is an improvement over what we have today isn't that surprising at all, we all know that the current system isn't meeting the needs of Americans, if nothing else because the share of America without coverage at all is both substantial, and back on the rise. That shouldn't be debatable to anyone in this thread. What we don't know is if Medicare for All is the BEST option, judged by cost reduction and improved outcomes, and the existence of this study is awesome, but also doesn't shut down any future discussion of what the best plan for tackling this crisis is.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> _*is single payer unequivocally better than a public option?*_



The absolute worst part of the ACA (other than threatening people like me with a fine for being uninsured, when I was making less than $10,000/yr. in the first place, which was compounding an already demeaning situation) was the fact the marketplaces were always universally more expensive than even the worst employer programs. All the marketplace did was provide options for people forced to buy insurance for themselves at full price to comply with the program and avoid a fine.

As somebody who actually had to pursue getting medical treatment on Medicaid, I can tell you it was a terrible process. The amount of practitioners you could go to was cut in a half or maybe 2/3rds right off the bat for general practices, and even less options for specialty care. There were a handful of places (especially in urban or poor rural communities) that took Medicaid (despite the fact it was being administered through standard, for profit insurance companies; if you had ACTUAL "Medicaid" by name, you had like 1 in 10 places you could actually go to), and they were typically rated so-so in quality of care and/or had long wait times to get in. Not always but often.

But if you needed to go to a specialist (say, a chiropractor, or a dermatologist or a dentist), you were practically laughed out of the office and you had a choice of maybe one practice that would even accept it within an 45 minute drive. Luckily I'm not entirely on my own and I have family in the medical field, so I always pick where I go regardless of my insurance, so I seldom had to deal with that besides generally having people turn their nose up at me when I showed them my Medicaid card. 9 times out of 10, they tell you they don't accept it and you can pay cash or "care credit"; which is a credit card... let that sink in for you, when you're talking about people who can't afford health insurance or don't have employer coverage because they're part time or not working.

I was just watching an episode of the First 48 the other day where a guy was gunned down because he was running a makeshift dentist's operation for cash or barter(which is common in the urban latino community), because people were limited on resources and didn't want to get into "the system" because of their legal status. I can't even imagine how unsafe and unsanitary that is with no legal safety-nets, muchless the fact the guy got fucking killed because they knew he kept cash. This is 3rd world shit.

Nothing about a public option tells me that you don't have practices turning their nose up at it or that you don't have collusion/price fixing between remaining insurance companies and practitioners, or that you still don't have people avoiding care because of all the hoops they have to jump through to prove income or job status to qualify for a government plan.

Medicare for All pulls all of those barriers and incentives for corruption or restrictions out verse one, line one.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Medicare for All pulls all of those barriers and incentives for corruption or restrictions out verse one, line one.


Great post, and thanks for sharing your experience. But I think like anything it's going to come down to how any plan we pass is implimented. Expanding access to a public option may run into some of these issues of care being rejected or struggling to get in to see a specialist, but it may also remove the stigma, or certainly legally requiring practices to take the public option should go a long way to ensuring adequate access. On the other hand, end game, single payer may be pretty good... but getting there is going to take some massive upheaval, and I'm not exactly sure how many people are employed providing private insurance or private care, but we've gotta be talking at least one or two million, and at least some of them will be put out of work. 

One of the reasons I like the idea of a public option, personally, is if single payer really is cheaper, then over a moderate transition period, that's probably what we're going to end up with anyway, and stretching that transition out over a decade or so still gets us to the same place but gives the labor market a lot more time to respond. 

But, my main point here, is our choices aren't just "Medicare for All," or "do nothing." There's a huge range of scenarios between the two, and just because M4A is better than no change, doesn't mean there's somewhere in that range that's better than either. This is hardly the _*end* _of the discussion.


----------



## Randy

I personally think there's already price fixing and rigging between private insurance and the care providers (and drug companies), and all that the public option does is throw the government in to fight it out with the private insurers while the government has their hands tied.

My point is that we ALREADY have government administered health insurance programs that exist side by side with private insurance and these are the conditions that exist NOW, I don't see we can look at that and say "yeah but A PUBLIC OPTION will be so much better that it will definitely be able to compete in the market as it exists today". On what basis? By volume? The volume won't be there if the care sucks. You'll have four or five years of the Republicans being able to claim it doesn't work because the public option is at a disadvantage and nobody wants to sign up for cutting their option in half, especially since the majority of people will still be on employer plans or their existing government plan (medicaid, medicare, VA, etc)

Nothing about the same healthcare system but making the government subsidize a healthcare program with the number of restrictions they're going to have makes this a fair fight or anything the GOP or anyone else will be able to argue for expanding a couple years down the road.


----------



## tedtan

JSanta said:


> _more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care._



To put that in perspective, that's 24% of the US population; roughly 1 out of every 4 people in the US.




Drew said:


> how does a public option compare when run through the same model, and with reasonable assumptions on private insurance needing to compete with the public option? Is the long run benefit greater, comparable, or less? How do the up front costs and frictional costs of implementation (such as employment changes) compare?



The company I work for has employees all over the world and I have been involved in helping secure health insurance for them at various times over the years. In almost all cases, they have government provided health care that provides a baseline of coverage and we then have to provide additional coverage that sits atop the government coverage to bring the employees up to the same standard that our US based employees have. This has been the case in the UK, continental Europe, Australia, Malaysia, etc.

So in the real world, I don't know that this is a case of choose either a single public option vs. a public option or one of various private options so much as a single public option as basic coverage PLUS various private coverage(s) that would extend the basic coverage provided by the public coverage. Similar to Medicare as the basic coverage and Medicare Part B as the additional coverage.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> And one of the reasons I personally like a public option is that if the government really can provide health care at a higher quality and for less than the private sector, then they're eventually going to drive the private sector out of business, and we'll still get single payer, just without the unintended consequences of putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work when we flip the switch overnight.
> 
> So, this study is compelling evidence that we have to do something, because there ARE options that are better than the status quo, that will likely improve people's quality and longevity of life, and save money in doing so. But it's hardly the end of the story, because it's only evaluating one option here, and doesn't prove that single payer is necessarily better than the introduction of a non-age-and-needs-tested public option. I'd love to see a reputable study of that, and how all the various plans candidates have proposed stack up. This study basically is evidence that the Democrats are right, that it makes sense to revamp the American health care system somehow. What it isn't, without further studies, is proof that Bernie Sanders is right and, say, Pete Buttigieg is wrong. It doesn't even attempt to address that question.



But we NEED to put said hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work overnight

It's fukken essential

That's how a semblance of market competition gets restores, with some racing to provide cutprice superpremium care options, and most piling in WILLING to work for the new single payer and cheaper than the next guy too.

Oh and the leftovers? They're damn parasites.

Otherwise? Otherwise the system misfires and never launches on day 1.

PS and if it does cause the widespread medical field misery you seen to expect (yay! Btw), then the side effect alone of mass foreclosures on high-end-only real estate will be very beneficial to the housing market and will make it all worthwhile.


----------



## Randy

Hopefully we get a racist, sexist Republican turned Democrat instead of this racist, sexist Democrat turned Republican we currently have. I was thinking the only thing missing from being an international embarrassment was the lack of nanny state laws. Maybe we'll get a national plastic bag ban or I can pay a carbon tax since I can't afford a car newer than 10 years old, or some other onerous laws that don't do anything of substance for the environment but disproportionately effect middle and lower class people. I'm sure Bloomberg will save us in the general election by convincing all those center left or right blue collar independents when he tells them he's coming for their rifles and shotguns. Big thinks.


----------



## Randy

So, basically Bloomberg versus the whole field for two hours, minus that random petty feud Buttigieg ignited with Amy over Mexico. I'm assuming the battle between the two of them is a race for VP or something but I officially can't stand that guy.

Nobody liked Bloombergs history on sexism, nobody liked Bloombergs history on race and nobody liked Bloomberg buying his way into the race and skipping the first few states and several debates. But I'm sure somehow or the other this is Sanders and the Progressives fault for fracturing the party


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> So, basically Bloomberg versus the whole field for two hours, minus that random petty feud Buttigieg ignited with Amy over Mexico. I'm assuming the battle between the two of them is a race for VP or something but I officially can't stand that guy.
> 
> Nobody liked Bloombergs history on sexism, nobody liked Bloombergs history on race and nobody liked Bloomberg buying his way into the race and skipping the first few states and several debates. But I'm sure somehow or the other this is Sanders and the Progressives fault for fracturing the party



I can't stand Pete or Amy. Which is a shame, as early on I wasn't so repulsed. Like clockwork things are just going to get uglier and pettier, but folks are still going to blame Sanders or Warren for the tone. 

Also, does no one remember the misstep Clinton made calling Trump supporters "deplorables"? I mean she was mostly right, not going to lie, but it definitely galvanized anri-Clinton sentiment. I feel it's the same way with "Bernie Bros". 

Folks are angry, as they should be. Maybe consider why they're angry instead of acting like only the progressive wing has some problematic supporters.


----------



## Mathemagician

No. Considering why would mean admitting something is wrong. If I’m angry about my pay being low, my employers best move is to ignore it and hope I’m a chickenshit who caves and falls in line. That way they admit nothing and they get what they want. Here they don’t want Bernie so the DNC does not admit he has any merits and hopes that democrats will capitulate towards the unelected DNC (kingmakers) selection.


----------



## Randy

It's Sanders Derangement Syndrome.

I posted that article a few pages back about the double standard leveraged against Sanders supporters for their insistence when meanwhile the 'swing voter' carries the same weight and threat with their appeal.

Also, all the numbers are in and conclusive at this point. More 2008 Hillary voters moved to vote for McCain than Sanders voters moved to vote for Trump in 2016. The idea that establishment candidates or voters truck their votes over to the eventual nominee, and progressives don't, is debunked. It's actually quite funny Sanders and his people getting blamed for a divisive or brokered convention when meanwhile, the establishment wing are the ones talking about giving their delegates over to someone in second place.


----------



## sleewell

what is interesting is that this is a lot like the gop in 2016. too many candidates split up all the moderate votes while trump collected the delegates and won the nomination. mayor pete, klobachar, biden, bloomberg - if it was only one person getting all those votes they might be beating sanders. 

bloomberg seems to be adding to the problem he wanted to solve by entering race.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> what is interesting is that this is a lot like the gop in 2016. too many candidates split up all the moderate votes while trump collected the delegates and won the nomination. mayor pete, klobachar, biden, bloomberg - if it was only one person getting all those votes they might be beating sanders.



Which is a fallacy, imo. The caucus system specifically addresses this by putting all Democrats in room and the runoff style system makes voters move on to their second pick until you've peeled off all the 'hangers on', and in Iowa, Sanders and Warren (Progressive wing) combined for more delegates than Buttigieg and Biden (Establishment wing).

Saying the Establishment candidate Voltron combines to beat the Progressive vote is presumptuous. The numbers aren't entirely reflective of that, and I also can't say for certain that everyone who's top pick is an Establishment candidate (like, say, Amy) immediately goes over to another Establishment candidate, like people have no individual preferences.

Keep in mind Bernie out fundraising the rest of the field $25 at a time to their thousands of dollars a hit contributions from billionaires. The sheer volume of small donations, which are each reflective of a single person, that you need to catch up to and PASS a Biden or Buttigieg's much bigger bites.

I personally think Bloomberg is an afterthought after this. If he was on the ballot today and the advertising blitz was able to deaden the blow of last night, I think he has a chance. Not being on the ballot in the first three states, including one after your big coming out party blows up in your face, comes across like Giuliani's "I'm not even campaigning until Florida" strategy that was fatal.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Also, does no one remember the misstep Clinton made calling Trump supporters "deplorables"? I mean she was mostly right, not going to lie, but it definitely galvanized anri-Clinton sentiment. I feel it's the same way with "Bernie Bros"..


Personally, I don't see it. "Bernie Bros" has been a widely used term since the 2016 election, I can't see it coming up in the debate last night really having the same impact as Clinton's unexpected use of "deplorables." It's too embedded to have any shock value. 



Randy said:


> I posted that article a few pages back about the double standard leveraged against Sanders supporters for their insistence when meanwhile the 'swing voter' carries the same weight and threat with their appeal.



You know, I was thinking about that post over the weekend, almost came back and picked it back up, but was too busy at the time and then just decided it wasn't worth revisiting. But since you're bringing it back up, the more I thought about that, the more I found it less and less persuasive. 

Essentially, I think the "appeal to swing voters is equivalent to refusing to vote for any candidate aside from my first choice because they're both holding the party hostage" argument fundamentally misunderstands what a primary is. 

For one there are temporal issues - the "hold the party hostage by refusing to vote for anyone BUT my candidate" people are acting in the primary, while the "swing voters" as voters unaligned with any party are ones you're trying to appeal to in the general election. Two different points in the process. 

And I think those temporal differences matter - a primary is, fundamentally, the internal process where a party selects the candidate that will represent them in an upcoming election. In the case of the Democrats, that's done by awarding delegates in a series of state by state elections, and then at the party convention where the candidate is formally selected, the candidate able to pull the majority support of those elected delegates becomes the general election candidate. Stating the obvious here, but the process is an internal sorting mechanism designed to identify a candidate who can represent the majority of the party, and in doing so the idea is to get buy in from ALL factions of the party and give them all a voice in the process of selecting a candidate. It's a consensus-building exercise.

Approaching a consensus-building exercise with the attitude that "if my candidate doesn't win, I refuse to support the one who does" flies in the face of this process. It literally IS trying to hold the party hostage, because the only way that threat can have any weight to it is if the candidate _isn't_ winning the support of a majority. If the candidate is on track to win a majority, it's pointless to say, and if the candidate isn't, then it's the same as saying "if you don't pick my choice, I'll try to sabotage you in the general election." If you want to have a say in a consensus-building process, well, no one can force you to respect the final choice, but it's pretty clearly fighting dirty to threaten to refusae to honor the consensus. 

The general election, on the other hand, occurs after the primary produces a consensus candidate. It's no longer about who can best represent the broadest part of the Democratic electorate, but it's now, in a single election, does the Democratic party have more supporters than the Republican party? And, if not, how can we appeal to the most unaffiliated voters? 

I know I've made similar arguments rather a lot in the past, but a primary and a general election are two _very_ different things, and having a voice in a primary comes with the expectation that you'll respect the process and the final outcome in ways that are _very_ different than considering the appeal to unaffiliated voters outside your party. It's a difference between trying to find a candidate who would be the "best fit" for the various interests in the party, vs trying to make the case that your candidate is the best choice for the country, including people _outside_ your party, in the general. They're only superficially similar processes.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Which is a fallacy, imo. The caucus system specifically addresses this by putting all Democrats in room and the runoff style system makes voters move on to their second pick until you've peeled off all the 'hangers on', and in Iowa, Sanders and Warren (Progressive wing) combined for more delegates than Buttigieg and Biden (Establishment wing).
> 
> Saying the Establishment candidate Voltron combines to beat the Progressive vote is presumptuous. The numbers aren't entirely reflective of that, and I also can't say for certain that everyone who's top pick is an Establishment candidate (like, say, Amy) immediately goes over to another Establishment candidate, like people have no individual preferences.
> 
> Keep in mind Bernie out fundraising the rest of the field $25 at a time to their thousands of dollars a hit contributions from billionaires. The sheer volume of small donations, which are each reflective of a single person, that you need to catch up to and PASS a Biden or Buttigieg's much bigger bites.
> 
> I personally think Bloomberg is an afterthought after this. If he was on the ballot today and the advertising blitz was able to deaden the blow of last night, I think he has a chance. Not being on the ballot in the first three states, including one after your big coming out party blows up in your face, comes across like Giuliani's "I'm not even campaigning until Florida" strategy that was fatal.


Hate to keep ganging up on you, seriously, I'm sorry, man... 

....but that's an incomplete view of the Iowa caucus. There were more than two establishment candidates in the race, and while you're looking at the top two, Klobuchar only was a few points behind Biden, 15.8% vs 12.3%. Even if you ignore the few percentage points scattered amongst the rest below that, Sanders and Warren combined to 44.2% of the electorate, while even the top three "establishment" candidates came in at a combined 54.3%.

I agree that "Voltron" candidates are bullshit, but that's not what either of us are doing here - clearly, the progressive wing can't run a Voltron progressive candidate either. Rather, what we're looking at here is a rough assessment of the relative appeal of establishment and progressive candidates, and based on Iowa, at least (though seconded by NH, of course we've got some clear demographic biases here) we're seeing a split of about 45% of the electorate preferring progressive candidates to about 55% of the electorate preferring establishment ones. The takeaway isn't that the establishment Voltron candidate would beat the progressive Voltron, but rather if you do eventually see some winnowing, it's more likely that an establishment candidate will acheive majority support than a progressive one, or that even if the establishment lane remains fragmented while the progressive one doesn't, it's unlikely that a progressive candidate is going to reach majority support without making _some_ appeal to the establishment wing.

The irony here is I think Warren is one of the few candidates who has a good shot at bridging that establishment/progressive gap.

And I think Bloomberg got his ass handed to him last night and is probably going to become a nonfactor, though while Warren came out looking very good, the real beneficiary is Sanders not having to deal with the usual attention that comes with frontrunner status.


----------



## Randy




----------



## stockwell

Absolutely love to see everyone turn on Bloomberg. With the exception of Sanders, nobody has a meaningful critique of Bloomberg (you can't really be pro-capitalism but against being good at it). But it is great to see everyone going at him. He's an even better pinata than Pete. 

By running, Bloomberg overplayed his hand. Everybody knows US politics are machine politics, but there's a method to the madness. You commit to the business lane or you commit to the politics lane. They're symbiotic, but they have to seem like they're separate to legitimize the whole affair. I think the centrists were genuinely mad at Bloomberg. Not for being a racist authoritarian (Pete did the same thing in South Bend, Biden signed the Crime bill, etc.), but because he tried to skipped across the line. He tried to cut the red tape and buy the politics lane outright. For careerist politicians, that's a threat to their power. 

The final question was revealing. Sanders was the only one who said that the candidate with a majority of delegates should win the nomination. Obviously it's a bit self-serving, since he has a substantial lead. But it is jarring to hear everyone else openly admit that they want a brokered convention. If Sanders comes out of this thing with a lead but not a majority, the DNC will pick who gets the nomination. And if that happens, there's nothing we can do about it. As far as I'm aware, there's no legal argument that a party can't pick whoever it wants. The primary is a theater, not genuine democracy.


----------



## Randy

Sanders with best showing in swing states but nope, nothing to see here.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> I personally think there's already price fixing and rigging between private insurance and the care providers (and drug companies), and all that the public option does is throw the government in to fight it out with the private insurers while the government has their hands tied.
> 
> My point is that we ALREADY have government administered health insurance programs that exist side by side with private insurance and these are the conditions that exist NOW, I don't see we can look at that and say "yeah but A PUBLIC OPTION will be so much better that it will definitely be able to compete in the market as it exists today". On what basis? By volume? The volume won't be there if the care sucks. You'll have four or five years of the Republicans being able to claim it doesn't work because the public option is at a disadvantage and nobody wants to sign up for cutting their option in half, especially since the majority of people will still be on employer plans or their existing government plan (medicaid, medicare, VA, etc)
> 
> Nothing about the same healthcare system but making the government subsidize a healthcare program with the number of restrictions they're going to have makes this a fair fight or anything the GOP or anyone else will be able to argue for expanding a couple years down the road.



Price fixing is no secret whatsoever

I had an insurance-covered surgery like 15 years ago in CA, and some of the paperwork that accompanied it LITERALLY said "hospital list price $22k, insurance pays $7k... BILL PAID IN FULL"

So random dude with just a checkbook and no coverage would pay +$15k / >3x MORE than the insurer for the same


----------



## tedtan

That's not price fixing, though, that's just a negotiated discount due to the volume of business provided by the insurance carrier. You could negotiate a discount with the hospital yourself, it's just that the insurance carrier has already done so for you when you have insurance.

I live in Houston and we currently have a local hospital "chain" with locations spread around the city who just lost their affiliation with one of the major insurance carriers because they couldn't lower their prices to meet those required by the carrier. I remember a similar situation here locally a few years back, too. In both cases, the carriers had enough leverage to say, essentially, "here's what we will pay for procedure X; take it or leave it".

That is one of the main benefits of having a single healthcare insurance "company": negotiating leverage to reduce the pricing for medical procedures and prescriptions to a more reasonable level for everyone, helping to reduce the overall medical care costs.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

tedtan said:


> I live in Houston and we currently have a local hospital "chain" with locations spread around the city who just lost their affiliation with one of the major insurance carriers because they couldn't lower their prices to meet those required by the carrier. I remember a similar situation here locally a few years back, too. In both cases, the carriers had enough leverage to say, essentially, "here's what we will pay for procedure X; take it or leave it".



This also just happened here at our main hospital; tens of thousands of people suddenly had no hospital within about 30~40 miles that accepted their insurance, with the ones that did accept them being locations with a reputation for sub-par care in addition to being painfully far away in the event of an emergency. 

We're a PEO organization so we handle benefit coverage for hundreds of smaller businesses. It was a rough year.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Absolutely love to see everyone turn on Bloomberg. With the exception of Sanders, nobody has a meaningful critique of Bloomberg (you can't really be pro-capitalism but against being good at it). But it is great to see everyone going at him. He's an even better pinata than Pete.
> 
> By running, Bloomberg overplayed his hand. Everybody knows US politics are machine politics, but there's a method to the madness. You commit to the business lane or you commit to the politics lane. They're symbiotic, but they have to seem like they're separate to legitimize the whole affair. I think the centrists were genuinely mad at Bloomberg. Not for being a racist authoritarian (Pete did the same thing in South Bend, Biden signed the Crime bill, etc.), but because he tried to skipped across the line. He tried to cut the red tape and buy the politics lane outright. For careerist politicians, that's a threat to their power.
> 
> The final question was revealing. Sanders was the only one who said that the candidate with a majority of delegates should win the nomination. Obviously it's a bit self-serving, since he has a substantial lead. But it is jarring to hear everyone else openly admit that they want a brokered convention. If Sanders comes out of this thing with a lead but not a majority, the DNC will pick who gets the nomination. And if that happens, there's nothing we can do about it. As far as I'm aware, there's no legal argument that a party can't pick whoever it wants. The primary is a theater, not genuine democracy.




Capitalism is the practice of letting a free market handle the allocation of resources, here compared to socialism where we let the state allocate resources. Being "good at it" as you describe it is being greedy, and it's not like that's never happened in a centrally-planned country either (seen Putin's net worth lately? How about Chairman Xi?). Youc an absolutely be pro-capitalism, and still favor things like higher progressive taxation to ensure more even distribution of wealth, and coupling a free market with a robust social safety net program. Being opposed to people bending the rules of resource distribution to their own gain are something that both capitalists AND socialists should be clearly in favor of having. 

And the question wasn't, "should the candidate with the _majority_ of delegates win the nomination?" The answer to that is yes, they should, and no one on stage would contest that. What the moderators asked was, "Should the candidate with a _plurality_ of delegates win the nomination?" Primary rules are quiet on this - if someone finishes with 30% of the delegates, they fall short of a 50% + one majority needed to win outright, so by saying "yes, they should," rather than "well, it depends" like every other candidate responded, Sanders was - self-servingly, as you pointed out - trying to lower the bar to make it easier to become the nominee. I don't think anyone WANTS a brokered convention... But if no one wins a majority of the delegates, that's what we get, regardless of whether or not the candidate with a plurality eventually is able to negotiate a majority or not, and the hope here is that it becomes merely brokered, and not openly contested on the convention floor.

Seriously, man... most of your posts in this thread are "let me post this piece of information that I've misunderstood as a clear and irrefutable reason why Bernie is the only candidate anyone should support." I'm not sure if you're trolling, or really just not thinking through some of this stuff.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Price fixing is no secret whatsoever
> 
> I had an insurance-covered surgery like 15 years ago in CA, and some of the paperwork that accompanied it LITERALLY said "hospital list price $22k, insurance pays $7k... BILL PAID IN FULL"
> 
> So random dude with just a checkbook and no coverage would pay +$15k / >3x MORE than the insurer for the same


Actually, no. 

Medical bills are like... Have you ever read the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy? It's like the trattoria drive they use in the spaceship in one of the last books, where while the ship flies everyone goes through a show of being waited on by robot italian waiters, because math on an italian restaurant bill works in ways that would be impossible anywhere else.  

What you're seeing in that $22k bill is like, oh, call it MSRP - it's their advertised price, save that of course we don't *actually* have a healthcare market so they don't advertise. It's sort of like the sticker price on a car - it's the starting point for negotiation, not something they expect anyone to actually pay. What happens necxt depends on if you have insurance or not. If you do, great, they've already negotiated a bulk discount, and if you're over your copay, it's covered and you're done. If not, then the hospital is ultimately on the hook if you don't pay, so typically they offer you an "uninsured" rate that's also well below the sticker price. You can probably negotiate further from that, but most of the times I've been in the hospital I haven't been in any shape to negotiate.  Sometimes though, the uninsured price can be lower than your insurance's negotiated rate, and there are times where if you still haven't met your annual out of pocket max it might make sense to NOT file through insurance - I've done a lot of PT over the years due to cycling and skiing injuries, and I remember one time they suggested I just pay out of pocket because for the few sessions I had scheduled, it was cheaper to do that than pay a slightly higher rate and not have my out of pocket max kick in. 

Medical billing is a dark art. And yes, I say this knowing full well that that's another sign we should be looking at fixing the system, but when we're talking about bills it's absolutely NOT the case that someone without insurance is paying the "pre insurance price" for care.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> Capitalism is the practice of letting a free market handle the allocation of resources, here compared to socialism where we let the state allocate resources. Being "good at it" as you describe it is being greedy, and it's not like that's never happened in a centrally-planned country either (seen Putin's net worth lately? How about Chairman Xi?). Youc an absolutely be pro-capitalism, and still favor things like higher progressive taxation to ensure more even distribution of wealth, and coupling a free market with a robust social safety net program. Being opposed to people bending the rules of resource distribution to their own gain are something that both capitalists AND socialists should be clearly in favor of having.



You're talking about a pure market economy vs. a pure planned economy. Neither of those have (as far as I know) ever existed in the real world, and it's not the same as capitalism vs. socialism. Russia's political economy is, since the fall of the USSR and shock therapy, based on the same neoliberal capitalism that Reagan and Thatcher embodied. I think many would argue China post-Deng Xiaoping is a version of the same with stronger central planning. Central planning doesn't imply anything about the status of workers. 

The issue isn't as much about resource distribution as resource extraction. You can only derive a profit from paying workers less than they're worth. The debate between social democracy and center/right forms of capitalism boils down to how much it's okay to take from workers. Warren's critique of Bloomberg has to essentially be "you've done too much of the thing I want our economy to be structured around". A post-capitalist critique is that we shouldn't structure an economy around maximizing profit, which is more compelling to me. Less of a wrong thing is still an amount of a wrong thing. 



Drew said:


> And the question wasn't, "should the candidate with the _majority_ of delegates win the nomination?" The answer to that is yes, they should, and no one on stage would contest that. What the moderators asked was, "Should the candidate with a _plurality_ of delegates win the nomination?" Primary rules are quiet on this - if someone finishes with 30% of the delegates, they fall short of a 50% + one majority needed to win outright, so by saying "yes, they should," rather than "well, it depends" like every other candidate responded, Sanders was - self-servingly, as you pointed out - trying to lower the bar to make it easier to become the nominee. I don't think anyone WANTS a brokered convention... But if no one wins a majority of the delegates, that's what we get, regardless of whether or not the candidate with a plurality eventually is able to negotiate a majority or not, and the hope here is that it becomes merely brokered, and not openly contested on the convention floor.



You're right, I've bungled which is which between majority and plurality. I'll probably never get those two straight. But most democratic systems would have the leader winning the nomination with either a 49% or a 50% lead. I said it in 2016 and I'll say it now: the person with the popular vote should win.

Everyone who is not in the lead wants a contested convention, because that would improve their chances at a nomination. Do you really not think that the DNC would prefer a contested convention to a Bernie nomination? Why wouldn't they want to be able to pick a candidate who isn't an outsider with core ideological differences? SDEs are party insiders with no accountability to the people. So of course a brokered/contested convention would be good for an establishment candidate. 



Drew said:


> Seriously, man... most of your posts in this thread are "let me post this piece of information that I've misunderstood as a clear and irrefutable reason why Bernie is the only candidate anyone should support." I'm not sure if you're trolling, or really just not thinking through some of this stuff.



Feel free to point out if I make a mistake or misrepresent something. It's true, the minutiae of pluralities vs. majorities and contested/brokered conventions eludes me. The classic mark of an ignorant troll.


----------



## Thaeon

Looks like Bernie may have a decisive victory in Nevada.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> Looks like Bernie may have a decisive victory in Nevada.



Meanwhile Buttigieg is in fourth place. Ain't that a bitch.


----------



## SpaceDock

I get the feeling Bernie will be our Jeremy Corbyn in the way Trump was our Brexit.


----------



## Randy

Three races in a row with a decisive popular vote lead but don't worry! Brokered convention because apparently somewhere along the way he starts losing and nobody else drops out! /sarcasm


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meanwhile Buttigieg is in fourth place. Ain't that a bitch.



Peaked too early. He did the Kamala Harris routine of picking on #1 and not having a second move. I think Amy debloused him when she started going after the fact he's the guy with the least experience and zero in Washington, and his brand was throwing criticisms of the the people actually doing the work because it was an easy applause line.

Also: http://www.mayopete.io


----------



## Randy




----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ouch. Imagine being dunked on that righteously by Bill de Blasio.

Also, that quote generator is fucking hilarious.


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> I get the feeling Bernie will be our Jeremy Corbyn in the way Trump was our Brexit.



I though Trump was our Boris Johnson? I mean, really, so close.


----------



## Randy

Sanders winning Culinary Union vote by a landslide, despite the leadership explicitly anti-endorsing him. Also winning Latino vote with 53% and African American support at ~25%.

Starting to reach the precipice of support here where the notion the establishment is "saving us" from a Sanders nomination is almost completely debunked and now their insistence looks more like a projection at best and a self fulfilling prophecy at worst. Buttigieg, in his sour grapes speech, going as far as proclaiming he's the only candidate "that's proven he can beat Sanders".

The hope is this result pivots establishment from "how do we stop Sanders" to "how do we make sure he wins in November and make sure we have a seat at the table".


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Sanders winning Culinary Union vote by a landslide, despite the leadership explicitly anti-endorsing him. Also winning Latino vote with 53% and African American support at ~25%.
> 
> Starting to reach the precipice of support here where the notion the establishment is "saving us" from a Sanders nomination is almost completely debunked and now their insistence looks more like a projection at best and a self fulfilling prophecy at worst. Buttigieg, in his sour grapes speech, going as far as proclaiming he's the only candidate "that's proven he can beat Sanders".
> 
> The hope is this result pivots establishment from "how do we stop Sanders" to "how do we make sure he wins in November and make sure we have a seat at the table".



If Super Tuesday turns out anything like Nevada did, that may be the only play they have.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Sanders winning Culinary Union vote by a landslide, despite the leadership explicitly anti-endorsing him. Also winning Latino vote with 53% and African American support at ~25%.
> 
> Starting to reach the precipice of support here where the notion the establishment is "saving us" from a Sanders nomination is almost completely debunked and now their insistence looks more like a projection at best and a self fulfilling prophecy at worst. Buttigieg, in his sour grapes speech, going as far as proclaiming he's the only candidate "that's proven he can beat Sanders".
> 
> The hope is this result pivots establishment from "how do we stop Sanders" to "how do we make sure he wins in November and make sure we have a seat at the table".



To clarify, BTW, I believe the primary should continue in earnest until the last vote is counted, just like I did in 2016.

With regard to the establishment, I just meant that Sanders has crossed the threshold of viability that the head shots should be off the table. It's one thing if it's people like Mariann Williamson or Tulsi, it's different when it's the top two or MAYBE three candidates, and that ammunition will be carried over to the general election. It was wrong when Hillary did it to Obama in 2008, it was wrong when Bernie did it to Hillary in 2016.

As of right now, I think the only really 'low blow' stuff I'm seeing are pretty much the whole field vs. Bloomberg, and now freakout mode Buttigieg on Bernie (and, to a smaller extent, the rest of the field). Other than MSNBC and the occasional CNN gaslighting, a lot of the previously skeptical media places like HuffPo, The Hill and some Five Three Eight coverage are starting to sound more rational.

Anyway, this race goes one of two ways depending on SC. I think Biden needs to win or have a VERY strong showing in SC for this to be anything but a cruise to the nomination for Sanders. The polling vs. results seems to heavily imply there's a level of buffer of skepticism of Sanders leading up to races and the better he does, the more the buffer melts away in subsequent races.

I think the last of the really nasty coverage of Sanders coming from the left basically dies IF he does well in SC. SC seems like the place most likely to respond to the conservative tropes on Sanders, so (for now), I'm willing to take the last gasps as a 'stress test' to see how voters will take this stuff when Trump and Co. throw it at him in the general. If Sanders wins or finishes strong in the south after being tied to Castro and Russia, I think he officially "passes the initiation".

I think Biden (IF SC breaks his way) is the only viable candidate besides Sanders in those Super Tuesday states. I don't see Buttigieg winning even pulling off a "close" second or third in these bigger states or down South. At this point, being as vocal as he is comes across less like sounding the alarm and more like being self serving. Doubly after he went after Nevada to try and tighten up his number against Biden.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> You're talking about a pure market economy vs. a pure planned economy. Neither of those have (as far as I know) ever existed in the real world, and it's not the same as capitalism vs. socialism. Russia's political economy is, since the fall of the USSR and shock therapy, based on the same neoliberal capitalism that Reagan and Thatcher embodied. I think many would argue China post-Deng Xiaoping is a version of the same with stronger central planning. Central planning doesn't imply anything about the status of workers.
> 
> The issue isn't as much about resource distribution as resource extraction. You can only derive a profit from paying workers less than they're worth. The debate between social democracy and center/right forms of capitalism boils down to how much it's okay to take from workers. Warren's critique of Bloomberg has to essentially be "you've done too much of the thing I want our economy to be structured around". A post-capitalist critique is that we shouldn't structure an economy around maximizing profit, which is more compelling to me. Less of a wrong thing is still an amount of a wrong thing.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I've bungled which is which between majority and plurality. I'll probably never get those two straight. But most democratic systems would have the leader winning the nomination with either a 49% or a 50% lead. I said it in 2016 and I'll say it now: the person with the popular vote should win.
> 
> Everyone who is not in the lead wants a contested convention, because that would improve their chances at a nomination. Do you really not think that the DNC would prefer a contested convention to a Bernie nomination? Why wouldn't they want to be able to pick a candidate who isn't an outsider with core ideological differences? SDEs are party insiders with no accountability to the people. So of course a brokered/contested convention would be good for an establishment candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out if I make a mistake or misrepresent something. It's true, the minutiae of pluralities vs. majorities and contested/brokered conventions eludes me. The classic mark of an ignorant troll.



Gotcha, so if you're wrong, move the goalposts so it doesn't LOOK like you're wrong.

Socialism and communism are both by definition "centrally planned" economies. The government is responsible for making resource allocation decisions. The government is also, as we've both noticed, susceptable to corruption.

You're also fundamentally misunderstanding capitalism. "You can only derive a profit from paying workers less than they're worth." No, you derive a profit by providing capital for the workers to use, and in return receiving a return on the use of that capital. I'm more productive with the use of a computer than without - capitalism is someone else provides me that computer, and in return receives a share of the earnings I generate in return for that enhanced productivity. This only becomes a problem when the return on capital eclipses the return on labor, which is what we're dealing with now in America - return on labor has lagged return on capital, badly, since the Great Recession.

Your whole argument is basically "all capitalists are greedy, all socialists are altruistic," which is total pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. You either don't understand capitalism, don't understand socialism, or both.



Randy said:


> Three races in a row with a decisive popular vote lead but don't worry! Brokered convention because apparently somewhere along the way he starts losing and nobody else drops out! /sarcasm


I mean, I suspect you're being flippant here... But so far Sanders' most _decisive_ win has been Nevada, and while we don't have full results yet, he's tracking towards somewhere around 40% of the delegates. In the first three contests, Iowa he probably lost the delegate race but still took just over 26% of available delegates, (asterisk for now until we have a firm recount) and New Hampshire he narrowly won taking just under 26% of the delegate count.

The reason we appear to be headed towards a brokered election, is unlike the GOP primary, the DNC primary is NOT winner take all. If Sanders continues to win 25-40% of the vote in every state, then he'll probably win more delegates than anyone else... but he _won't_ win a majority, and it takes a majority to win the nomination. Something has to change in the race for him to win outright, so arguing that a brokered convention _won't_ happen takes just as much faith in the unknown as arguing he's going to train wreck and his campaign will collapse.


Randy said:


> With regard to the establishment, I just meant that Sanders has crossed the threshold of viability that the head shots should be off the table. It's one thing if it's people like Mariann Williamson or Tulsi, it's different when it's the top two or MAYBE three candidates, and that ammunition will be carried over to the general election. It was wrong when Hillary did it to Obama in 2008, it was wrong when Bernie did it to Hillary in 2016.


I'm gonna shock you and say I agree.  Sanders is the frontrunner - I'm not going to say he shouldn't be under attack, but - just as when Biden was the frontrunner and I thought trying to make a scandal out of drummed up Burisma accusations from the far left was out of bounds - "attacks" should be above-the-belt. I have policy issues with him, I have concerns America isn't ready to elect a Socialist, and I have concerns Sanders won't do a thing to reach out to and try to represent more moderate Democratic voters, which as the nominee he'll need to do... But those are things we as a party can - and should - be discussing with an eye to how we move forward after the primary is over, and if Sanders is the nominee, I don't want to see him dragged through the mud internally for no good purpose.

The field WILL winnow at some point, and if Warren drops out, that'll mostly benefit Sanders (and honestly, the more I think about this, the more Warren really seems to be the only candidate who can unify both the progressive and moderate wings of the party, so I really hope she doesn't), but by the same token Klobuchar is probably running on fumes at this point, and depending on whether her supporters break towards Biden or Buttigieg, Buttigieg may follow her. Take those two out of the race, chalk in a Biden win in SC (recent polls suggest he's solidifying his standing there), and suddenly you DO have a viable moderate wing. I think any of the credible candidates shouldn't be targeted with the sort of trumped up smear campaigns we're going to expect to see the GOP co-opt in the general, as a more moderate member of this conversation I want critiques of Sanders to be focused on policy, and I'd hope to see the same from his supporters on the moderate alternatives (as a token of goodwill, I'll be ok with your throwing Bloomberg to the wolves ).

This primary is already trending towards about the worst possible outcome, lots of distracting noise and a divisive campaign with a fairly good likelihood of there being no clear winner come the casting of the last vote, so the LAST thing I want to see us do is make matters worse.

EDIT - honestly, my single biggest issue with Sanders as a potential nominee, is I can't picture him doing even the tiniest bit of outreach towards the moderate wing of the Democratic party, or moderating his platform even in the slightest, to try to represent the _full_ breadth of the Democratic Party. If I had some reason to believe that wasn't the case, I'd have an easier time getting behind him, but he hasn't exactly struck me as a guy with any interest in trying to represent a party so far, so much as sticking to his own proposals and telling the moderate wing of the party - which, at present, looks like the majority of Democrats - to go screw. If I were in Sanders' shoes, I'd be looking hard ways to convince moderates that they should support me.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Gotcha, so if you're wrong, move the goalposts so it doesn't LOOK like you're wrong.
> 
> Socialism and communism are both by definition "centrally planned" economies. The government is responsible for making resource allocation decisions. The government is also, as we've both noticed, susceptable to corruption.
> 
> You're also fundamentally misunderstanding capitalism. "You can only derive a profit from paying workers less than they're worth." No, you derive a profit by providing capital for the workers to use, and in return receiving a return on the use of that capital. I'm more productive with the use of a computer than without - capitalism is someone else provides me that computer, and in return receives a share of the earnings I generate in return for that enhanced productivity. This only becomes a problem when the return on capital eclipses the return on labor, which is what we're dealing with now in America - return on labor has lagged return on capital, badly, since the Great Recession.
> 
> Your whole argument is basically "all capitalists are greedy, all socialists are altruistic," which is total pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. You either don't understand capitalism, don't understand socialism, or both.
> 
> 
> I mean, I suspect you're being flippant here... But so far Sanders' most _decisive_ win has been Nevada, and while we don't have full results yet, he's tracking towards somewhere around 40% of the delegates. In the first three contests, Iowa he probably lost the delegate race but still took just over 26% of available delegates, (asterisk for now until we have a firm recount) and New Hampshire he narrowly won taking just under 26% of the delegate count.
> 
> The reason we appear to be headed towards a brokered election, is unlike the GOP primary, the DNC primary is NOT winner take all. If Sanders continues to win 25-40% of the vote in every state, then he'll probably win more delegates than anyone else... but he _won't_ win a majority, and it takes a majority to win the nomination. Something has to change in the race for him to win outright, so arguing that a brokered convention _won't_ happen takes just as much faith in the unknown as arguing he's going to train wreck and his campaign will collapse.
> 
> I'm gonna shock you and say I agree.  Sanders is the frontrunner - I'm not going to say he shouldn't be under attack, but - just as when Biden was the frontrunner and I thought trying to make a scandal out of drummed up Burisma accusations from the far left was out of bounds - "attacks" should be above-the-belt. I have policy issues with him, I have concerns America isn't ready to elect a Socialist, and I have concerns Sanders won't do a thing to reach out to and try to represent more moderate Democratic voters, which as the nominee he'll need to do... But those are things we as a party can - and should - be discussing with an eye to how we move forward after the primary is over, and if Sanders is the nominee, I don't want to see him dragged through the mud internally for no good purpose.
> 
> The field WILL winnow at some point, and if Warren drops out, that'll mostly benefit Sanders (and honestly, the more I think about this, the more Warren really seems to be the only candidate who can unify both the progressive and moderate wings of the party, so I really hope she doesn't), but by the same token Klobuchar is probably running on fumes at this point, and depending on whether her supporters break towards Biden or Buttigieg, Buttigieg may follow her. Take those two out of the race, chalk in a Biden win in SC (recent polls suggest he's solidifying his standing there), and suddenly you DO have a viable moderate wing. I think any of the credible candidates shouldn't be targeted with the sort of trumped up smear campaigns we're going to expect to see the GOP co-opt in the general, as a more moderate member of this conversation I want critiques of Sanders to be focused on policy, and I'd hope to see the same from his supporters on the moderate alternatives (as a token of goodwill, I'll be ok with your throwing Bloomberg to the wolves ).
> 
> This primary is already trending towards about the worst possible outcome, lots of distracting noise and a divisive campaign with a fairly good likelihood of there being no clear winner come the casting of the last vote, so the LAST thing I want to see us do is make matters worse.
> 
> EDIT - honestly, my single biggest issue with Sanders as a potential nominee, is I can't picture him doing even the tiniest bit of outreach towards the moderate wing of the Democratic party, or moderating his platform even in the slightest, to try to represent the _full_ breadth of the Democratic Party. If I had some reason to believe that wasn't the case, I'd have an easier time getting behind him, but he hasn't exactly struck me as a guy with any interest in trying to represent a party so far, so much as sticking to his own proposals and telling the moderate wing of the party - which, at present, looks like the majority of Democrats - to go screw. If I were in Sanders' shoes, I'd be looking hard ways to convince moderates that they should support me.



I feel like all of Bernie's policies aren't that radical in context. Healthcare reform is a must. As we've discussed, whether or not you feel it's "the best", it is undeniably an improvement on what we've got. Taxing billionaires the same way we used to when our country was still thriving and leading the developed world? Shit, people who want to Make America Great again can't even argue against that.

America is kinda fucked up compared to most other first world countries. We have to fix our shit. We're not up to snuff. Joe Biden's promise to do nothing and keep everything the same should be way more alarming than Bernie's hopes, however plan-less, to make things better for the working class.

I'm curious, what would your suggestions be, to court this group of people you believe that Bernie has no intentions of appealing to? Who are these people, and what is it that they're looking for, which Bernie might withhold??


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> This primary is already trending



Disagreed on what you portray as "trending". Sanders won popular vote but lost by delegate count in Iowa, WON popular vote and technically would've had a delegate lead in NH if they were proportioned differently, then just absolute DESTROYED in Nevada, which has the largest and most diverse population of the bunch so far. I also have no idea where you're getting your polling from that Biden is "solidifying his lead" in SC, everything I've seen says it's shrinking.

My definition of "trending" means things moving at the trajectory they're currently going (where Sanders becomes and increasingly safe, less scary pick the more Dems see him winning), your definition seems to mean flatline where they are right now.

I'll put this a little less vague. Biden as the candidate or a brokered convention is only on the table IF Biden wins in SC and wins big. IF Sanders wins and potentially even if he finishes as a competitive second place, he WILL enter the convention with 50% of the delegates. Period.

You're assuming everyone stays in or scores enough in the biggest contests to matter. I don't think they do. I think next out is going to be Amy, I think Warren will be mathematically in-viable at some point and step out (and she'll endorse Sanders, who will be in first place, whether he's above 50% or not), I think Buttigieg is proving he's going to be stubborn and hang on to try use his delegates as poker chips, but you're going to be looking at sub-10% throughout the south and in the big states like NY and CA. Biden and Bloomberg are going to get pretty bruising with eachother, I don't see Bloomberg going on past viability because he's wasting his money at that point and he has no incentive to try and sell his delegates to the highest bidder like Buttigieg does. I'm not sure Bloomberg endorses anyone at that point but a Bloomberg endorsement of Biden will be meaningless anyway.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I feel like all of Bernie's policies aren't that radical in context. Healthcare reform is a must. As we've discussed, whether or not you feel it's "the best", it is undeniably an improvement on what we've got. Taxing billionaires the same way we used to when our country was still thriving and leading the developed world? Shit, people who want to Make America Great again can't even argue against that.
> 
> America is kinda fucked up compared to most other first world countries. We have to fix our shit. We're not up to snuff. Joe Biden's promise to do nothing and keep everything the same should be way more alarming than Bernie's hopes, however plan-less, to make things better for the working class.
> 
> I'm curious, what would your suggestions be, to court this group of people you believe that Bernie has no intentions of appealing to? Who are these people, and what is it that they're looking for, which Bernie might withhold??


Well, again, though, my issue isn't necessarily his policy _goals_. I think a lot of them are objectively good things - you can debate Medicare for All vs some other plan for expanding coverage, but every single candidate is advocating for expanded health care coverage in SOME form. Rather, my bigger issue is he seems pretty disinterested in how we get there. He has high level plans, but he's light on detail. 

I mean, noting that the onus is on Bernie, not me... I think there's a few things he could do to broaden his appeal. We've talked a lot about how in 2016 right or wrong Trump managed to win support from unlikely places because he at least acknowledged a lot of American's concerns, while Clinton's "America is already great" seemed tone deaf to middle class Americans struggling to make ends meet. He seemed to be listening to them. Some of Sanders's supporters will hate this, no doubt, but his campaign is vocally attacking "the establishment" as trying to stop him from winning the nomination. That's true in the most literal sense that there are more "establishment" aligned candidates who want him to lose as a byproduct of their winning, but ratcheting down his attacks on the establishment would be a great first step towards showing he's serious about representing ALL Democrats in the general election, and not just his anti-establishment supporters. There's still room to be critical while not demonizing them - maybe stress that both the Democratic establishment and his supporters share many of the same goals, but if their approaches to improving the status quo haven't been successful, maybe it's time to try a fresh approach. Similarly, he's openly embracing class warfare rhetoric. There are plenty of wealthy Democrats who want to see more open immigration policies, expanded health care access, more affordable college tuition, and don't mind seeing their taxes go up to get there. Racheting down the "eat the rich" rhetoric a little in favor of language about all of us investing in our national future or something would probably make it easier for them to get on board, rather than continuing to attack the rich for being rich. 

These are to areas where, off the top of my head, he could simply change his _rhetoric _and potentially come across as being more active in trying to show moderate voters that he's concerned with their interests, too, if he were to head the Democratic ticket. And we're not even talking policy here, simply just changing how he talks about his policies and trying to drop the impression that he's demonizing the "establishment" and rich people.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Disagreed on what you portray as "trending". Sanders won popular vote but lost by delegate count in Iowa, WON popular vote and technically would've had a delegate lead in NH if they were proportioned differently, then just absolute DESTROYED in Nevada, which has the largest and most diverse population of the bunch so far. I also have no idea where you're getting your polling from that Biden is "solidifying his lead" in SC, everything I've seen says it's shrinking.
> 
> My definition of "trending" means things moving at the trajectory they're currently going (where Sanders becomes and increasingly safe, less scary pick the more Dems see him winning), your definition seems to mean flatline where they are right now.
> 
> I'll put this a little less vague. Biden as the candidate or a brokered convention is only on the table IF Biden wins in SC and wins big. IF Sanders wins and potentially even if he finishes as a competitive second place, he WILL enter the convention with 50% of the delegates. Period.
> 
> You're assuming everyone stays in or scores enough in the biggest contests to matter. I don't think they do. I think next out is going to be Amy, I think Warren will be mathematically in-viable at some point and step out (and she'll endorse Sanders, who will be in first place, whether he's above 50% or not), I think Buttigieg is proving he's going to be stubborn and hang on to try use his delegates as poker chips, but you're going to be looking at sub-10% throughout the south and in the big states like NY and CA. Biden and Bloomberg are going to get pretty bruising with eachother, I don't see Bloomberg going on past viability because he's wasting his money at that point and he has no incentive to try and sell his delegates to the highest bidder like Buttigieg does. I'm not sure Bloomberg endorses anyone at that point but a Bloomberg endorsement of Biden will be meaningless anyway.



Well, here's the reference for the last few polls in SC showing Biden's lead firming up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner/?ex_cid=2020-tracker

As for the rest of it, we can debate the trajectory, but at present Sanders isn't winning majorities. He's winning, but he's not winning more than 50% of the vote, or 50% of the delegates. He needs 50% of the delegates to avoid a brokered convention, so I don't think it's controversial to say that, unless Sanders sees a change in the race somehow, he's fairly likely to fall short of a majority.

If I'm making assumptions - basically, that as "establishment" candidates drop out, their supporters will tend to go to other establishment candidates, and vice versa as "progressive" candidates drop out, they'll do the same - then so are you. That Warren eventually drops out and endorses Sanders (I also agree this is pretty likely), and that Sanders becomes more popular with "establishment" Democrats as he's seen as more likely to win (which I think is a much less certain assumption). But, in either event, that's kind of the root of my argument there, in a nutshell - that he HAS to broaden his appeal so he can start pulling majorities rather than winning with 25-40% of the vote. You're assuming that happens automatically, I'm not. That's the gist of our difference here.

This is the single biggest difference between Trump in 2016 and Sanders in 2020 - the DNC primary isn't winner-take-all like the GOP, so in order to avoid a brokered convention, Sanders needs to win majorities, rather than just getting the most votes in a large field.


----------



## Drew

@vilk - I mean, I guess the short, one-sentence answer is, Sanders really needs to start acting like he wants to run a campaign that wins in November _with_, rather than in spite of, the establishment wing of the Democratic party, because without their vote in the general election, I have no clue how he expects to win.


----------



## vilk

I think he realizes that getting mass numbers of people to show up for the primary is the only way to scare the DNC into even considering him as a nominee. I feel that if Bernie is anywhere even close to 50% and they go brokered and give it to anyone else except Warren, people will abandon the Democratic party in droves.

Like I wrote a few 10s of pages back, I think something that a lot of Americans are really passionate about recently is having the person they actually chose becoming the leader.


----------



## Drew

Perfect example - a Sanders ad just showed up in my facebook feed.

"First, we won the Iowa caucus. Then, we won the New Hampshire prumary. Now, we've won Nevada. But with every victory, the Democratic establishment and the corporate elite have intensified their efforts to defeat us. And with Super Tuesday and our next FEC deadline coming up in a matter of days, we have got to have the resources to fight back. Contribute to our campaign today." 

Is that REALLY the message that tells an establishment voter, "this is a candidate who will represent me if he wins the nomination in June and the White House in November"? Ultimately the winner of the primary will have to represent the full Democratic party, establishment and progressive alike, and if Sanders' pitch is that the "establishment" is something to be defeated, and not part of a coalition to fight Trump and try to win the White House in the general election, that sort of caps his upside appeal there, I'd think.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> an establishment voter



Who is this though? Who is this person that would prefer a promise to do nothing from Joe Biden? I mean, there aren't _that _many people out there pulling down 10+ million. You're saying that you're worried that Bernie will turn off too many ultra-wealthy people, that we wont be able to get them to come out and vote against Trump in the general?

I feel like in the year 2020, the word "establishment" in the context of American politics means by definition someone who represents corporate interests over those of their actual human constituents. So Bernie might lose the CEO vote.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, the amount of people who self identify as "establishment" has to be pretty low. That's not the kinda thing people brag about.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

I think Sander's rationale in how he presents himself is fairly simple, he knows most Democrat voters are gonna vote for whoever has the "D" next to their name come November. His attacks on the establishment and the rich are an attempt to bring in people not usually loyal to Democrats. I think anybody at this point would be hard pressed to say that it's _not_ working.

As @vilk alluded to, Bernie isn't going to be lining up the rich for the guillotines like a lot of pundits on MSNBC (looking at you Chris Matthews) or at the WP are freaking out about, he's basically a center leftist from Europe running for POTUS in the US.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Who is this though? Who is this person that would prefer a promise to do nothing from Joe Biden? I mean, there aren't _that _many people out there pulling down 10+ million. You're saying that you're worried that Bernie will turn off too many ultra-wealthy people, that we wont be able to get them to come out and vote against Trump in the general?
> 
> I feel like in the year 2020, the word "establishment" in the context of American politics means by definition someone who represents corporate interests over those of their actual human constituents. So Bernie might lose the CEO vote.





Randy said:


> Yeah, the amount of people who self identify as "establishment" has to be pretty low. That's not the kinda thing people brag about.


I mean, framing is pretty important here, in both directions -

1) "Who is this person that would prefer a promise to do nothing from Joe Biden?" Most Biden supporters, and Buttigieg supporters, and Klobuchar supporters, and Bloomberg supporters, however many of them are still left, would STRONGLY question the claim that Biden is promising to do nothing. If you believe that he's promising to do nothing, then yeah, of course you're not going to support him, but a whole bunch of people support what we all agree are "establishment" candidates, so clearly a whole bunch of voters disagree with how you're framing that question.
2) Again, this is almost a perfect encapsulation of the argument I think Sanders has to make to broaden his base. I'm probably an "establishment" voter. I'm opposed to blowing up the system, I'm very concerned with what candidates can actually do, and what the impacts of their policies would be if implemented, more than what their goals are. I'm generally a proponent of incremental progress over tearing it down to start over, and while I share a lot of _goals_ with "progressive" candidates like Sanders, I don't agree with how he wants to get there. See: every discussion of policy in this thread. I'm also a strong believer in corporations, while potentially being a good thing for economic growth and expanding the proverbial pie, getting the fuck out of politics, overturning Citizens United, and doign away with "corporate personhood." And I think a reocurring theme in these discussions is, for every thing the moderate left routinely gets wrong about Sanders, his supporters routinely assume that anyone who supports a more "moderate" alternative to Sanders is automatically pro-corporate. We're not. I think that the main difference between the "moderate" wing of the party and the "progressive" wing today is how we plan on getting to objectives like universal health care coverage and making college tuition accessible to all, and the reason I'm a moderate is because I think Sanders' approach is light on detail and has a whole bunch of unintended consequences he hasn't really thought through, coupled with a dash of not really loving the optics of running an old angry white man.

Idunno. I feel like a lot of the people advocating for Sanders in this thread (and a few, like Randy, who may prefer other progressive candidates, but have made peace with Sanders' lead) are just assuming that once a few other candidates drop out, everyone's just going to cluster around Sanders except for a couple billionaires and CEOs. I don't think that's realistic. I like a lot of Sanders' objectives, I just don't think he has any real clue how to get there and I'd rather a candidate who can 1) make SOME sort of appeal to at a minimum the center-left if not the center, and 2) who has more realistic plans for how to try to get his or her policy goals into law than Bernie does.

For whatever it's worth, I'm probably going to be voting for Warren on Super Tuesday. Writing me off as a "corporate" voter would be _wildly_ missing the point.



JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I think Sander's rationale in how he presents himself is fairly simple, he knows most Democrat voters are gonna vote for whoever has the "D" next to their name come November. His attacks on the establishment and the rich are an attempt to bring in people not usually loyal to Democrats. I think anybody at this point would be hard pressed to say that it's _not_ working.
> 
> As @vilk alluded to, Bernie isn't going to be lining up the rich for the guillotines like a lot of pundits on MSNBC (looking at you Chris Matthews) or at the WP are freaking out about, he's basically a center leftist from Europe running for POTUS in the US.


...yet, most of the Sanders supporters I know are quick to point out that assuming "most Democrat voters are gonna vote for whoever has the "D" next to their name come November" isn't a safe assumption, and if Sanders doesn't get the nomination they may sit it out in November. See: Randy's quotation of someone defending "Bernie or Bust" voters.

EDIT - also, this is putting the cart before the horse. If Sanders is going to count on Democratic voters supporting whoever has a "D" next to his name in November, then that assumes he's the candidate. If he's the candidate, then he has to win the majority of delegates. Right now, he's NOT winning the majority of delegates - he's winning more than anyone else, but he hasn't won a majority of delegates in any of the states to vote so far. To do that, he has to get some "establishment" aligned voters to vote for him, to get him from 30-40% to 50+%. So, how does attacking the establishment help him win over establishment voters?


----------



## Drew

So, honest question - as someone who's a moderate Democratic voter, what's the argument for my supporting Sanders? Every candidate has a health care proposal, every candidate has a tuition proposal, every candidate wants to raise income taxes (which I support), every candidate is pushing green policies. Why Bernie? What's the argument he's either making to appeal to moderate voters that I'm just not seeing, or what's the argument that you think he SHOULD be making?

I'm 100% earnest here. If something like 60% of voters have been voting for "establishment" candidates, he's going to have to make inroads here, so how does he do that?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> ...yet, most of the Sanders supporters I know are quick to point out that assuming "most Democrat voters are gonna vote for whoever has the "D" next to their name come November" isn't a safe assumption, and if Sanders doesn't get the nomination they may sit it out in November. See: Randy's quotation of someone defending "Bernie or Bust" voters.


The Democrats problem hasn't ever really been getting loyal Democrat voters to show up, I'd stick by it being a safe assumption (this is coming from someone who is more than likely BoB) that they will show up no matter what in November. It's always been getting undecideds or people who'd just stay home to show up and vote. That's basically the story of 08', less so of 12', and more obviously so of 16'. 

There's something that also to be said for Bernie specifically having a few big issues that he's targetting (M4A, taxes, lowering inequality, foreign policy), those really catch the ears of people who usually aren't interested in politics. The same could be said for Obama though, "hope" was certainly more of a nebulous concept. Contrast that with Hillary's "Things are already great" and it's no wonder why she came up short where it mattered in 16'.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> So, honest question - as someone who's a moderate Democratic voter, what's the argument for my supporting Sanders? Every candidate has a health care proposal, every candidate has a tuition proposal, every candidate wants to raise income taxes (which I support), every candidate is pushing green policies. Why Bernie? What's the argument he's either making to appeal to moderate voters that I'm just not seeing, or what's the argument that you think he SHOULD be making?
> 
> I'm 100% earnest here. If something like 60% of voters have been voting for "establishment" candidates, he's going to have to make inroads here, so how does he do that?



Here are some things about Bernie Sanders that draw me to him:

He's been on the right side of shit and he's not a flip flopper. Iraq. Patriot Act. This dude was even several decades ahead on civil rights for LGBTQ. It's easy to say "I care about people of color!", but this dude was literally arrested protesting school segregation.
He doesn't take money from billionaires. When it comes down to a question of trusting the government to represent ME, a human person, not a corporation, don't you feel it's a bit easier to lend that trust when you know the dude isn't getting greased with cash by 1%ers?
He's the only candidate that even talks about cutting military budget, which is a big deal to me. When it comes to elections though, sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who cares about ending our wars, because no one seems to ever fucking talk about it.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Well, here's the reference for the last few polls in SC showing Biden's lead firming up.
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner/?ex_cid=2020-tracker
> 
> As for the rest of it, we can debate the trajectory, but at present Sanders isn't winning majorities. He's winning, but he's not winning more than 50% of the vote, or 50% of the delegates. He needs 50% of the delegates to avoid a brokered convention, so I don't think it's controversial to say that, unless Sanders sees a change in the race somehow, he's fairly likely to fall short of a majority.
> 
> If I'm making assumptions - basically, that as "establishment" candidates drop out, their supporters will tend to go to other establishment candidates, and vice versa as "progressive" candidates drop out, they'll do the same - then so are you. That Warren eventually drops out and endorses Sanders (I also agree this is pretty likely), and that Sanders becomes more popular with "establishment" Democrats as he's seen as more likely to win (which I think is a much less certain assumption). But, in either event, that's kind of the root of my argument there, in a nutshell - that he HAS to broaden his appeal so he can start pulling majorities rather than winning with 25-40% of the vote. You're assuming that happens automatically, I'm not. That's the gist of our difference here.
> 
> This is the single biggest difference between Trump in 2016 and Sanders in 2020 - the DNC primary isn't winner-take-all like the GOP, so in order to avoid a brokered convention, Sanders needs to win majorities, rather than just getting the most votes in a large field.



As with what happened with Trump, I don't put a whole lot of stock in what most voters care about other than promises. Trump had NO plan. He won on bluster and shit talk. The average person doesn't give a shit about the details. The average person cares about promises, however hollow. Who looks and talks like they they'll get shit done the best. People will also see the increasing lead of a candidate and fall in line. Because that's who they are. We're a herd species and survive because we're in a group. I'll trust the nature of human sociology over rational thinking any day of the week. If it looks like Bernie is gaining steam and continues to look that way, people are going to throw their weight that way. Especially if he's hitting a nerve. Considering his fund raising is the best outside of Billionaire self funders, based on no PAC support, it looks to me like the support is already there.


----------



## Ralyks

vilk said:


> He's been on the right side of shit and he's not a flip flopper. Iraq. Patriot Act. This dude was even several decades ahead on civil rights for LGBTQ. It's easy to say "I care about people of color!", but this dude was literally arrested protesting school segregation.



This was basically going to be my response. Bernie has been saying the same shit for 40 years. Whether or not he's been successful is another story, but you can't say that he hasn't stuck to his guns through everything. I lean moderate myself, but would have no qualms with voting for Bernie if he indeed becomes the nominee.


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> Gotcha, so if you're wrong, move the goalposts so it doesn't LOOK like you're wrong.
> 
> Socialism and communism are both by definition "centrally planned" economies. The government is responsible for making resource allocation decisions. The government is also, as we've both noticed, susceptable to corruption.
> 
> You're also fundamentally misunderstanding capitalism. "You can only derive a profit from paying workers less than they're worth." No, you derive a profit by providing capital for the workers to use, and in return receiving a return on the use of that capital. I'm more productive with the use of a computer than without - capitalism is someone else provides me that computer, and in return receives a share of the earnings I generate in return for that enhanced productivity. This only becomes a problem when the return on capital eclipses the return on labor, which is what we're dealing with now in America - return on labor has lagged return on capital, badly, since the Great Recession.
> 
> Your whole argument is basically "all capitalists are greedy, all socialists are altruistic," which is total pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. You either don't understand capitalism, don't understand socialism, or both.



Socialism is an economic system where workers own the means of production. That doesn't specify centrally planned or market economy. There's forms of market socialism, such as many syndicalist, anarchist, or mutualist ideologies. The government is more accountable to the people than the private sector, where corporations make decisions that affect vast numbers of people across the world. People have no democratic say in what happens to them if a multinational corporation decides it behind closed doors. Look at Goldman Sachs wrt 2008, or Uber, or Purdue Pharma. They all got away with murder. The vast capital these companies command allowed them to bend the government to their will. I'm all for reducing government corruption, which is part of why I'm post-capitalist. Capital affords too much undemocratic power to a select few. 

We've already collectively decided that a degree of central planning is acceptable in our economy. Every corporation uses a centrally planned system, and some (like Walmart) are effectively larger economies than most countries. Why not strive to make it more effective and actually serve people? What if, instead of bailing out Goldman Sachs, the Obama administration had bailed out its victims who lost their savings? Reductionist way to phrase it, but you get the idea. The issue isn't whether to use central planning, it's where and how. 

The return on the investment of capital is extracting value from labor. I fundamentally don't agree that someone deserves a share of your earnings just because they had more capital than you. Especially when you consider the ways that most people build that capital. What is your explanation for why return on labor continues to lag behind capital? THe left has a clear answer in the metaphor of class war. What would you propose to tip the balance back towards return on labor? What's the theory of change you adopt from your observation of the labor-capital relationship? I don't buy that there's regulations that won't eventually be overwhelmed by capital, given the history of the past couple centuries. 

It's not about whether someone is individually greedy or altruistic or moral. It's about a system that rewards effective if not literal greed. If a capitalist does not maximize their profits as much as they can get away with, the market will replace them with someone who does. The economy pushes the "greediest", in the sense ability to maximize profit, to the top. The more you profit, the more power you attain. You could execute every single billionaire in the world and nothing would change. In a few years they'd all be replaced by people acting in the same way, because that's what the incentives are. 

Am I personally repulsed by the most visible capitalists? Of course, with examples like Trump, Bloomberg, Bezos, etc. But if they were just greedy people with the same amount of political power and wealth as me, I wouldn't have any reason to care. When I meet someone who cares more about money than people, I move on with my life and leave them be. Greed is uncouth but it's not a political issue except when there's immense power and wealth attached. It's an important distinction that I don't think you're giving me credit for. I'm not well versed in political theory or economics, but I am arguing in good faith, and I have spent a lot of time trying to develop a nuanced understanding of these issues.


----------



## Ralyks

Sorry, but this came to mind towards the end there.


----------



## jaxadam

If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Here’s the current Vegas betting odds:

https://www.oddsshark.com/politics/democratic-nominee-odds

Sadly this is written better and with less grammatical errors than most of the other “news” outfits.


----------



## Adieu

Thaeon said:


> As with what happened with Trump, I don't put a whole lot of stock in what most voters care about other than promises. Trump had NO plan. He won on bluster and shit talk. The average person doesn't give a shit about the details. The average person cares about promises, however hollow. Who looks and talks like they they'll get shit done the best. People will also see the increasing lead of a candidate and fall in line. Because that's who they are. We're a herd species and survive because we're in a group. I'll trust the nature of human sociology over rational thinking any day of the week. If it looks like Bernie is gaining steam and continues to look that way, people are going to throw their weight that way. Especially if he's hitting a nerve. Considering his fund raising is the best outside of Billionaire self funders, based on no PAC support, it looks to me like the support is already there.



True

My mom literally flipped from Warren to Bernie sometime this month


----------



## Thaeon

jaxadam said:


> If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Here’s the current Vegas betting odds:
> 
> https://www.oddsshark.com/politics/democratic-nominee-odds
> 
> Sadly this is written better and with less grammatical errors than most of the other “news” outfits.



Would love to read that right now, but my firewall doesn't like that site. I'm not going to open it and put a business at risk. I'll have to wait till tonight.


----------



## vilk

I just read something pretty interesting:

Mike Bloomberg spent $12 million to re-elect Senate Republican Toomey in 2016. Toomey beat Democrat McGinty by 1.5 points. If McGinty had won, Democrats would have controlled the Senate after Doug Jones won and could have blocked Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court. 

Not that we really need any more reasons to hate the evil fucking bastard.


----------



## Randy

So what you're saying is that Mike Bloomberg was more effective at getting Republicans elected to the Senate than Trump? Good, good.


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> The Democrats problem hasn't ever really been getting loyal Democrat voters to show up, I'd stick by it being a safe assumption (this is coming from someone who is more than likely BoB) that they will show up no matter what in November. It's always been getting undecideds or people who'd just stay home to show up and vote. That's basically the story of 08', less so of 12', and more obviously so of 16'.
> 
> There's something that also to be said for Bernie specifically having a few big issues that he's targetting (M4A, taxes, lowering inequality, foreign policy), those really catch the ears of people who usually aren't interested in politics. The same could be said for Obama though, "hope" was certainly more of a nebulous concept. Contrast that with Hillary's "Things are already great" and it's no wonder why she came up short where it mattered in 16'.


But again, you're looking towards November. How does Sanders get over 50% of the delegate vote by June? 



vilk said:


> Here are some things about Bernie Sanders that draw me to him:
> 
> He's been on the right side of shit and he's not a flip flopper. Iraq. Patriot Act. This dude was even several decades ahead on civil rights for LGBTQ. It's easy to say "I care about people of color!", but this dude was literally arrested protesting school segregation.
> He doesn't take money from billionaires. When it comes down to a question of trusting the government to represent ME, a human person, not a corporation, don't you feel it's a bit easier to lend that trust when you know the dude isn't getting greased with cash by 1%ers?
> He's the only candidate that even talks about cutting military budget, which is a big deal to me. When it comes to elections though, sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who cares about ending our wars, because no one seems to ever fucking talk about it.


I respect the consistency bullet point, and think that's a selling point. I don't really care who billionares support though, so that's kind of a non-issue for me. And I don't love military spending, but I recognize the importance the military has for american hegemony and second-order effects like most of global commerce is in USD and we can borrow as much as we want because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world. 



Thaeon said:


> Considering his fund raising is the best outside of Billionaire self funders, based on no PAC support, it looks to me like the support is already there.


Bernie is also the only candidate with a national fund-raising apparatus from 2016 in this race. He SHOULD be out-fundraising his rivals, he had a four year headstart building a network. 

Idunno. You guys keep assuming that supporters of "establishment" moderate candidates are just going to flock to Bernie as the herd narrows. It's not impossible... But this is the guy out there railing against the establisment Democratic voter in fundraising pitch after fundraising pitch, after threatening to take his ball and go home in 2016. I think you underestimate how much of an asshole a lot of moderate Democrats think he is.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> The return on the investment of capital is extracting value from labor. I fundamentally don't agree that someone deserves a share of your earnings just because they had more capital than you. Especially when you consider the ways that most people build that capital. What is your explanation for why return on labor continues to lag behind capital? THe left has a clear answer in the metaphor of class war. What would you propose to tip the balance back towards return on labor?


You absolutely, completely, and entirely do not understand capitalism.

Why does the return on labor lag that on capital? Honestly, there's a lot of potential explanations - QE may have been a factor, the "gig economy" as well - but ultimatlely I think the "why" is less important than acknowledging that it IS happening. As to what you do about it, the first two things I'd want to do, if I had a magic wand I could wave and enact policy, would be to increase marginal tax brackets to/towards pre-Reagan levels, and boost the minimum wage, with taxation being the one I'd pick if I had to pick just one as it should make return on capital less appealing for top income earners. Change the incentive structure.

EDIT - it's a waste of time since you're pretty clearly not letting yourself being receptive to ideas that run counter to your own, but return on capital is a direct byproduct of the fact capital can "leverage" labor and allow productivity to be far higher than it would be on it's own. If I can make 5 widgets an hour on my own, or with WidgetMaker5000 can produce 50 widgets an hour, then my productivity is 10x higher with access to capital than without. If I can afford a WidgetMaker5000 then that's one thing, I'm providing my own capital and therefore the distinction between return on capital and return on labor is moot... But if I can't afford to invest in technology to boost my productivity and output, then someone else can provide the capital to increase my own productivity and output, and in return they deserve a return on the capital they provided, representing a portion of my enhanced productivity. I'm providing the labor... But I'm able to do a LOT more with that labor thanks to the use of someone else's capital. Capital boosts productivity, increases what labor can do, and should receive a share of the profits.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I think you underestimate how much of an asshole a lot of moderate Democrats think he is.



I think everyone underestimates how much I think moderate Democrats are assholes. 

They have nearly the same "fuck you, I got mine" attitude as the GOP, only they're not total dinosaurs on social issues...sometimes (see anti-choice and pro-firearm industry folks that identify as Dem). 

This is how you get dipshits like Joe Manchin.  

I don't really have a point.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think everyone underestimates how much I think moderate Democrats are assholes.
> 
> They have nearly the same "fuck you, I got mine" attitude as the GOP, only they're not total dinosaurs on social issues...sometimes (see anti-choice and pro-firearm industry folks that identify as Dem).
> 
> This is how you get dipshits like Joe Manchin.
> 
> I don't really have a point.


...and that's exactly why I think we're on track for a divided convention. The moderate wing of the party - still a majority - sees Sanders as a cranky old deamer who would rather attack Democrats than Trump, and doesn't like being told they're the bad guys. The progressive wing - still a minority - thinks the moderates are just as bad as the GOP. That doesn't give either side much incentive to cross sides. Again, I think Warren could pull it off, but it doesn't seem like she's gonna get a chance.

I really, really, REALLY think Sanders' "We need to beat the Democratic establishment, who are trying to stand in our way!" rhetoric is going to come back and bite him in the ass here. 

And, thinking out loud here, he probably knows it. Considering the Democratic establishment is exactly the constituency he's campaigning to represent in the fall, if he thought he could rally a majority of support for his candidacy, he probably wouldn't be so busy demonizing the moderate center-left. You guys are saying all the "establishment" candidates are positioning for a contested convention and at this point short of something completely shaking up the race I think you're right... But what's getting lost in the fog of war here, so to speak, is Sanders is pretty clearly trying to position himself to win with a minority of delegates, too.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Bernie is also the only candidate with a national fund-raising apparatus from 2016 in this race. He SHOULD be out-fundraising his rivals, he had a four year headstart building a network.
> 
> Idunno. You guys keep assuming that supporters of "establishment" moderate candidates are just going to flock to Bernie as the herd narrows. It's not impossible... But this is the guy out there railing against the establisment Democratic voter in fundraising pitch after fundraising pitch, after threatening to take his ball and go home in 2016. I think you underestimate how much of an asshole a lot of moderate Democrats think he is.



Isn't that precisely what Trump did all the way to the White House? I think the assumption that the average Dem is more informed and/or less susceptible to herd think is giving them too much credit. Most people in this conversation are WAY more informed about this stuff than the average American (even the least informed in this conversation whether we agree with their conclusions or not). The average American doesn't even like talking about Politics. People need their group to associate with. To have their identity. To feel safe. Dems don't like Trump. Lots of independents don't like Trump. Given an alternative, I think that most people will vote for the alternative. I think that the people who wanted to tear down the establishment and voted for Trump in 2016 and have been disillusioned by the reality will see someone like Bernie as also anti-establishment and will be more likely to entertain him as a candidate than someone like Biden or Bloomberg. I honestly see Pete as the wildcard.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> But what's getting lost in the fog of war here, so to speak, is Sanders is pretty clearly trying to position himself to win with a minority of delegates, too.



We'll see how well this comment ages after Super Tuesday.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Isn't that precisely what Trump did all the way to the White House?


Trump had a pretty sizable advantage though in that the majority of GOP primaries are winner take all. He could win 20% of the vote pretty consistently in early states, and come away with 100% of the delegates up for grabs. Democratic rules have a floor of 15% of the vote, but anything above that is essentially proportional. So, Sanders won 26-8% of the vote in the first two states and 40% of the vote or so in the third, and has 45 of 100 delegates awarded thus far. Under republican rules. he'd have won 59 delegates, and the only other person on the board would be Buttigieg with 41 from Iowa.

Again, the more I think of it, the more I think Sanders' campaign's decision to run an "anti-establishment" campaign attacking the "Democratic establishment" is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that he, too, is positioning himself for a contested convention, and he doesn't think he can win a majority of the delegates either, in a race where "establishment" candidates are pulling 55-60% of the vote. That has pretty awful implications for the convention and the eventual nominee running against Trump.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> We'll see how well this comment ages after Super Tuesday.


I agree. If Sanders starts winning outright majorities, I'll have some crow to eat. I just don't see that as especially likely, unless there's a change in strategy in the Sanders camp. Likewise, if we're coming out of Super Tuesday and Sanders won the majority of the states, but with a share of the vote in the high 20s/low 30s, I think it's going to be a pretty telling sign that he's going to struggle to win over establishment support. 

Nice thing is, it's a very binary test, and we'll get our first inkling in about a week.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> But again, you're looking towards November. How does Sanders get over 50% of the delegate vote by June?


Even if he doesn't I think he still would have a plurality by then (assuming nothing drastically changes), Dems going with someone else would be disastrous.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Trump had a pretty sizable advantage though in that GOP primaries are winner take all. He could win 20% of the vote pretty consistently in early states, and come away with 100% of the delegates up for grabs. Democratic rules have a floor of 15% of the vote, but anything above that is essentially proportional. So, Sanders won 26-8% of the vote in the first two states and 40% of the vote or so in the third, and has 45 of 100 delegates awarded thus far. Under republican rules. he'd have won 59 delegates, and the only other person on the board would be Buttigieg with 41 from Iowa.
> 
> Again, the more I think of it, the more I think Sanders' campaign's decision to run an "anti-establishment" campaign attacking the "Democratic establishment" is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that he, too, is positioning himself for a contested convention, and he doesn't think he can win a majority of the delegates either, in a race where "establishment" candidates are pulling 55-60% of the vote. That has pretty awful implications for the convention and the eventual nominee running against Trump.



Your Sanders Derangement Syndrome belies your arguments.




Assuming it breaks down establishment v. progressive split based on what we have today, *Bernie* + *Warren* = *53 delegates*, *Buttiegieg* + *Biden* + *Amy* = *47 delegates*. You seem to keep cherry picking individual states making up <50% delegates and selectively narrowing the criteria to fit your argument, but leaving out relevant information.

Sanders has trended upward consistently in polling as this has moved along the more people consider him viable, which is what primaries always do. The fact that I had to go dig up the delegate counts and add them up to realize progressives have MORE delegates right now makes your arguments look especially disingenuous.


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Even if he doesn't I think he still would have a plurality by then (assuming nothing drastically changes), Dems going with someone else would be disastrous.


I think _any_ situation where Sanders wins a plurality but falls short of a majority will be disasterous. I've been talking about that for weeks now, but imagine a scenario where Sanders wins 30% of the delegates, but Biden and Bootigeg each win 20%, Bloomberg takes 15% and Warren takes 10%, with the remaing 5% amongst the also rans. Sanders claims victory saying he was the individual candidate with the most votes, but Biden and Buttigieg come to terms where Biden takes Buttigieg as his VP in return for his support in the second round as a consensus "moderate" ticket, and Bloomberg throws his delegates in behind them. We have a Biden/Buttigieg ticket with the support of 55% of delegates, significantly more than Sanders 30%, and even if Warren were to throw in behind him that would only get him up to 40%, well behind the Bloomberg-backed Biden/Buttigieg hypothetical ticket. There's a pretty clear manadate from the Democratic primary for a moderate ticket in this not-at-all-hard-to-imagine scenario, yet Sanders is going to scream bloody murder because he isn't the nominee, even if he got less than a third of the delegates. 

I think if Sanders gets up to 45%+ that's one thing and it becomes an easier sell... But the point of the primary is to ensure the eventual nominee, either through popular vote or campaign floor horsetrading, has the support of a majority of the party. If Sanders can't pull together a coalition representing a majority of the Democratic electorate... That becomes a _REAL _problem. And I'm really concerned this is an outcome Sanders is counting on.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Your Sanders Derangement Syndrome belies your arguments.
> View attachment 77873
> 
> 
> Assuming it breaks down establishment v. progressive split based on what we have today, *Bernie* + *Warren* = *53 delegates*, *Buttiegieg* + *Biden* + *Amy* = *47 delegates*. You seem to keep cherry picking individual states making up <50% delegates and selectively narrowing the criteria to fit your argument, but leaving out relevant information.



Ok, then let's look at the popular vote, since his supporters are using that to justify a win in Iowa:

Sanders: 31.1%
Buttigieg: 25.4%
Biden: 12.9%
Warren: 14.1%
Klobuchar: 16.6%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Sanders and Warren combine to 45.2%, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg combine to 54.9%. The establishment lane is more divided and candidates haven't consistently hit the 15% viability threshold - honestly, this is Sanders' best chance at a majority, I think - but if you look at the raw vote, we've had about a 55/45 establishment/progressive split. And I'm not sure where you think I'm selectively cherry-picking states, I've been saying all along that this is how he's doing in the states that have already voted, where we have actual votes. 

Sanders has benefitted pretty significantly here from the 15% viability threshold. If he wants to win, he either needs to count on the establishment lane not consolidating and candidates continuing to come close to but just miss the viability threshold, or he needs to make some inroads. The numbers are against him. That's not Sanders Derrangement, that's math.

Sanders may be trending upwards in the polls... But at present he's only polling at about 27%. He needs to do MUCH better than that if he wants to be the nominee, and to me it looks like the strategy of his campaign is to be pretty disinterested in trying to broaden his appeal.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Ok, then let's look at the popular vote, since his supporters are using that to justify a win in Iowa:
> 
> Sanders: 31.1%
> Buttigieg: 25.4%
> Biden: 12.9%
> Warren: 14.1%
> Klobuchar: 16.6%
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
> 
> Sanders and Warren combine to 45.2%, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg combine to 54.9%. The establishment lane is more divided and candidates haven't consistently hit the 15% viability threshold - honestly, this is Sanders' best chance at a majority, I think - but if you look at the raw vote, we've had about a 55/45 establishment/progressive split.



If those numbers are accurate then you're right, but I'm not sure how they're quantifying that. I'm having trouble understanding why Amy is so far under Warren with Amy's popular vote count that much higher. And I'm seeing a lot of votes for candidates that have zero delegates (like Tulsi and Steyer), so I'm assuming these numbers are only from NH since that's the only actual primary vote (vs caucus) we've had so far? If these are caucus numbers, there's no way they're reflective of final alignments?

EDIT: Also, saying "lets talk popular vote number, since that's what his followers are using to justify Iowa" is almost the exact definition of cherry-picking.


----------



## Thaeon

The NYT says that national polls are favoring Bernie by quite a bit. And Biden has fallen quite a bit since January. The last month pretty sharply. With a similar amount of increased interest in Bloomberg. My guess is Bloomberg siphoned off a bunch of Biden's clingers on in the midst of the issues with the Impeachment proceedings and Hunter's involvement in them. If they're that influenced, I have my doubts that they'll be hard to push one way or the other when its evident that one candidate has the lead by a margin. Its also worth noting, that in general, the candidate in the lead at this point in the past almost always gets the nomination.

Beware the paywall.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ratic-polls.html?auth=login-email&login=email


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> If those numbers are accurate then you're right, but I'm not sure how they're quantifying that. I'm having trouble understanding why Amy is so far under Warren with Amy's popular vote count that much higher. And I'm seeing a lot of votes for candidates that have zero delegates (like Tulsi and Steyer), so I'm assuming these numbers are only from NH since that's the only actual primary vote (vs caucus) we've had so far? If these are caucus numbers, there's no way they're reflective of final alignments?
> 
> EDIT: Also, saying "lets talk popular vote number, since that's what his followers are using to justify Iowa" is almost the exact definition of cherry-picking.


Yeah, but considering I've been talking votes cast all along, I'm at least sticking to a consistent data series. I also think it's a reasonable one - how the popular vote will intersect with delegate allocation can get a bit tricky, but it's at least a pretty good way of estimating a starting point.

And, I think my major thesis here - that it will be very hard for Sanders to win a majority of the delegates if he doesn't start winning more than 30% of the vote - is pretty solid.

Re: the popular vote totals, I can't speak for how they're counted, but a lot of what you're seeing makes sense - Amy didn't do well at all in Iowa or Nevada, but did VERY well in New Hampshire, which is the state that's had the most votes cast. Warren meanwhile has done consistently less-well, but enough to get on the delegate map in most/all states as I recall. Tulsi and Steyer meanwhile haven't hit the 15% threshold of viability anywhere, so they're getting votes, but not delegates.

Again, if there IS a way forward for Sanders to win a majjority of the delegates with a minority of the votes, it's for situations like that, where he consistently gets on the map with 20-40% of the vote, but the establishment lane remains fragmented enough that - say - Bloomberg keeps getting 12-13% of the vote in a whole bunch of states, stealing votes from Biden or Buttigieg, and one or the other of them hits the 15% threshold in most states but not the other so Sanders' 30%o of the vote becomes a majority of the vote for candidates hitting the viability threshold. But that's an awfully thin line, and he basically has to run the map on Super Tuesday and get enough of a lead that when the field winnows he's already too close to having had a majority.



Thaeon said:


> The NYT says that national polls are favoring Bernie by quite a bit.


They are... But, in 538's weighted average, he's at 28%. That puts him ahead of Bloomberg and Biden both around 16%, but that's a FAR cry from a majority. Put another way, that's right around where Biden was polling when the progressive left was telling him he was too tainted from Burisma to run.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

Maybe this is getting lost along the way somewhere, but the point I'm trying to make isn't that Sanders isn't the leader right now. He is, by any measure you want to look at. Rather, I'm saying he's the leader in a _very_ fragmented field with the support of between a quarter and a third of voters, and to win the nomination he has to get over half. He's the leader, but he needs a strategy to get from a third to a half, and running "the Democratic establishment is out to get me" as a campaign message doesn't seem like a terribly effective way to win over the Democratic establishment, to me. Maybe I'm just crazy here.

Idunno. One of the nuances we need to account for here was Trump was able to win with a Sanders-sized share of the vote because the GOP does a lot of winner-take-all primaries, but the DNC doesn't. The GOP process is weighted towards the candidate with the most support, regardless of _absolute level_ of support, but the DNC process pretty much forces a candidate to be able to claim _majority _support. That makes Sanders' task a little harder than Trump's, and we seem to be on a crash course for that "plurality but not majority" outcome that's going to take some horsetrading and dealmaking to get to a consensus candidate. Sanders seems singlularly disinterested in being that consensus pick, which if we DO get a contested convention, is a recipe for a disaster. We either get a consensus candidate but 30% of the voters tell that candidate to fuck right off, or we get a non-consensus candidate that only has the support of the minority of Democrats, which also isn't a recipe for high general election turnout.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Yeah, but considering I've been talking votes cast all along, I'm at least sticking to a consistent data series. I also think it's a reasonable one - how the popular vote will intersect with delegate allocation can get a bit tricky, but it's at least a pretty good way of estimating a starting point.
> 
> And, I think my major thesis here - that it will be very hard for Sanders to win a majority of the delegates if he doesn't start winning more than 30% of the vote - is pretty solid.
> 
> Re: the popular vote totals, I can't speak for how they're counted, but a lot of what you're seeing makes sense - Amy didn't do well at all in Iowa or Nevada, but did VERY well in New Hampshire, which is the state that's had the most votes cast. Warren meanwhile has done consistently less-well, but enough to get on the delegate map in most/all states as I recall. Tulsi and Steyer meanwhile haven't hit the 15% threshold of viability anywhere, so they're getting votes, but not delegates.
> 
> Again, if there IS a way forward for Sanders to win a majjority of the delegates with a minority of the votes, it's for situations like that, where he consistently gets on the map with 20-40% of the vote, but the establishment lane remains fragmented enough that - say - Bloomberg keeps getting 12-13% of the vote in a whole bunch of states, stealing votes from Biden or Buttigieg, and one or the other of them hits the 15% threshold in most states but not the other so Sanders' 30%o of the vote becomes a majority of the vote for candidates hitting the viability threshold. But that's an awfully thin line, and he basically has to run the map on Super Tuesday and get enough of a lead that when the field winnows he's already too close to having had a majority.
> 
> 
> They are... But, in 538's weighted average, he's at 28%. That puts him ahead of Bloomberg and Biden both around 16%, but that's a FAR cry from a majority. Put another way, that's right around where Biden was polling when the progressive left was telling him he was too tainted from Burisma to run.
> 
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/
> 
> Maybe this is getting lost along the way somewhere, but the point I'm trying to make isn't that Sanders isn't the leader right now. He is, by any measure you want to look at. Rather, I'm saying he's the leader in a _very_ fragmented field with the support of between a quarter and a third of voters, and to win the nomination he has to get over half. He's the leader, but he needs a strategy to get from a third to a half, and running "the Democratic establishment is out to get me" as a campaign message doesn't seem like a terribly effective way to win over the Democratic establishment, to me. Maybe I'm just crazy here.
> 
> Idunno. One of the nuances we need to account for here was Trump was able to win with a Sanders-sized share of the vote because the GOP does a lot of winner-take-all primaries, but the DNC doesn't. The GOP process is weighted towards the candidate with the most support, regardless of _absolute level_ of support, but the DNC process pretty much forces a candidate to be able to claim _majority _support. That makes Sanders' task a little harder than Trump's, and we seem to be on a crash course for that "plurality but not majority" outcome that's going to take some horsetrading and dealmaking to get to a consensus candidate. Sanders seems singlularly disinterested in being that consensus pick, which if we DO get a contested convention, is a recipe for a disaster. We either get a consensus candidate but 30% of the voters tell that candidate to fuck right off, or we get a non-consensus candidate that only has the support of the minority of Democrats, which also isn't a recipe for high general election turnout.



I understand the Plurality vs Majority thing. The point I'm trying to make with my last post is that where every recent democratic candidate was in the lead going into Super Tuesday, that was the candidate that ultimately claimed the nomination. Usually with 60 or more percent.

Edit: I also want to add that that link shows a significant upward swing in Sanders support. Like Randy has said, if that continues into Super Tuesday, that's going to be really hard for anyone else to top. Individually or even collectively.


----------



## Mathemagician

By all accounts I should be “establishment” but I’m not. Because I don’t like unelected Kingmakers. I do not place ANY value in “the DNC” or on party title. I care about policies. And right now, there’s only one person who isn’t capitulating to unelected Kingmakers.

Put another way, if Bernie as it stands wins and only accomplished 30-50% of any given promise, the average American would benefit even though I would likely gain very little. That’s fine with me. Because a lot of people from a lot of red, purple and blue states could use a fucking break.

I do actually understand a lot of the establishment vote though and it boils down to basically 1) Any change is scary/Government is bad
2) I’m still keeping my Medicare & Medicaid 3) I will vote against anything that may cost me a cent. 

All Single-issue votes. 

You are not going to convince someone like that with numbers. Because it’s an issue of “faith”. They do not believe anything good can come from any policy. And you cannot make people question their faith.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I understand the Plurality vs Majority thing. The point I'm trying to make with my last post is that where every recent democratic candidate was in the lead going into Super Tuesday, that was the candidate that ultimately claimed the nomination. Usually with 60 or more percent.
> 
> Edit: I also want to add that that link shows a significant upward swing in Sanders support. Like Randy has said, if that continues into Super Tuesday, that's going to be really hard for anyone else to top. Individually or even collectively.


Yeah, but when every recent democratic candidate was in the lead going into Super Tuesday, were they leading with less than 30% of the vote? And, were they making no active effort to appeal to voters outside their base?

Looking back, in 2016 Clinton was polling at 64% before Super Tuesday. Obama looks like he had a modest plurality inn a two way race in 2008 according to RCP, around 48%. Gore had majority support in polls pretty much all campaign. Clinton may be the best comparison here, but I'm struggling to find good polling - either way he didn't become the clear frontrunner before a southern sweep after Super Tuesday. In all cases from Gore onwards, though, the leader coming into Super Tuesday was alreay at or near majority support. Sanders is well behind that. 

All I'm saying is, it takes a lot of assumptions for Sanders to run up to majority support in the next couple weeks, and I don't think any of those are assumptions that can be taken for granted. Could it happen? Sure. But it's not inevitable like you're suggesting here.


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/joe-biden-south-carolina-poll-bernie-sanders/index.html


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Yeah, but when every recent democratic candidate was in the lead going into Super Tuesday, were they leading with less than 30% of the vote? And, were they making no active effort to appeal to voters outside their base?
> 
> Looking back, in 2016 Clinton was polling at 64% before Super Tuesday. Obama looks like he had a modest plurality inn a two way race in 2008 according to RCP, around 48%. Gore had majority support in polls pretty much all campaign. Clinton may be the best comparison here, but I'm struggling to find good polling - either way he didn't become the clear frontrunner before a southern sweep after Super Tuesday. In all cases from Gore onwards, though, the leader coming into Super Tuesday was alreay at or near majority support. Sanders is well behind that.
> 
> All I'm saying is, it takes a lot of assumptions for Sanders to run up to majority support in the next couple weeks, and I don't think any of those are assumptions that can be taken for granted. Could it happen? Sure. But it's not inevitable like you're suggesting here.



I absolutely think its withing the realm of possibility for someone to take the lead other than Bernie. All I'm looking at are what appears to be surging support for him. Policywise, I probably more of a Warren person. However, I prefer honest people who show a stable record. So my support goes to the candidate that represents those specific values until that option is off of the table. If the question is "Do you want to see a Bernie presidency?" the answer is yes. If the question is, "Do you want to see Trumpo the dunderhead unceremoniously kicked out of office as soon as possible?" also yes. But I'm going to influence things to represent my views up until the point at which its not on the table anymore. Then I'll vote for what is best for the country. In which case, I think ANYONE on the democratic side of the field aside from maybe Bloomberg is a VAST improvement.


----------



## Drew

Hey, I plan on voting Warren too. If Sanders wins the nomination I'll vote for him too, but the point I'm trying to make in this long cascading argument we're having here is Sanders' strategy doesn't seem especially well tailored to winning over minority support, so much as continuing to throw red meat to his base.

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/campaign.92.shtml

Looks like Clinton didn't take the lead until after Super Tuesday and the southern sweep I mentioned that solidified him to the front runner was during Super Tuesday itself, though it was actually a little while longer before he had a lock on the frontrunner status.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> And, were they making no active effort to appeal to voters outside their base



Um, Hillary Clinton made ABSOLUTELY no active efforts to appeal outside of her base, are you fucking kidding me? She softened up to $15/hr. and debt-free college in the general, but she spend the whole primary saying Sanders voters were kids that wanted "free stuff" and the people to the right of her were "deplorables". Come on, man.

FWIW, you're in fairly good company.

I had a spirited debate with a guy yesterday who's a retired president of an Ivy League university and he sounds almost like you verbatim. We took a break mid-debate and when we came back to it, I said "look, I agree with you on how polarizing the 'socialist' moniker is and also how his inflexibility will make him hard to work with. So if your argument is that his positions aren't fully reflected in the polling yet, then I'll actually agree with you. But trying to argue polls, trajectory and delegates NOW to prove your point won't get anywhere with me." and he conceded that his opposition is primarily about the ideological divide not being fully accounted for.

He said he fully expects a James McGovern style outcome.

My counter to that was that I haven't seen a convincing argument that the results of a contested convention will be any less embarrassing in the general election's results.



jaxadam said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/joe-biden-south-carolina-poll-bernie-sanders/index.html



CNN/MSNBC and @Drew seem to have drastically different definition of the words "firming up"  I don't blame him on that one, that article pretty much says that verbatim but I have no idea what about an inarguable fluid situation made them think "firming up" was an appropriate description there.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Hey, I plan on voting Warren too. If Sanders wins the nomination I'll vote for him too, but the point I'm trying to make in this long cascading argument we're having here is Sanders' strategy doesn't seem especially well tailored to winning over minority support, so much as continuing to throw red meat to his base.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/campaign.92.shtml
> 
> Looks like Clinton didn't take the lead until after Super Tuesday and the southern sweep I mentioned that solidified him to the front runner was during Super Tuesday itself, though it was actually a little while longer before he had a lock on the frontrunner status.



He's gradually building steam from throwing the red meat to his base. It seems to be working for him, if slowly. But the trend remains that he's gaining momentum. Over the last month, it seems he's gained more than most. If he can stoke the fires over this next week, there's no reason to believe that the next couple primary dates will change his momentum.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> CNN/MSNBC and @Drew seem to have drastically different definition of the words "firming up"  I don't blame him on that one, that article pretty much says that verbatim but I have no idea what about an inarguable fluid situation made them think "firming up" was an appropriate description there.



So do you think it will be the Bernie Bros vs the Quid Pro Joes, or do you think it'll be a rich old white ex-Republican (Bloomberg) vs a rich old white ex-Democrat (Trump)?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Um, Hillary Clinton made ABSOLUTELY no active efforts to appeal outside of her base, are you fucking kidding me? She softened up to $15/hr. and debt-free college in the general, but she spend the whole primary saying Sanders voters were kids that wanted "free stuff" and the people to the right of her were "deplorables". Come on, man.


Sanders had a _huge_ hand in shaping DNC platform in 2016 - this was his main argument for not conceding and refusing to endorse Clinton until what, the day before the convention opened? I'm having a similar debate with Sanders supporters on Facebook who are saying Warren should drop out and make room for Sanders, and when I pointed out the hypocritical there that was their immediate reply, "oh, he was just staying in to make sure he could have a voice in the platform." They can't have it both ways. 

George McGovern, right? Yeah, that's my fear here too. I forget if it was Mass or Minnesota that ended up being the sole state he won, but that's not an encouraging precedent. Of course, Nixon also didn't finish his second term, so there's that.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> So do you think it will be the Bernie Bros vs the Quid Pro Joes, or do you think it'll be a rich old white ex-Republican (Bloomberg) vs a rich old white ex-Democrat (Trump)?



Bloomberg and Steyer both ranked lowest in favorability among Democrats, and Bloomberg actually the only Democrat with MORE unfavorable votes than favorable. I think the Democratic Party has radicalized (and this is coming from an admitted Progressive) and there's an anti-'Rich Guy' sentiment that would be hard for Jesus Christ himself to overcome.

The bulk of polls show just about every Democratic candidate beating Trump head to head, yet there's several polls that say 65%+ of people "think" Trump is going to win. So there's an anxiety, apathy and a panic. Bloomberg made a splash because he was new and they liked "hey, my rich guy is richer than your rich guy!" as a confidence booster, but the polish is wearing off fast and the deluge of ads is going to go from helping to hurting. The fact he didn't make it on the ballot for the first four races was ill advised.

So I'm going with Bernie Bros vs Quid Pro Quo Joes, no clue what the result will be. If it were all even, I think numbers favor Democrats in general (Democrat enrollment and left of center independent enrollments are up) but 2016 showed what happens when people stay home, I just haven't seen how inclined center-left Dems are to stay home if they don't like the ticket.

That's my objective take. No gloom and doom, I just think the Dems are polarized and Bernie is unlikely to make a concession VP that'd help his chances. Republicans are much more unified, even if they're individually divided.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Sanders had a _huge_ hand in shaping DNC platform in 2016 - this was his main argument for not conceding and refusing to endorse Clinton until what, the day before the convention opened? I'm having a similar debate with Sanders supporters on Facebook who are saying Warren should drop out and make room for Sanders, and when I pointed out the hypocritical there that was their immediate reply, "oh, he was just staying in to make sure he could have a voice in the platform." They can't have it both ways.
> 
> George McGovern, right? Yeah, that's my fear here too. I forget if it was Mass or Minnesota that ended up being the sole state he won, but that's not an encouraging precedent. Of course, Nixon also didn't finish his second term, so there's that.



*George, yes, my mistake.

Anyway, I don't think your point rebuts mine. All I pointed out is that Hillary certainly was not extending an olive branch three states into the primary (in 2008 or 2016), so saying that Bernie's lack of doing that NOW somehow predicts what he's doing by the convention or criticizing him for it, seems like a bit of a double standard. You posed the question re: "making no active effort to appeal to voters outside their base" and she absolutely filled that description in February.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Yeah, but considering I've been talking votes cast all along, I'm at least sticking to a consistent data series. I also think it's a reasonable one - how the popular vote will intersect with delegate allocation can get a bit tricky, but it's at least a pretty good way of estimating a starting point.
> 
> And, I think my major thesis here - that it will be very hard for Sanders to win a majority of the delegates if he doesn't start winning more than 30% of the vote - is pretty solid.
> 
> Re: the popular vote totals, I can't speak for how they're counted, but a lot of what you're seeing makes sense - Amy didn't do well at all in Iowa or Nevada, but did VERY well in New Hampshire, which is the state that's had the most votes cast. Warren meanwhile has done consistently less-well, but enough to get on the delegate map in most/all states as I recall. Tulsi and Steyer meanwhile haven't hit the 15% threshold of viability anywhere, so they're getting votes, but not delegates.
> 
> Again, if there IS a way forward for Sanders to win a majjority of the delegates with a minority of the votes, it's for situations like that, where he consistently gets on the map with 20-40% of the vote, but the establishment lane remains fragmented enough that - say - Bloomberg keeps getting 12-13% of the vote in a whole bunch of states, stealing votes from Biden or Buttigieg, and one or the other of them hits the 15% threshold in most states but not the other so Sanders' 30%o of the vote becomes a majority of the vote for candidates hitting the viability threshold. But that's an awfully thin line, and he basically has to run the map on Super Tuesday and get enough of a lead that when the field winnows he's already too close to having had a majority.
> 
> 
> They are... But, in 538's weighted average, he's at 28%. That puts him ahead of Bloomberg and Biden both around 16%, but that's a FAR cry from a majority. Put another way, that's right around where Biden was polling when the progressive left was telling him he was too tainted from Burisma to run.
> 
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/
> 
> Maybe this is getting lost along the way somewhere, but the point I'm trying to make isn't that Sanders isn't the leader right now. He is, by any measure you want to look at. Rather, I'm saying he's the leader in a _very_ fragmented field with the support of between a quarter and a third of voters, and to win the nomination he has to get over half. He's the leader, but he needs a strategy to get from a third to a half, and running "the Democratic establishment is out to get me" as a campaign message doesn't seem like a terribly effective way to win over the Democratic establishment, to me. Maybe I'm just crazy here.
> 
> Idunno. One of the nuances we need to account for here was Trump was able to win with a Sanders-sized share of the vote because the GOP does a lot of winner-take-all primaries, but the DNC doesn't. The GOP process is weighted towards the candidate with the most support, regardless of _absolute level_ of support, but the DNC process pretty much forces a candidate to be able to claim _majority _support. That makes Sanders' task a little harder than Trump's, and we seem to be on a crash course for that "plurality but not majority" outcome that's going to take some horsetrading and dealmaking to get to a consensus candidate. Sanders seems singlularly disinterested in being that consensus pick, which if we DO get a contested convention, is a recipe for a disaster. We either get a consensus candidate but 30% of the voters tell that candidate to fuck right off, or we get a non-consensus candidate that only has the support of the minority of Democrats, which also isn't a recipe for high general election turnout.



It's probably BECAUSE of this dirty, behind-the-scenes horsetrading setup to corrupt the party's and the people's will that Sanders is running on the "popular disenchantment" platform

The internet may have very dubious mean and median quality, but it's also putting out a lot of info that a conventional press that's afraid to offend, burn bridges, and lose connections and access glossed over or avoided entirely

New generations are becoming increasingly more aware of how twisted the system is, and all manner of populist anti-establishment rhetoric polls very well all over the world

If an alleged billionaire trust fund playboy type can win with this, why not an old socialist jew? It's a brave new world




PS ...or not. It's also how an unemployed artist brown-haired little Austrian meth addict won the macho blond German vote 80-some years ago


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

jaxadam said:


> you think it'll be a rich old white ex-Republican (Bloomberg) vs a rich old white ex-Democrat (Trump)?



So much more amusing when you realize that's the case behind those two.
And how have I never heard of Quid Pro Joes before? Perfect. I love it.


----------



## Randy

Not sure I've said it on here before, but 100 years ago, these two schmucks would duel or challenge eachother to a balloon race.

It's not lost on me that the first election after Citizens United was the most expensive race between the least liked duo in modern history, and the second is now (tentatively) one billionaire versus another billionaire that LITERALLY bought his way into the race.

I'm not going full delusional Bernie or Bust Bro, but this is literally exactly the political end times he's been talking about for 30 to 40 years. So the fact the guy that's been warning you about this thing is now the first pick shouldn't come as some big surprise.


----------



## Randy

Holy shit is Pete Buttigieg smarmy


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Holy shit is Pete Buttigieg smarmy



For real. 

Folks throw around how "unlikable" Sanders or Warren are, and it's like "Have you heard Buttigieg lately?" 

I don't know if he's getting nasty because he feels like he has a shot now, or if it's all the billionaire money, but he's become mostly unbearable. 

It's a shame, as I thought he was promising early on.


----------



## Randy

The day 'politburo' entered the Democrat 2020 lexicon, and it was used by Bloomberg when referencing how he'd get through to China. While he and everyone else on stage is trying to catch the frontrunner by tying HIM to communist dictators.

Did this guy have a fucking stroke or what?


----------



## Randy

If you're a Never Berner, tonight was not a good night for you. Glancing blows at best, deadened by Bloomberg gaslighting that he'd work with Communist dictators, and the soundbytes of the night Bloomberg saying he BOUGHT Democratic races. 

Biden didn't do enough, Klobucher disappeared, Warren attacked Bernie's surrogates but otherwise worked as an attack dog against Bloomberg and defended Progressive policies on Bernie's behalf, and Buttigieg looked snippy, petty and overall like a complaining bomb thrower and not a doer.

Sanders open up a two or three point lead in SC in next poll, book it.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Oof

https://twitter.com/IamGMJohnson/st...iframe/2/twitter.min.html#1232503263402037254


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Oof
> 
> https://twitter.com/IamGMJohnson/status/1232503263402037254?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1232503263402037254&ref_url=https://s9e.github.io/iframe/2/twitter.min.html#1232503263402037254



Oy vey


----------



## Randy

I thought Pete was gonna drop that shit after Amy already honed in on the fact every criticism he lobs at experienced politicians magnifies his relative inexperience, but here we are.

I have no idea where this guy's brand is at now. Everyone else has outdated ideologies, I'm the new 'hip kid'. But revolution is extreme and irrational. The next generations movement is... incrimentalism?

Step aside Desegregation, Voting Rights Act, Social Security Act, New Deal, Emancipation, etc. The future is all about doing things really slow. Maybe not at all! But we're going to talk about it maybe.


----------



## SpaceDock

You guys seems to be really feeling the Bern, I wish I could see him taking down Trump and I hope I am wrong. None of these candidates seem to cultivate the cult of personality that I think can win this. Why can’t Bernie be less idealistic and more pragmatic?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> The future is all about doing things really slow. Maybe not at all! But we're going to talk about it maybe.



Establishment Dems:


----------



## c7spheres

That's funny; When asked what is the biggest misconception about you, Warren's answer was "That I don't eat enough." and Klobuchar's was "That I'm boring." How about something a little more, I dunno, significant?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Why can’t Bernie be less idealistic and more pragmatic?



On the face, because that's not who he is, nor is it what's given him his base.

You can only water things down so much before you just start blending in with the scenery, not to mention alienate the core of your message: that things need to change significantly and quickly if we're to take care of our people and our planet. 

There's pragmatism itself in sticking to his guns.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> You guys seems to be really feeling the Bern, I wish I could see him taking down Trump and I hope I am wrong. None of these candidates seem to cultivate the cult of personality that I think can win this. Why can’t Bernie be less idealistic and more pragmatic?



I'm still a Liz > Amy > Bernie guy.

The only reason I'm as vocal about Bernie as I am is because he polled ahead better head-to-head against Trump in 2016, he's consistently polled better head-to-head against Trump (sans some early Biden mockups) than the field, he's overall trended upward from the opening of 2016 onward to now (as opposed to the 'bump and disappear' cycle of the rest) and he doesn't have the skeletons of a Biden or Hillary.

I think he's old, he's got some bad votes in his past and the Socialist thing is a massive liability considering young people aren't as concerned with it but people 60+ are and makeup the more reliable turnout.

My biggest issue are people like Buttigieg, Bloomberg, etc. taking shots at the progressive agenda as a cheap applause line, when Progressive policies consistently poll well and have a track record of going from impossible, to stretch, to common sense over time. If you're going to inspire left of center independent, disenfranchised or apolitical people to get involved, you do it with ideas, not with personalities and fear baiting about the OTHER guy's personality either. I haven't seen any indication being the candidate of "no, you have to eat your vegetables first" wins anything.

I'd like to see Bernie's agenda in a younger and less stubborn or loaded vessel, and Pete winked at that early on (promoted M4A early on) but after a field of 25 people, somehow or the other Bernie ends up being (as I've said before) the banana with the least spots.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Bernie ends up being (as I've said before) the banana with the least spots.



Which is absolutely bananas (no pun). 

A better candidate could have taken these positions and run with them, but they were all too skittish about losing party and/or donor support. 

Which circles back around to much of the barriers for running on real progress have proven, so far, to be imaginary.


----------



## SpaceDock

Amy is the only one I have donated to so far. I was liking Warren but she seems to get so aggressive and it doesn’t play well. If she was more centrist I would be behind her 100%. You guys really think the government run health care is the solution and what this election should be about?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Amy is the only one I have donated to so far. I was liking Warren but she seems to get so aggressive and it doesn’t play well. If she was more centrist I would be behind her 100%. You guys really think the government run health care is the solution and what this election should be about?



Healthcare, or lack thereof, is an issue intertwined in almost every aspect of life in this country. It's probably the second biggest deal next to climate change, and much more immediately impactful to most Americans.

So yes, I think it needs to be in the top three of issues.

That said, I'm definitely not a single issue voter.


----------



## SpaceDock

I really feel that too, Max. It kills me because so many Non Democrats (they like to call themselves libertarians but don’t know what it means) think the solution is bartering with doctors for services like its the old west. I fear that our politics will cripple whatever universal health care we gain might provide, just sabotaged from the inside like Obamacare. This is why I think the presidency isn’t about what is good for anyone, it’s about celebrity. This crew might be screwed.


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> You absolutely, completely, and entirely do not understand capitalism.



You're very adamant about this, but you haven't said anything that backs it up. 



Drew said:


> Why does the return on labor lag that on capital? Honestly, there's a lot of potential explanations - QE may have been a factor, the "gig economy" as well - but ultimatlely I think the "why" is less important than acknowledging that it IS happening. As to what you do about it, the first two things I'd want to do, if I had a magic wand I could wave and enact policy, would be to increase marginal tax brackets to/towards pre-Reagan levels, and boost the minimum wage, with taxation being the one I'd pick if I had to pick just one as it should make return on capital less appealing for top income earners. Change the incentive structure.



I don't have a problem with those as policy proposals, but I don't think they'll be effective in the long term. Tax brackets changed as much as they did under Reagan because of pressure from industry, as well as true believers in trickle-down and neoliberalism. The incentive wasn't removed, capital just had to find ways to manipulate it. Increasing taxes even to the range of the post-war Keynesian consensus wouldn't safeguard us against the same thing happening again. Especially considering the revelations of the Panama papers, or even tactics as simple as threatening to move jobs out of the country. There's also climate change, which is a serious wrench in the gears for business as usual. 



Drew said:


> EDIT - it's a waste of time since you're pretty clearly not letting yourself being receptive to ideas that run counter to your own, but return on capital is a direct byproduct of the fact capital can "leverage" labor and allow productivity to be far higher than it would be on it's own. If I can make 5 widgets an hour on my own, or with WidgetMaker5000 can produce 50 widgets an hour, then my productivity is 10x higher with access to capital than without. If I can afford a WidgetMaker5000 then that's one thing, I'm providing my own capital and therefore the distinction between return on capital and return on labor is moot... But if I can't afford to invest in technology to boost my productivity and output, then someone else can provide the capital to increase my own productivity and output, and in return they deserve a return on the capital they provided, representing a portion of my enhanced productivity. I'm providing the labor... But I'm able to do a LOT more with that labor thanks to the use of someone else's capital. Capital boosts productivity, increases what labor can do, and should receive a share of the profits.



I've done a 180 on my worldview and political ideology over the course of my life. In the past few years alone I've undergone a massive shift in my politics. It's a better use of your time to make arguments than to unfairly claim that I am close-minded. 

Yes, you've rephrased what you said. Your stance is that you "deserve" a return on your capital merely for having it. Your money didn't boost productivity, the fact that it allowed you to buy the widget maker did. In this scenario, you are an unnecessary middleman who contributes nothing to the process. You aren't actually doing anything beyond providing the initial investment. The worker is doing the work, and the widget maker doesn't need you to run it. Having the initial chunk of money to commission a widget-maker maker doesn't entitle you to 40 of the 50 widgets the worker can make, for as long as you own the widget maker. There's real world application for this: productivity has been climbing steadily since the 70s but wages have remained stagnant. As long as people are siphoning off widgets they didn't earn, there's going to be an unequal distribution of widgets.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Amy is the only one I have donated to so far. I was liking Warren but she seems to get so aggressive and it doesn’t play well. If she was more centrist I would be behind her 100%. You guys really think the government run health care is the solution and what this election should be about?



The UK style system @tedtan described yes, where the government plan is a safety net that everyone has (without all the hoops of income/age qualifying, etc) and you purchase supplemental coverage or buy non-essentials out of pocket.

If I get in a car accident and wake up in the emergency room, I shouldn't receive a single bill for it, whether I make $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year. If my wife decides she doesn't like my snoring and I should have surgery, I should pay for it out of pocket or discounted from a supplemental plan. If I have HIV and I need pills to keep myself alive, I shouldn't have to decide between that or paying my light bill.

That's pretty common sense. It's doesn't need to be some draconian, Communist breadline outside of ERs like it's being described as. 

The American medical field is orders of magnitude more expensive per visit/procedure versus the rest of the western world, for care that's objectively middle of the road, and with people abstaining from getting treatment or driving themselves into debt because it's prohibitively expensive and hard to navigate. The gap between where we are and what it should be to allievate THOSE problems is a lot smaller than the medical field lobbyists would lead you to believe.

That's Sanders big banner item, but he's also got debt free college and the green jobs plan (to combat climate change and as an economic plan). It's all pie in the sky but the concept is sound. Catching up to the rest of the western world on education, stop propping up industries (which we already subsidize) that are outdated and killing us, grow the economy in a sustainable way and clinch energy independence.

Most of what we have are transitional solutions but it's always a "yeah but then what?", like fracking, coal or more off shore drilling (which are limited resources and doing measurable damage to the environment thats coming back on us already), or what's left of the ACA that expands supplemental coverage for low incomes (but with no mandate and no cost controls, a growing gap between participation and price to administer, and people still dying instead of participating) or an economy floated by tariffs and artificially low taxes (but overly reliant on service industries that don't pay living wages or grow the economy, just shift money from one sector to another and back again, and still importing more than we export, so net money out > money in + tax cuts without incentives for reinvestment = perpetual deficit increases to infinity).

The "Bernie" solutions (or I'd call the Progressive agenda) are all about fixing problems and doing away with these transitional solutions and replacing them with end game solutions.


----------



## Randy

I don't consider those ideas "liberal" or extreme left or whatever, they're just populist concepts (as in, things that favor all or the majority of people) taken to their logical conclusion.

That's different than supporting things like, say, open borders or no limits on abortion or melting down all guns or whatever, that are solely ideological issues of "my moral line versus your moral line".


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> The UK style system @tedtan described yes, where the government plan is a safety net that everyone has (without all the hoops of income/age qualifying, etc) and you purchase supplemental coverage or buy non-essentials out of pocket.
> 
> If I get in a car accident and wake up in the emergency room, I shouldn't receive a single bill for it, whether I make $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year. If my wife decides she doesn't like my snoring and I should have surgery, I should pay for it out of pocket or discounted from a supplemental plan. If I have HIV and I need pills to keep myself alive, I shouldn't have to decide between that or paying my light bill.
> 
> That's pretty common sense. It's doesn't need to be some draconian, Communist breadline outside of ERs like it's being described as.
> 
> The American medical field is orders of magnitude more expensive per visit/procedure versus the rest of the western world, for care that's objectively middle of the road, and with people abstaining from getting treatment or driving themselves into debt because it's prohibitively expensive and hard to navigate. The gap between where we are and what it should be to allievate THOSE problems is a lot smaller than the medical field lobbyists would lead you to believe.
> 
> That's Sanders big banner item, but he's also got debt free college and the green jobs plan (to combat climate change and as an economic plan). It's all pie in the sky but the concept is sound. Catching up to the rest of the western world on education, stop propping up industries (which we already subsidize) that are outdated and killing us, grow the economy in a sustainable way and clinch energy independence.
> 
> Most of what we have are transitional solutions but it's always a "yeah but then what?", like fracking, coal or more off shore drilling (which are limited resources and doing measurable damage to the environment thats coming back on us already), or what's left of the ACA that expands supplemental coverage for low incomes (but with no mandate and no cost controls, a growing gap between participation and price to administer, and people still dying instead of participating) or an economy floated by tariffs and artificially low taxes (but overly reliant on service industries that don't pay living wages or grow the economy, just shift money from one sector to another and back again, and still importing more than we export, so net money out > money in + tax cuts without incentives for reinvestment = perpetual deficit increases to infinity).
> 
> The "Bernie" solutions (or I'd call the Progressive agenda) are all about fixing problems and doing away with these transitional solutions and replacing them with end game solutions.



I was listening to NPR this morning, and the reporters were somewhere around Raleigh, NC talking to people. There was a woman that worked in a restaurant that had purchased a house, but could not afford healthcare because of it. They asked her if she considered a subsidized plan from the ACA and she effectively said she wasn't signing up for anything that Obama had set up. I mean, these types of people vote directly against their own self interests. How is a democratic candidate going to compete with that type of mindset?


----------



## Randy

You're not and I have limited amount of patience or sympathy for that mindset, but she doesn't deserve to die (either from lack of medical care or stress from what she's putting herself through) because of it, and the core issue still comes down to people abstaining from programs that are available to them, making the pool shallower and forcing the system to treat then in an emergency rather than in a preventative role, both things that RAISE cost. If they kick and scream, and even vote against their interests, fine but you system works by covering everybody, not just people you like or people that are smart enough to know it helps them.

As far as competing with that mindset, I just don't think you can. Just expect 100% of all people that voted for Donald Trump or identities as a Republican to show up and vote for him. You're turning none of them and none of them are turned off by him enough to stay home. You're only winning that race based on turnout for Dems and Independents, and I think polling indicates you do it with ideas.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> You're not and I have limited amount of patience or sympathy for that mindset, but she doesn't deserve to die (either from lack of medical care or stress from what she's putting herself through) because of it, and the core issue still comes down to people abstaining from programs that are available to them, making the pool shallower and forcing the system to treat then in an emergency rather than in a preventative role, both things that RAISE cost. If they kick and scream, and even vote against their interests, fine but you system works by covering everybody, not just people you like or people that are smart enough to know it helps them.
> 
> As far as competing with that mindset, I just don't think you can. Just expect 100% of all people that voted for Donald Trump or identities as a Republican to show up and vote for him. You're turning none of them and none of them are turned off by him enough to stay home. You're only winning that race based on turnout for Dems and Independents, and I think polling indicates you do it with ideas.



I am in complete agreement with you on this. And it's partially why I don't think it's a political issue so much as it is a fundamental human rights issue. But while Republicans continue to bring up abortion bills in the Senate, the electorate continues to die or go bankrupt because of the system in place.


----------



## Drew

SUPER busy day today so this will be a brief, and possibly only, check-in of the day here. 



Randy said:


> Sanders open up a two or three point lead in SC in next poll, book it.


What I'd heard was Biden had a solid night, not especially remarkable in any respect but probably did what he needed to do to hold position. Happy to take the other side of that bet, that Biden is still leading in the polls in a weighted average, when we hit the vote, if you want to suggest terms - a beer or something, charitable donation, whatever. 



allheavymusic said:


> You're very adamant about this, but you haven't said anything that backs it up.
> 
> 
> Yes, you've rephrased what you said. Your stance is that you "deserve" a return on your capital merely for having it. Your money didn't boost productivity, the fact that it allowed you to buy the widget maker did. In this scenario, you are an unnecessary middleman who contributes nothing to the process.


Hardly - I'm just not saying anything that your ideology will allow you to accept. 

I'm trying to find some way to say this without violating the rules of this forum, but "an unnecessary middleman who contributes nothing to this process?" If the worker needs capital to invest in technology, and has a significant bump in productivity from the use of that capital, then that capital has to come from _somewhere_. Saying someone provided capital "provided nothing to the process" is just as assinine as saying the laborer provided nothing, since it was all capital that allowed the vast enhancement in productivity. Both statements are clearly wrong. In the scenario we're discussing, capital requires labor to boost productivity, but labor requires capital, too. 

Also, where did I say that capital is entitled to ALL of the additional gains? There should be a return on capital representing some of the enhanced productivity, as a return for bearing risk and deferring compensation, but pretty clearly labor deserves some of the additional gains too, for putting in the work. The idea, again repeating myself from one paragraph up, that ALL of the enhanced productivity should go to the provider of capital is stupid, just as stupid as believing that all of the returns from the enhanced productivity due the use of capital should go to labor, and whoever provided capital shouldn't receive any compensation at all for doing so. 

You just don't LIKE the fact that capital is useful. Which, wishing it doesn't make it so.


----------



## Drew

For anyone not watching this closely, FiveThirtyEight's model is now predicting the most likely outcome as no one wins a majority, as Biden's polling has improved in SC. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

This is sort of shuffling papers at the margin since the two outcomes have always been extremely close, but Bernie surged a little after Nevada, and got up to around 47% probability of winning outright vs 41% of no majority. That's drifted back down, and we're now 44% no one, 41% Sanders. 

I wouldn't say these are MEANINGFUL differences... But neither was 47/41, really. This is a lot of why I've been hesitant to say it's a foreground conclusion Sanders wins a majority of delegates - it wasn't a sure thing back a few days ago where he was a few percentage points more likely to win a majority than no one would win, and it's definitely not a sure thing now when the most likely outcome - again, only by a few percentage points - is that no one wins a majority at all. 

Food for thought.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> What I'd heard was Biden had a solid night, not especially remarkable in any respect but probably did what he needed to do to hold position.



I'll reserve the bet for the big day. Polls are too messy to expect a clean result, although I'll stick to my expectations on this one.

Biden had the performance he needed two months ago. He also spent the night chasing Tom Steyer, Sanders spent the night being chased by everyone else. That doesn't look like a trend breaking dynamic.

I thought the field needed to land some meaningful blows on Bernie about Castro and paying for his programs (his biggest vulnerabilities, imo) and instead Bloomberg obscured the first point and Warren helped him out on the second.

The Bloomberg 'bought Dem races' bit and all the crosstalk are the two headlines today, other than partisan hackery like Cilizza et al. I don't think the field did enough to slow down Bernie, I think Biden looked maybe his best so far but it was a 'stem the bleeding' type performance instead of game changer.


----------



## Drew

Basically true, but his path forward here is basically blocking out the rest of the establishment lane in SC and hoping a few rivals drop out before Super Tuesday. For that to happen, he needs a win in South Carolina, and while he didn't land any knockout punches last night, I think he did well enough to hold onto what's, at present, just about a 10-point lead. 

Things do get harder for him if he doesn't see some consolidation before Super Tuesday, for sure, but even then as long as the herd starts thing immediately after, we'd still have about 60% of the delegate count to vote, if I remember right, so if say two of Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg drop out after a Biden win in SC and Bernie not having everything go his way on Super Tuesday, not with the headline result but with enough moderates failing to hit viability thresholds so that he ends up with significantly more of the delegates than his share of the vote would imply, then Biden has a pretty straightforward path to, if not win, deny Bernie a clear majority or even significant plurality. 

Fivethirtyeight's before/after polling suggests Bernie was rated as having had a good night, but favorability was essentially unchanged, while Biden was less likely to have been judged the winner, but had MORE people view him favorably, which is sort of interesting.


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> Hardly - I'm just not saying anything that your ideology will allow you to accept.



I always try to interpret others' arguments according to the principle of charity. Assuming people with different viewpoints are incapable of reason is a cheap shot. 



Drew said:


> that capital has to come from _somewhere_. Saying someone provided capital "provided nothing to the process" is just as asinine as saying the laborer provided nothing, since it was all capital that allowed the vast enhancement in productivity.



I didn't say the capital itself, but the owner. That somewhere doesn't have to be a single individual or a few shareholders. Ultimately capital is derived from labor and natural resources, and I don't think anyone has a reasonable claim to natural resources beyond personal use or communal ownership. 



Drew said:


> Also, where did I say that capital is entitled to ALL of the additional gains? There should be a return on capital representing some of the enhanced productivity, as a return for bearing risk and deferring compensation.



I didn't say that you said that. In my example, I said that the worker went from 5/5 widgets to 10/50 with the widgetmaker, which is still a improvement for the worker. 

I don't buy that "risk" in the investing sense merits a significant return. A bank can account for the likelihood of some loans going unpaid, so that even if those loans fail to generate a return, the bank doesn't fail. As long as there's a safety net (which there is) risk is merely a statistical measure to account for. And it's not like most investors ever incur a real personal risk. You do realize that "there should be" and "deserve" are normative claims, right? We're not arguing objective facts here, we're taking ethical stances. You think owners deserve profit and I don't. That's a conflict of values, not something you can accuse me of being misleading or wrong about. 



Drew said:


> You just don't LIKE the fact that capital is useful. Which, wishing it doesn't make it so.



Not sure how you could get that from my post without seriously distorting what I said. I never disagreed with that premise, I only disagree that individuals should be able to control significant capital. I'll try to drop this discussion since it's clearly turned personal for you.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> I didn't say the capital itself, but the owner. That somewhere doesn't have to be a single individual or a few shareholders. Ultimately capital is derived from labor and natural resources, and I don't think anyone has a reasonable claim to natural resources beyond personal use or communal ownership.
> 
> I don't buy that "risk" in the investing sense merits a significant return. A bank can account for the likelihood of some loans going unpaid, so that even if those loans fail to generate a return, the bank doesn't fail. As long as there's a safety net (which there is) risk is merely a statistical measure to account for.



1) So, would you feel differently if the laborer HIMSELF saved his earnings and invested in technology to improve his productivity by, say, eating ramen packets for a year, than if I saved my money and invested in technology on his or her behalf, by saving my earnings and eating ramen packets for a year?

2) Oh good lord.  Nope, no bank has ever failed due to loans not being paid. I'm just gonna leave this right here.

EDIT - also, maybe to give you a less flippant answer... There's a bit more to an interest rate than the risk of default. Interest rate theory generally holds that an interest rate is the product of a number of parts, generally including 1) the "risk free rate" or time value of money representing compensation for deferring consumption from today to some point in the future, 2) a "term premium" compensating for the possibility in changes in #1 over the life of the loan, 3) an "inflation premium" compensating for the fact that dollars when the loan pays off will be worth less than they are today by an unknown amount due to uncertainty around realized vs expected inflation, and 4) a "credit premium" representing the risk of default. So, even if you don't believe there's REALLY any risk in a loan, which there is but regardless let's assume there isn't, an interest rate still needs to compensate the loaner for the passage of time before the money loaned is returned, uncertainty about how the risk free rate will evolve over time after it's locked in at the opening of the loan, and uncertainty about the rate of decay in the value of a dollar over time. Otherwise, it would be irrational for someone to make a loan, since they would be actively economically hurt by doing so.


----------



## stockwell

1. That example comes down to scale. No amount of switching to ramen can buy a factory or a multinational corporation. I don't "feel" much about that example because it has such a small impact on the world. It's fractions of pennies compared to Walmart or Uber levels of capital. And even then, I'd think you should be entitled to reimbursement, not an ongoing boss-worker relationship where you make money perpetually off owning the technology. 

2. 2008 was legal fraud. Enron-style gambling on loans failing, cooked books, corporate raiding, bundling garbage to get rid of it, etc. I'm far from knowledgeable on that stuff, but it's not how any bank should function in any reasonable world. The whole financialization of the economy seems to have so many terrible consequences. 

Thanks for the explanation. That adds more nuance to the discussion of risk, but it still seems like all these variables can reasonably be accounted for to a degree that, at a large scale, they don't negatively impact the investor. What I'm advocating for isn't particularly dissimilar to a mutual savings bank or a consumer credit union.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> 1) So, would you feel differently if the laborer HIMSELF saved his earnings and invested in technology to improve his productivity by, say, eating ramen packets for a year, than if I saved my money and invested in technology on his or her behalf, by saving my earnings and eating ramen packets for a year?
> 
> 2) Oh good lord.  Nope, no bank has ever failed due to loans not being paid. I'm just gonna leave this right here.
> 
> EDIT - also, maybe to give you a less flippant answer... There's a bit more to an interest rate than the risk of default. Interest rate theory generally holds that an interest rate is the product of a number of parts, generally including 1) the "risk free rate" or time value of money representing compensation for deferring consumption from today to some point in the future, 2) a "term premium" compensating for the possibility in changes in #1 over the life of the loan, 3) an "inflation premium" compensating for the fact that dollars when the loan pays off will be worth less than they are today by an unknown amount due to uncertainty around realized vs expected inflation, and 4) a "credit premium" representing the risk of default. So, even if you don't believe there's REALLY any risk in a loan, which there is but regardless let's assume there isn't, an interest rate still needs to compensate the loaner for the passage of time before the money loaned is returned, uncertainty about how the risk free rate will evolve over time after it's locked in at the opening of the loan, and uncertainty about the rate of decay in the value of a dollar over time. Otherwise, it would be irrational for someone to make a loan, since they would be actively economically hurt by doing so.



I agree with all of this. However, Venture Capital can be extremely predatory, not just considering interest rates. Via contracts, partnership roles, etc. Think of it like the recording industry of the last 60-70 years. Label basically profiteers on the IP of some creator. The creator has little knowledge of business and wants to monetize what he/she's created. To reach market penetration, you need money and there's generally only one way to do that in an economy like ours. Sell a piece of the idea, or don't profit on it. The terms by which these things are often sold or exploited, are often extremely one sided, and the onus of making it profitable often falls at the feet of the uninformed person who created it anyway. I think that this is what he's been trying to get at. The sweat labor in this case is not equivalent effort to the pittance of an investment the investor made. They stand to make the most off of these deals most of the time, when the amount of consequential risk is not even close to even. The investment of someone like that isn't going to be everything they've got. Where the creator will most often face financial ruin if their idea fails.

Edit: This is the system that is in place. I agree. But that doesn't mean we have accept it as it is or necessarily think that its fair that just because the person able to help financially is somehow entitled to the lions share just because they've made smart investments up to that point. The consequential input does not equal the balance of the output. And that isn't fair.


----------



## tedtan

Private equity investors have to make enough money to stay in business, like any business, so they "charge" accordingly (though in this case it is via the equity percentage they require in order to invest rather than a price). When you consider that for every ten investments they make, only one turns a profit, one or two may break even, and the rest fail outright or return a loss through bankruptcy liquidation it explains the comparison to the music business: that's the same rate that albums make money/fail.


----------



## tedtan

And while private equity has its place, I would encourage an entrepreneur to find people to help build their business organically before looking to private equity. Kind of like borrowing from a bank, it's best to not deal with private equity until you don't need them. At that point, they can open up options for you, but you also have enough leverage based on your success to avoid giving up too much just to get the investment.


----------



## Thaeon

Agree on both counts. I've seen some really awful deals happen when a business was a 'success' and the creator was barely making anything when all the profits came back because the ownership was so skewed.


----------



## stockwell

Tangent, but I think the most terrifying examples of VC being predatory has to do with the tech sector. Companies like Uber, AirBnB, WeWork, etc. all have a relatively small tech component and basically replace existing industries (taxis, hotels, real estate, etc.). They all treat their workers/users worse than the existing industry they're destroying, and they're still extremely unprofitable. Unprofitable enough that only VCs like Softbank and Saudi oil money keep them propped up. Uber is basically betting on being able to create a monopoly (driving out other rideshares), replacing workers entirely (self-driving cars), or getting into the debt business (Uber's insane leasing program). All of this seems extremely unstable. Sometimes it seems like we're heading for another financial crisis.


----------



## stockwell

I'm curious about what will happen today. The polls have consistently shown Biden surging in SC. While you can never be sure the polls will be representative, if he makes a big win it could give him the moderate lane going into Super Tuesday. But it could also split the moderates between Pete and Biden. So far, Biden has tanked harder than I thought he would, and Pete has done surprisingly well. But the final primary before ST is a solid advertisement. It could breathe life into the Biden campaign.


----------



## Randy

allheavymusic said:


> I'm curious about what will happen today. The polls have consistently shown Biden surging in SC. While you can never be sure the polls will be representative, if he makes a big win it could give him the moderate lane going into Super Tuesday. But it could also split the moderates between Pete and Biden. So far, Biden has tanked harder than I thought he would, and Pete has done surprisingly well. But the final primary before ST is a solid advertisement. It could breathe life into the Biden campaign.



I'm perpetually skeptical of polls because I dunno what the mental makeup is of people who answer the phone for strangers asking questions in the first place.

But something still especially fucked up about Iowa. I was revisiting this with someone the other day, I said I'm positive Biden was polling ahead in Iowa and "look what happened" and they said no no he was never ahead in Iowa. RCP to the rescue on stats, and confirmed, he and Bernie were battling it out and it was a dead heat on average by the time the day came, then the De Moine Register debacle, and the next day Biden comes in 4th. What the fuck was going on there?


----------



## Randy

*Voters Who’ll Support Biden — But Not Sanders — Probably Really Do Mean It*


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> *Voters Who’ll Support Biden — But Not Sanders — Probably Really Do Mean It*



Important caveat in that article:



> Now, some of that is probably related to one downside of our survey — we don’t have any respondents under the age of 30. (Respondents had to be at least 18 to participate when the panel began in 2007.) That means some of the voters who are the most pro-Sanders are underrepresented and some of Biden’s supporters are probably overrepresented. (The survey respondents are also likely to be especially politically engaged, seeing as they were willing to take repeated political polls for over a decade.)



It's also worth noting that with how active and engaged young people are now with politics is that the turnout of the 18-30 bracket is going to be much higher than the norm. I wouldn't be surprised that come election day there are record numbers from that bracket.


----------



## Randy

Nice observation. Iowa turnouts were 2016 numbers but I believe they said NH were near record high and NV near missed 2008 numbers (which were previous records). So there's some enthusiasm, seemingly.


----------



## Vyn

Double post, however they've already called SoCal - Biden with 49.5% of the vote after 1% counted. Seems early to call IMO however it does look like Biden will come out on top.


----------



## Randy

Numbers as of now. If this holds up, it's exactly the thing his campaign needed.


----------



## Hollowway

The DNC is breathing a sigh of relief tonight. Now they can put their campaign against Bernie on the back burner for a little bit.


----------



## Randy

I mean, I'm disappointed but next to a clean Bernie win, this was my next preferred option.

Too many people cycling top 3 wins was watering things down too much, I think the worst thing for this party would be a contested convention where you have Bernie at 40% to 45%, and the nomination going to someone in the 20% range or not in the running at all.

I believe in Bernie and the appeal of a progressive platform if it's given fair coverage (which it potentially would outside of a primary) but I'll take almost anything over Trump. My biggest concern is Bernie running as "the establishment is out to get me" (which, they are and were) and then the nominee is handpicked by the DNC and super-delegates, in a way that's exactly the worst nightmare of his true believers. That's like, the perfect storm of shit to guarantee the Democrats lose again. Just as bad or worse than the "the US will never elect a socialist!" bloodletting the moderates are warning us against.

It's kinda disheartening the extent to which Biden victory lapped on this, but at this point, a 50% Bernie win or a 50% Biden win at the convention is better than a 43% Bernie win and, idk, Buttigieg or Deval Patrick or Sherrod Brown brokered nomination.


----------



## stockwell

So Steyer outperformed Pete, Klobuchar, and Warren - and then dropped out. Seeing that, you have to think that the race is going to be Bernie vs. Biden very shortly. I think Warren sees the writing on the wall and is positioning herself as a possible VP pick. Pete's campaign seems to have been a flash in the pan. 

I'd be morbidly curious about seeing a contested convention. If Bernie won 49% and the DNC picked someone else, what happens? I could see the progressive wing of the Democrats splitting off around Bernie/AOC/the Squad and organizations like the DSA. I do think that Bernie would back Biden or whoever else the DNC nominated, so he wouldn't lead a split. At least until after the general. If the DNC picked someone else and lost to Trump, I do think at that point there's absolutely a split. And if the DNC nominated someone who didn't have a plurality, they're handing Trump their own self-destruct codes. That would be a free campaign for Trump.


----------



## Vyn

allheavymusic said:


> So Steyer outperformed Pete, Klobuchar, and Warren - and then dropped out. Seeing that, you have to think that the race is going to be Bernie vs. Biden very shortly. I think Warren sees the writing on the wall and is positioning herself as a possible VP pick. Pete's campaign seems to have been a flash in the pan.
> 
> I'd be morbidly curious about seeing a contested convention. If Bernie won 49% and the DNC picked someone else, what happens? I could see the progressive wing of the Democrats splitting off around Bernie/AOC/the Squad and organizations like the DSA. I do think that Bernie would back Biden or whoever else the DNC nominated, so he wouldn't lead a split. At least until after the general. If the DNC picked someone else and lost to Trump, I do think at that point there's absolutely a split. And if the DNC nominated someone who didn't have a plurality, they're handing Trump their own self-destruct codes. That would be a free campaign for Trump.



I kinda wonder why Warren and Koucher are still running at the moment. They just got absolutely toasted.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> I kinda wonder why Warren and Koucher are still running at the moment. They just got absolutely toasted.



A few reasons:

- Remain visible and garner support which can lead to a VP nod or cabinet pick.

- Wait to see the more decisive Super Tuesday (March 3rd) results. 

- Increase the value of their own political brand for future runnings or post-political positions.


----------



## Ralyks

At this rate, I'd take a Biden-Warren ticket.


----------



## SpaceDock

^ me too but Warrens not going to swallow her pride like that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> ^ me too but Warrens not going to swallow her pride like that.



We'll see after the 3rd. 

Though I don't think it's a Warren issue, but a Biden one. I don't see him (or his people) picking Warren or Sanders. They'll choose Klobuchar or...ugh...Buttigieg first.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> ^ me too but Warrens not going to swallow her pride like that.



Eh I wouldn't say that. She's not projecting to win a majority in any states outside of maybe MA, and I'm sure her donors know basic math.

I think Amy, Warren and now Pete are pledging to stay in as long as possible because they expect being able to barter delegates at the convention will make a difference where they end up in 2021 but none of them are expecting to win the nomination at this point.


----------



## Ralyks

I can live with Biden-Amy. I’ve rather soured on Pete.


----------



## jaxadam

Bernie/AOC vs Biden/Buttigieg


----------



## Randy

Unless it's Warren (Joe needs a female running mate, and I'm 50/50 they'll know they need an olive branch to progressives), I don't expect Biden to pick from any of the people that are still in it.

What would be a trainwreck would be something like a Stacey Abrams pick. I can see those numbskulls at the DNC saying "a black woman from the south, that'd do it!" thinking a diversity/identity pick will check the liberal box enough to somehow appease progressives. Likewise, a 'Tim Kaine' style pick where he chooses a 'yes man' with a carbon copy political identity would also be suicide.

Ideally it's a female, progressive would help but deep blue state will probably be their next best choice (so NY or CA). Ideally you'd get someone from the south or Midwest but I can't think of any progressive women in either. Basically if Sherrod Brown or Keith Ellison were a chick, that's who they need.


----------



## stockwell

AOC is 5 years too young to run. Someone like Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar is old enough to be a VP pick, but I don't know if Bernie has the guts to go for it. The standing guess for Sander's VP is Nina Turner. All would be great VPs independent of any cynical tokenism calculus. I think Randy has the right assessment that Biden will go for checking identity boxes to appeal to progressives. 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1233908146361552896 

Based on this CNN clip (couldn't find a better version online), the Warren campaign aimed to "blunt the momentum for Bernie Sanders" in SC. And then there's this: 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-campaign-this-is-about-a-brokered-convention-now

It seems her campaign is openly banking on a contested convention. What is her campaign doing? She's barely projected to take any delegates on Tuesday, and it's not like it would get better after that scenario. Is she trying to rack up as many delegates as possible as a bargaining tool? I can't be the only person who feels like this is a delusional campaign, or at very incompetent. That, along with flip-flopping on taking Super PAC money and constant punching left...every week it seems clearer how shallow her commitment to progressive politics is.


----------



## jaxadam

Buttigieg is gone.

https://www.wesh.com/article/pete-buttigieg-to-announce-end-of-presidential-campaign/31179262#


----------



## Ralyks

Damn, I figured Pete would at least give it until Super Tuesday.


----------



## Randy

allheavymusic said:


> AOC is 5 years too young to run. Someone like Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar is old enough to be a VP pick, but I don't know if Bernie has the guts to go for it. The standing guess for Sander's VP is Nina Turner. All would be great VPs independent of any cynical tokenism calculus. I think Randy has the right assessment that Biden will go for checking identity boxes to appeal to progressives.
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1233908146361552896
> 
> Based on this CNN clip (couldn't find a better version online), the Warren campaign aimed to "blunt the momentum for Bernie Sanders" in SC. And then there's this:
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warrens-campaign-this-is-about-a-brokered-convention-now
> 
> It seems her campaign is openly banking on a contested convention. What is her campaign doing? She's barely projected to take any delegates on Tuesday, and it's not like it would get better after that scenario. Is she trying to rack up as many delegates as possible as a bargaining tool? I can't be the only person who feels like this is a delusional campaign, or at very incompetent. That, along with flip-flopping on taking Super PAC money and constant punching left...every week it seems clearer how shallow her commitment to progressive politics is.





jaxadam said:


> Buttigieg is gone.
> 
> https://www.wesh.com/article/pete-buttigieg-to-announce-end-of-presidential-campaign/31179262#





Ralyks said:


> Damn, I figured Pete would at least give it until Super Tuesday.



Pete and Biden mostly competing for the same donors. Super Tuesday is very expensive to be competitive in considering how many markets you need to run ads and staff offices in. After the win in SC I'm sure all the tentative Pete suitors left for Joe.

Re: Warren, I don't think her campaign will live past Tuesday, likely the same with Amy. They may stay in in name but they'll probably not get a single new delegate after that. No ads, no local offices. I think it's overplaying her hand but do I think 7 or 8 delegates might swing this thing? Increasingly good chance.


----------



## stockwell

Pete dropping out is strange. The only explanation I can think is that he got offered a VP or cabinet position or something. No idea what to make of this or how it will affect the race.


----------



## Hollowway

NYT just reported that Pete’s out. He just suspended his campaign.

EDIT:  
My guess is the DNC talked him into it to get Biden all of his votes in an attempt to crush Bernie on Tuesday.


----------



## Ralyks

Man, Bernie is such a volatile issue, it got Flava Flav fired from Public Enemy over a cease and desist he sent about that rally with the group.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Yeah, doesn't look good for Bernie now.


----------



## Thaeon

I don't know... The way the polls have been tracking in California, he'll get more than half of the 400+ delegates and he's been the favored candidate in most of the other races. I don't think that Pete dropping out is going to do enough for Biden on Super Tuesday to eek out more delegates than Bernie does. Also, looking at a lot of these graphs, Biden spikes in interest are looking to be at least correlative to Bernies dips in interest. Bernie's biggest dip runs right along with Biden's biggest increase and they've been steadily swapping places ever since. Bernie gaining momentum and Biden losing it. To me that says that Bernie and Biden's support overlap quite a bit and the undecided voters are flip-flopping between those two more than any others.


----------



## Randy

I'm just waiting for Biden to turn back into a pumpkin ie: sniffing a woman's hair or something.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> 1. That example comes down to scale. No amount of switching to ramen can buy a factory or a multinational corporation. I don't "feel" much about that example because it has such a small impact on the world. It's fractions of pennies compared to Walmart or Uber levels of capital. And even then, I'd think you should be entitled to reimbursement, not an ongoing boss-worker relationship where you make money perpetually off owning the technology.
> 
> 2. 2008 was legal fraud. Enron-style gambling on loans failing, cooked books, corporate raiding, bundling garbage to get rid of it, etc. I'm far from knowledgeable on that stuff, but it's not how any bank should function in any reasonable world. The whole financialization of the economy seems to have so many terrible consequences.
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. That adds more nuance to the discussion of risk, but it still seems like all these variables can reasonably be accounted for to a degree that, at a large scale, they don't negatively impact the investor. What I'm advocating for isn't particularly dissimilar to a mutual savings bank or a consumer credit union.



Well, not to be overly reductionist... But if capital is a good thing in small doses, what makes it bad in large ones? If it's ok for individuals to save (which is just another way to sayu acquire capital) and invest in small scales, what makes it bad in large ones? Isn't saving and investing a good thing?

The market crash in 2008 is something we'll be talking about for a LONG time, and there was certainly plenty of rampant risk taking and in some cases criminal activities. However, it's ALSO a situation where banks DID fail, and these failures ultimately trace back to the mortgage market, where banks made loans that were not paid back. Ditto with the Savings and Loan crisis, although there it had a lot more to do with inflation and a sudden increase in interest rates than it did with bad actor issues. So, my point here isn't whether nor not people did bad shit... But that banks DO fail, so any policy that starts with "oh, the banks aren't going to fail or anything" is going to result in a whole lot of bank failures, and this so-called "Main Street" and "Wall Street" divide was an illusion then and is an illusion now.


----------



## sleewell

how mad are the bernie bros going to be when the dnc screws him over again?


----------



## JSanta

Klobuchar has suspended her campaign. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/02/800856100/sen-amy-klobuchar-ends-presidential-campaign


----------



## Ralyks

Amy out now too. Endorsing Biden.

Edit: Damn, beat me to it by seconds.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Unless it's Warren (Joe needs a female running mate, and I'm 50/50 they'll know they need an olive branch to progressives), I don't expect Biden to pick from any of the people that are still in it.


I think this is the most plausible not-totally-disastrous outcome out there right now. 

So, I've been saying since Sanders became the favorite coming out of Iowa that I thought he was bouncing rather than pulling away, that I expected the race to tighten up, and that the most likely outcome was a contested convention. With Biden's way-larger-than-expected win in South Carolina coupled with a little bit of movement in the national polls, and with Buttigieg and Steyer dropping out of the race, that's largely validated - per FiveThirtyEight, we're now looking at a 65% chance of no majority, with Sanders at 20% and Biden at 15%. 

I'm going to make another call that I'm sure I'm going to have to defend just as fiercely here - if the Sanders campaign wants to remain viable, they need to not just win the headline contests tomorrow, he needs to win by larger margins than expected, he needs the establishment vote to be split and too many moderate Dems to fall short of the 15% viability threshold, and he needs to basically run the table and significantly OVERPERFORM expectations. Basically, he needs to get a fairly good lock on a majority of pledged delegates tomorrow, and if not he's not going to be the nominee. 

Sanders is still the "front runner..." But he's the front runner with 28% support, running against a narrowed moderate field, in a race where even if he wins most of the Super Tuesday states, thanks to proportional delegate rules he's going to end up winning only somewhat more delegates than the rest of the field, despite his headline wins. Right now, the "most likely" scenario in FivethirtyEight's model is Sanders finishes the primary with 1,599 delegates, about 150 more than Biden's 1,455. There are 3,979 pledged delegates available, so we're talking 40.2% of the pledged delegates vs 36.6%. The nomination will go to the first candidate to put together a coalition of 1,990 delegates, so both candidates fall short on their own and will need to do some serious deal-making. 

And, Sanders is going to scream bloody murder about it... But after running a scorched earth campaign spending more time attacking the Democratic establishment more than the right, I don't see much incentive for the rest of the candidates to work with him to put together a ticket that can break 50% +1. Biden, on the other hand, should have a relatively easy time picking up another 535 candidates. I don't know if Sanders necessarily needs to get 1,990 or more to win, I'd say if there's a scenario where he gets 49% of the pledged delegates and Biden gets 28%, then that's a bit more favorable of a starting point for him... But with the race trending towards a point where there's only a couple percentage points between Sanders and Biden, I think Sanders' anti-DNC strategy here is going to make building a coalition _incredibly_ hard. 



allheavymusic said:


> It seems her campaign is openly banking on a contested convention. What is her campaign doing? She's barely projected to take any delegates on Tuesday, and it's not like it would get better after that scenario. Is she trying to rack up as many delegates as possible as a bargaining tool? I can't be the only person who feels like this is a delusional campaign, or at very incompetent. That, along with flip-flopping on taking Super PAC money and constant punching left...every week it seems clearer how shallow her commitment to progressive politics is.


We ARE heading towards a contested convention, I think. And Sanders is starting to attack her as well, and I've been saying for a while now I think his campaign strategy only makes sense if he's trying to put himself in position where he can try to force the DNC to give him the nomination even if he falls short of a majority. Anyone NOT positioning themselves for a contested convention hasn't been paying attention. 



allheavymusic said:


> Pete dropping out is strange. The only explanation I can think is that he got offered a VP or cabinet position or something. No idea what to make of this or how it will affect the race.


Simpler than that - he may get a senior position out of this, but Pete is 38, and is probably looking towards 2024 or 2028, where he knows some good-will from other Democrats probably will go a long way towards the next time he runs for president. He ran an unexpectedly good campaign, and I think there's a very good chance that one day he DOES win the nomination and the White House. It's just not going to be this year, so pulling out now, when he's at real risk of not hitting 15% in any of the Super Tuesday states, is his best long-term play. 

Before you call foul about the establishment playing foul trying to box out Bernie, it's worth noting I saw a LOT of progressives arguing Warren should drop out and ask her voters to support Sanders coming out of New Hampshire, so it's a little tough to claim one side is fighting dirty but not the other.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Amy out now too. Endorsing Biden.
> 
> Edit: Damn, beat me to it by seconds.


That surprises me a little, actually, though the math is similar for her as for Buttigieg. No plausible path, save that she had a better shot of winning Minnesota and at least getting on the board tomorrow. She's 59, though, and if the Dems don't win in 2020, then she'll be well positioned for 2024 and not being seen as a spoiler in the 2020 race is in her advantage, too. 

Still voting for Warren in MA, and hoping we see a Biden/Warren ticket to at least try to bridge that gap. I'm generally OK with the progressive platform, think Warren is extremely competent and well prepared and has a robust platform to run on, and unlike Sanders is interested in coalition building and not boxing out everyone who isn't with him. Frankly I'd love to see her at the head of the ticket, but she doesn't have the votes, I'm afraid.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> how mad are the bernie bros going to be when the dnc screws him over again?


Screws him over by following the rules his representatives helped forge in the unity commission after 2020? 

I mean, extremely, but you can't complain about the rules you wrote when they end up working against you, and broken record here, but running a campaign attacking the moderate wing of the Democratic party as something to be "overcome" isn't savvy electoral politics when you're outnumbered 60/40.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> how mad are the bernie bros going to be when the dnc screws him over again?



Depends on how it pans out. If he doesn't have the votes, he doesn't have the votes. 2016 was a real screw job, but they changed the rules to less super delegates and they don't get involved until second ballot, and they changed most primary rules in a way that makes them more inclusive. I mean, I think there was a full on fear and smear campaign against him since he looked viable, but the decision still rests with the voters.

To the overall question, I don't think there'll be much Bernie->Trump crossover but there'll probably be a lot of Bernie folks sitting out, yeah. Mostly first timers.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Depends on how it pans out. If he doesn't have the votes, he doesn't have the votes. 2016 was a real screw job, but they changed the rules to less super delegates and they don't get involved until second ballot, and they changed most primary rules in a way that makes them more inclusive. I mean, I think there was a full on fear and smear campaign against him since he looked viable, but the decision still rests with the voters.
> 
> To the overall question, I don't think there'll be much Bernie->Trump crossover but there'll probably be a lot of Bernie folks sitting out, yeah. Mostly first timers.


All the same, I worry - with a fair amount of justification, I think, based on comments in this thread, that in a scenario where Bernie wins 40% of the delegates to Biden's 37%, when Bloomberg instructs his delegates to support Biden in the 2nd round, Bernie Bros are going to claim this is proof that "the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie," rather than the process working exactly as it is supposed to, and in ways that if the outcome was reverse they would laud as a victory where "the people" got a voice over the DNC.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> All the same, I worry - with a fair amount of justification, I think, based on comments in this thread, that in a scenario where Bernie wins 40% of the delegates to Biden's 37%, when Bloomberg instructs his delegates to support Biden in the 2nd round, Bernie Bros are going to claim this is proof that "the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie," rather than the process working exactly as it is supposed to, and in ways that if the outcome was reverse they would laud as a victory where "the people" got a voice over the DNC.



Six of one, half a dozen of another. I wouldn't call it a DNC screw-job because the rules are fair this time around, but I do think the 11% gap between a 40% delegate count and 51% is being unfairly maligned and fear baiting over social programs the nominee is inevitably going to try to siphon ideas from anyway.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I don't know... The way the polls have been tracking in California, he'll get more than half of the 400+ delegates and he's been the favored candidate in most of the other races. I don't think that Pete dropping out is going to do enough for Biden on Super Tuesday to eek out more delegates than Bernie does. Also, looking at a lot of these graphs, Biden spikes in interest are looking to be at least correlative to Bernies dips in interest. Bernie's biggest dip runs right along with Biden's biggest increase and they've been steadily swapping places ever since. Bernie gaining momentum and Biden losing it. To me that says that Bernie and Biden's support overlap quite a bit and the undecided voters are flip-flopping between those two more than any others.


Idunno, I think Biden/Bloomberg is a much closer inverse relationship where Biden's drop was negatively related to Bloomberg's gain, than Sanders' rise.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Six of one, half a dozen of another. I wouldn't call it a DNC screw-job because the rules are fair this time around, but I do think the 11% gap between a 40% delegate count and 51% is being unfairly maligned and fear baiting over social programs the nominee is inevitably going to try to siphon ideas from anyway.


To be fair, I think if it's Bernie 40%, everyone else 15%, that's a different story than Bernie 40%, Biden 36%. I'm not sure how I'd write a "litmus test" for this, but I'd say maybe if Sanders is closer to winning the nomination than the next closest candidate is to him, that tips a little more towards it being harder to elect anyone else as a nominee, but when Bernie and the next closest candidate are seperated by 3-4 percentage points while Bernie is 10% shy of a majority, then at that point I think it's much more about who can build a coalition getting over 50% than it is "well, the guy who a couple points more than the next closest guy is definitely our nominee." 

I'm also not saying I think Biden is going to win a majority of delegates here, either, though with the l;ast 24 hours' consolidation I think that's more likely and he may even be the favorite, by the numbers, at this point (I'll be very curious to see who comes out on top of 538's final pre-Super Tuesday forecast). I just think ultimately the strategy of trying to broaden your appeal to the electorate is going to prove to be a lot more effective come a contested convention, than the strategy of digging in with a "you're with me or against me" strategy where your best chance of winning a contested convention is banking the rest of the party is too afraid of losing your supporter's votes in the general to put together a consensus ticket that DOES have majority support from voters. 

But, if Bernie wants to be the nominee, then he's gotta run up the score tomorrow. Otherwise, I think his chances of winning are going to get pretty long.


----------



## jaxadam

Vegas Odds show Bernie as the favorite, with Biden trailing. Also shows Hillary Clinton having better odds than Warren. I'm pretty sure Biden will pull a surprise and get Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

I personally would support a Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson/Gabbard ticket myself.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> But, if Bernie wants to be the nominee, then he's gotta run up the score tomorrow. Otherwise, I think his chances of winning are going to get pretty long.



Oh, two weeks straight of Democratic voices yelling "THE US WILL NEVER ELECT A SOCIALIST! WE'RE GOING TO LOST IN 48 STATES! HE DIDN'T OFFER ANY NUMBERS ON HIS PLAN! OKAY NOW HE DID BUT THEY DON'T ADD UP BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN NUMBERS!" indicates there was no way he was EVER going to be the nominee with under 50% of delegates. 

I didn't think SC needed to be a "must win", but he needed to not lose by that kind of margin if 50%+ was even a possibility. At this point, it's out of his hands.

I wasn't opposed to the rest of the candidates staying in because of it's effect on Bernie. I think everybody's delegate dispersal was already pretty obvious. I just thought the lack of confidence in the party that came from a half dozen people on stage yelling over eachother was going to be the worst look for the party, and even worse when 3 or 4 of those people were totally non-viable. At this point, a straight head to head, Biden vs Bernie would be the best thing for confidence and gives the eventual winner the best chance at a 51% majority on the first ballot, which is the best outcome for this party.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> I'm just waiting for Biden to turn back into a pumpkin ie: sniffing a woman's hair or something.


If there are anymore debates left, I think that's where it'll happen. Considering there's only him, Bern, and Warren (and Tusli!) left he's gonna have a lot more chances to show his brain rot.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson/Gabbard ticket myself.



I'm riding the Mr. Peanut/Uncle Pennybags ticket


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Oh, two weeks straight of Democratic voices yelling "THE US WILL NEVER ELECT A SOCIALIST! WE'RE GOING TO LOST IN 48 STATES! HE DIDN'T OFFER ANY NUMBERS ON HIS PLAN! OKAY NOW HE DID BUT THEY DON'T ADD UP BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN NUMBERS!" indicates there was no way he was EVER going to be the nominee with under 50% of delegates.
> 
> I didn't think SC needed to be a "must win", but he needed to not lose by that kind of margin if 50%+ was even a possibility. At this point, it's out of his hands.
> 
> I wasn't opposed to the rest of the candidates staying in because of it's effect on Bernie. I think everybody's delegate dispersal was already pretty obvious. I just thought the lack of confidence in the party that came from a half dozen people on stage yelling over eachother was going to be the worst look for the party, and even worse when 3 or 4 of those people were totally non-viable. At this point, a straight head to head, Biden vs Bernie would be the best thing for confidence and gives the eventual winner the best chance at a 51% majority on the first ballot, which is the best outcome for this party.


I don't disagree with you in the least here... 

...but I think there's a pretty big gap between how you and I are looking at this race, and how Bernie supporters and more casual observers are looking at this race, to the degree that I suspect at least someone is going to come in and accuse me of "Sanders Derangement Syndrome" for not recognizing Sanders as the clear favorite to be the nominee right now.


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> Well, not to be overly reductionist... But if capital is a good thing in small doses, what makes it bad in large ones? If it's ok for individuals to save (which is just another way to sayu acquire capital) and invest in small scales, what makes it bad in large ones? Isn't saving and investing a good thing?



Capital is a thing, it doesn't have an inherent value judgement tied to it. It's not "good in small scales and bad in large ones", it's morally neutral. The problem is that capitalism structures its political economy around the reinforcement and accrual of capital at the expense of, or at minimum parallel to, human well-being. Capital and resources generally are only "good" if they're being used for the benefit of people. I'm not as interested in an abstract ethical position of "is investing good or bad" as I am the consequences of the economic system we live in. It's also true that scale matters. A mom and pop shop that hires one nephew is not morally equivalent to Walmart even if they start from an abstractly similar premise. 



Drew said:


> However, it's ALSO a situation where banks DID fail, and these failures ultimately trace back to the mortgage market, where banks made loans that were not paid back...So, my point here isn't whether nor not people did bad shit... But that banks DO fail, so any policy that starts with "oh, the banks aren't going to fail or anything" is going to result in a whole lot of bank failures, and this so-called "Main Street" and "Wall Street" divide was an illusion then and is an illusion now.



2008 was the result of an economy built on debt. It's an inherently fragile system; when you push people too far into debt, at some point they no longer have anything to extract. The problem there isn't with banks in the abstract, but specific banking practices. Banks have changed a lot in history and some models are better and worse than others. I wasn't saying "banks can't fail", only that it's possible to structure banks in a way that they're unlikely to fail. That said, this is all tangential to my original point, which was to refute your stance that investment risk deserves a profit reward even though there's no meaningful risk being taken. 

Another thing to consider: did most of the banks responsible for 2008 actually fail in any meaningful sense? Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley don't seem to be struggling with their mere billions in revenue and trillions in assets. The smaller banks that failed were largely bought out by larger banks. I think the risk calculation accounted for the banks' ability to pressure the government for a bailout. And is investment risk meaningful in a human sense, when nobody responsible for 2008 personally suffered anything less than being reduced to a mere multimillionaire?


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Oh, two weeks straight of Democratic voices yelling "THE US WILL NEVER ELECT A SOCIALIST! WE'RE GOING TO LOST IN 48 STATES! HE DIDN'T OFFER ANY NUMBERS ON HIS PLAN! OKAY NOW HE DID BUT THEY DON'T ADD UP BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN NUMBERS!" indicates there was no way he was EVER going to be the nominee with under 50% of delegates.
> 
> I didn't think SC needed to be a "must win", but he needed to not lose by that kind of margin if 50%+ was even a possibility. At this point, it's out of his hands.
> 
> *I wasn't opposed to the rest of the candidates staying in because of it's effect on Bernie. I think everybody's delegate dispersal was already pretty obvious. *I just thought the lack of confidence in the party that came from a half dozen people on stage yelling over eachother was going to be the worst look for the party, and even worse when 3 or 4 of those people were totally non-viable. At this point, a straight head to head, Biden vs Bernie would be the best thing for confidence and gives the eventual winner the best chance at a 51% majority on the first ballot, which is the best outcome for this party.



Will Super Tuesday be like American Idol Finals?

As an example, when Daughtry was supposedly the clear winner from like week one. He did well in voting all the way to the top 4. Then when the girl was voted off the week before him, her votes most likely dumped into a similar candidate and not him, so he was unseated.

Where will Buttigieg's and Klobuchar's votes go now? They were anti-Sanders candidates and if the majority of those votes all dump into Biden, he could derail the Bernie train.


----------



## Vyn

USMarine75 said:


> Will Super Tuesday be like American Idol Finals?
> 
> As an example, when Daughtry was supposedly the clear winner from like week one. He did well in voting all the way to the top 4. Then when the girl was voted off the week before him, her votes most likely dumped into a similar candidate and not him, so he was unseated.
> 
> Where will Buttigieg's and Klobuchar's votes go now? They were anti-Sanders candidates and if the majority of those votes all dump into Biden, he could derail the Bernie train.



The outright moderate vote candidate agnostic outweighs the progressive vote from memory (54/46 split, could be wrong on the exact numbers). In theory Biden should win and wipe out Trump however the snags there will be the hardline Bernie voters (notice I said hardline not all, a fair chunck will probably support Biden in the end) because they are just as extreme as Trump supporters in "If my candidate doesn't win then I'll set fire to everything."


----------



## USMarine75

Vyn said:


> In theory Biden should win and wipe out Trump however the snags there will be the hardline Bernie voters (notice I said hardline not all, a fair chunck will probably support Biden in the end) because they are just as extreme as Trump supporters in "If my candidate doesn't win then I'll set fire to everything."



Indeed. Hillary approves of this message


----------



## jaxadam

Vyn said:


> The outright moderate vote candidate agnostic outweighs the progressive vote from memory (54/46 split, could be wrong on the exact numbers). In theory Biden should win and wipe out Trump however the snags there will be the hardline Bernie voters (notice I said hardline not all, a fair chunck will probably support Biden in the end) because they are just as extreme as Trump supporters in "If my candidate doesn't win then I'll set fire to everything."



But it was his turn!


----------



## Randy

Criticisms of Warren still stand but I think this outlines the opposition to Biden et al. without the "we're starting a revolution" inflammatory rhetoric.

_I also want to congratulate Joe Biden on his win in South Carolina. I respect his years of service. But no matter how many Washington insiders tell you to support him, nominating their fellow Washington insider will not meet this moment. Nominating a man who says we do not need any fundamental change in this country will not meet this moment. Nominating someone who wants to restore the world before Donald Trump, when the status quo has been leaving more and more people behind for decades, is a big risk for our party and our country._

Much like the rationale and 'nuts and bolts' of progressive policy, I think Warren frames the arguments in a way that's more convincing to average people and not just church burners.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Criticisms of Warren still stand but I think this outlines the opposition to Biden et al. without the "we're starting a revolution" inflammatory rhetoric.
> 
> _I also want to congratulate Joe Biden on his win in South Carolina. I respect his years of service. But no matter how many Washington insiders tell you to support him, nominating their fellow Washington insider will not meet this moment. Nominating a man who says we do not need any fundamental change in this country will not meet this moment. Nominating someone who wants to restore the world before Donald Trump, when the status quo has been leaving more and more people behind for decades, is a big risk for our party and our country._
> 
> Much like the rationale and 'nuts and bolts' of progressive policy, I think Warren frames the arguments in a way that's more convincing to average people and not just church burners.



If Bernie was able to somehow speak like Warren when needed...


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> If Bernie was able to somehow speak like Warren when needed...



TBH, I think this is a window into why Sanders has so few allies in the Senate. I mean, there's probably a percentage of this that's still insider/monied opposition but the fact is Warren is 98% like him and makes an effort to legitimize the guy's policies (moreso than him, sometimes), then he returns the favor by frequently waving her off as unpure.

He's basically got such a high bar for meeting his brand, that's why he's not a Democrat and why he likely votes no, refuses to co-sponsor, etc. a lot of things or support people who believe in or are trying to help his cause overall. On one end, it's probably very appealing to voters having someone who's that strict on core principal items, on the other end, having a guy that will vote you down on something when they're 7/8 of the way in agreement has to make him very hard to work along side.


----------



## Thaeon

Its that same hard nosed image that got Trump elected. Though there's no real policy there. Just a lot of sound and fury. What I don't understand is why Dem's don't try to harness that a bit. There are more people in this country willing to follow that stick to your guns mindset than not committing to anything. Bernie, while knowing the politics and having real ethics involved, is very similar to Trump at least in that way.


----------



## sleewell

why dont they hold every states primary on the same day? seems pretty lame that most states really dont get a say in who will be their candidate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> why dont they hold every states primary on the same day? seems pretty lame that most states really dont get a say in who will be their candidate.



It's not really a democratic process regardless.


----------



## wankerness

Given that video of Biden that surfaced yesterday, I am furious that Pete and Klobuchar pulled this. I mean, they were crappy candidates too, but Biden looks about 1 week away from having to be put into a home for those with senile dementia. If the dems were going to go all in on a useless centrist, they could have at least chosen one who can string together coherent sentences. Trump has serious brain degeneration issues, too, but Biden looks so much worse. It will be an outright disaster for the dems if they force the nomination to him and then put him on a stage with Trump.

Still, Biden stammering and stumbling will probably still be better than Bloomberg. Ugh.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> He's basically got such a high bar for meeting his brand, that's why he's not a Democrat and why he likely votes no, refuses to co-sponsor, etc. a lot of things or support people who believe in or are trying to help his cause overall. On one end, it's probably very appealing to voters having someone who's that strict on core principal items, on the other end, having a guy that will vote you down on something when they're 7/8 of the way in agreement has to make him very hard to work along side.



A career politician who doesn't understand politics? Or, at least. is too good for politics?


----------



## Mathemagician

I think Drew is on the nose regarding delegate votes and poll numbers going forward. Bernie bet on a sweep. So now he needs to deliver a sweep. Because a lot of vested interests want a politician that can be bought with lobbying dollars. And a lot of voters aren’t “willing to risk their 401k’s” on a progressive of any stripe, much less one that they feel is aggressive towards them. 

I still can’t believe that in a campaign that included Elizabeth Warren, voters might get stuck with Biden.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Capital is a thing, it doesn't have an inherent value judgement tied to it. It's not "good in small scales and bad in large ones", it's morally neutral. The problem is that capitalism structures its political economy around the reinforcement and accrual of capital at the expense of, or at minimum parallel to, human well-being. Capital and resources generally are only "good" if they're being used for the benefit of people. I'm not as interested in an abstract ethical position of "is investing good or bad" as I am the consequences of the economic system we live in. It's also true that scale matters. A mom and pop shop that hires one nephew is not morally equivalent to Walmart even if they start from an abstractly similar premise.


Oddly, I think we're approaching a point of agreement. Capital I think _is _inherently useful, but it's _most_ useful when it's being reinvested back into the economy, and when it's spread out amongst many hands, to ensure the most possible viewpoints on how it can most profitably - in the "improved productivity" sense, with economic profit being a secondary effect of that - be invested. When it tends to become highly concentrated in the hands of a few, capital tends to sit on the sideline, where it can do less good to drive economic growth. It's better able to benefit society as a whole when large swathes of society are making direct allocation decisions, rather than when it's controlled by a few wealthy oligarchs, or when it's controlled by a central government. 

This is why I think one of the _best_ things we can do to improve American capitalism, is to create an economic framework that makes it harder and harder for capital to become concentrated in the hands of a few. I.e. - we need higher progressive taxation. 

Lehman's pretty dead. I think there's grounds to question the decision to let Lehman fail but not Goldman, but at the same time there's a bit of a domino effect here (especially back in the days before swaps were traded on a central clearinghouse, so the failure of one counterparty with no central way to net exposures could have potentially massive systematic effects) and it's a bit unclear how many more dominos could have fallen before the financial system itself, not just "Wall Street" but the bank you go to to take out cash from your account that your paycheck is deposited into, or your credit card is administered by, would have collapsed.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Its that same hard nosed image that got Trump elected. Though there's no real policy there. Just a lot of sound and fury. What I don't understand is why Dem's don't try to harness that a bit. There are more people in this country willing to follow that stick to your guns mindset than not committing to anything. Bernie, while knowing the politics and having real ethics involved, is very similar to Trump at least in that way.


I think Randy's right with the differences between Warren and Sanders, and the fact that his platform is "the establishment is the problem, we need to beat them and take our country back" DOES make it a little tricky for the Dems to "harness that energy."

Warren is pretty progressive, but with an awareness of the fact that ultimately if she's going to be the Democratic candidate and potentially president, she has to represent both progressives and establishment Democrats both, and needs to be able to build them into a coalition that will support her in the White House. Sanders is an idealogue/damned near fascist, where "you're with me or against me," and if you're against him then you can go screw. 

I think how butt-hurt he got over Warren making a reference to "stopping his momentum" in South Carolina really cuts to the center of the challenge Sanders is facing. He's running an anti-establishment campain, which is great if you're the underdog and can position yourself as the persecuted minority. It becomes a lot harder to do, though, when you're suddenly the front runner, and you have a real shot of getting elected to _represent_ the "establishment" you're positioning yourself as opposed to. How do you transition from being an opposition candidate to being the one in power? There are parallels to how the GOP's "overturn the ACA" campaign promise was awesome right up until they won and had to deliver, and the whole thing imploded on them. 

I won't write off the Sanders campaign until this is over, but I think his odds have taken a serious blow in the last week. And, if he does ultimately lose the nomination, I think when a post-mortem is written on his campain, one of the conclusions will ultimately be that despite an awesome grassroots outreach effort and ground game, there really wasn't much in the way of higher-level strategy in play here. He either didn't realize or didn't care that a divided moderate vote could make him the front-runner, but would make it awfully hard to get to an outright majority, and the problem with running an anti-establishment campaign is, when it comes time to try to leverage that plurality into a majority of support, you're going to need some people who have loads of good reasons to think you're an asshole, to then turn around and work with you.


----------



## Drew

BTW, final 538 forecast. Between Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out and endorsing Biden, and finally getting some fresh post-SC polling released in Super Tuesday states, Biden is now the candidate most likely to win a majority. No majority is still our most likely outcome at 61%, but Biden is second at 31% and Sanders has fallen to 8%. There's now a 65% chance Biden, not Sanders, ends up with the plurality of delegates.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I was saying this yesterday when Sanders was still nominally ahead Biden (but still likely to fall short of a majority), but if Sanders wants to be the Democratic nominee, he needs to run the table today. Not win the most states - if he's winning the most states with 30% of the vote, that's not going to get him enough delegates, and he and Biden will still be neck in neck in pledged delegates when the voting's done. He needs to blow Biden out of the water if he wants to win, he needs to start Wednesday moning knowing he's in a very good position to win an outright majority. 

One complicating factor for Sanders is mail in voting in CA - it's his best shot at running up the delegate tally, but early voting was low by historical standards at 22%, and with ballots being eligible if they're postmarked today, it could be until Friday before we have a final tally.


----------



## Drew

BTW, if you want a bull case for Sanders... He probably peaked too early, but his best chance of winning the nomination has always been a knockout blow on Super Tuesday. It's possible that peaking, hitting the usual front-runner scrutiny (plus the added layer that comes from being an anti-establishment candidate running to take over the establishment), and starting to slide back down will give him enough of an aggrieved anti-establishment "they're all out to get me" push to bounce _back_ and exceed his polling. 

I'm not betting on it, and if anything I'm expecting him to win the most states but _under_-perform with pledged delegates... But if you wanted to hang your hopes on something, it would be that his surge and subsequent slide is pretty well timed for voters sympathetic to the argument the establishment is trying to "rob" him here.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> A career politician who doesn't understand politics? Or, at least. is too good for politics?



The politics that win you re-election in VT are different than the politics that win at the national level. The VT electorate are very specific type of people. He's shown to be very good at "understanding politics" in VT, and by extention, people in this country what relate to that mode of thinking but it turns out to be the antithesis of most everyone else.



Drew said:


> BTW, if you want a bull case for Sanders... He probably peaked too early



Correct. He benefitted from the constant meat grinder against Biden (and his poor handling of it), and probably some missteps and overplaying by the rest of the field. To an extent, he actually captured some kind of "establishment" type benefit just by virtue of his age and experience. There was a fear of uncertainty and some kind of seniority (even if it was ironically coming from the 'we need a revolution' guy) and stability that benefitted him, but two weeks of fear baiting on socialism totally wiped that out.

My biggest concern is that 1.) Biden v2.0 is an overreaction to the Sanders drop and people are forgetting his overall gaffe frequency and likely a couple more skeletons similar to those that sunk him earlier 2.) 'lets go back to how things were in 2016' isn't the rallying cry that will put the Democrat over the top this time.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The politics that win you re-election in VT are different than the politics that win at the national level. The VT electorate are very specific type of people. He's shown to be very good at "understanding politics" in VT, and by extention, people in this country what relate to that mode of thinking but it turns out to be the antithesis of most everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. He benefited from the constant meat grinder against Biden (and his poor handling of it), and probably some missteps and overplaying by the rest of the field. To an extent, he actually captured some kind of "establishment" type benefit just by virtue of his age and experience. There was a fear of uncertainty and some kind of seniority (even if it was ironically coming from the 'we need a revolution' guy) and stability that benefited him, but two weeks of fear baiting on socialism totally wiped that out.
> 
> My biggest concern is that 1.) Biden v2.0 is an overreaction to the Sanders drop and people are forgetting his overall gaffe frequency and likely a couple more skeletons similar to those that sunk him earlier 2.) 'lets go back to how things were in 2016' isn't the rallying cry that will put the Democrat over the top this time.


I mean, I think your observation that this probably speaks to why he's a long-time senator that just isn't very popular in the Senate, plus bostjan's observations about how Sanders has pretty much broken Vermont politics into a GOP right, Democratic center, and progressive far left mess that can't get anything done, speaks volumes about Sanders' political savvy. My college advisor was fond of observing that when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything's a nail, and I think that's Bernie. 

Your concerns aren't off base... But I also think Biden is probably benefiting from the fact thata 1) there IS a clear "anyone but Sanders" current, not just in "party elites" but in a whole heck of a lot of voters, and 2) there isn't really a clear consensus around who else the moderate majority could coalesce around. If Buttigieg had followed Iowa with a NH win, or done well in SC, it might be a different conversation here (and he'd still be in the race, and Sanders would be benefiting from a divided field)... But I think it's less forgetfulness than it is Biden is just the last man standing here, and Bernie has done a great job pissing off moderate Democrats for the last four years.


----------



## bostjan

Just placed my vote.

Tonight's results could define the tone for the next couple of months, but I highly doubt this is going anywhere conclusive soon.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic but I don't see how Biden pulls a majority or even a plurality without having a real platform. It just feels like another "vote for me because I'm not ____". There's nothing cohesive there.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Randy

I'm enjoying this narrative of centrism to win purple states. A Joe Manchin in every district, lovely.


----------



## Drew

So, Biden is having a _night_. Long time before we have Texas and California polls, but Minnesota and MA were both _longshot_ states for him, 1-in-5 odds in FiveThirtyEight's polling, in line with CA, while Texas was only slightly better than even odds for him, so at this point even if he loses those two there's a pretty strong case that he's drastically overperforming expectations, and even then I'd be surprised if he doesn't get one of the two. As it stands there's a pretty strong divide between early voting, which has favored Sanders, and voting today, which has favored Biden. 

Sanders needed to run up the score on Biden tonight. At present, it looks like Biden's the one doing that.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> So, Biden is having a _night_. Long time before we have Texas and California polls, but Minnesota and MA were both _longshot_ states for him, 1-in-5 odds in FiveThirtyEight's polling, in line with CA, while Texas was only slightly better than even odds for him, so at this point even if he loses those two there's a pretty strong case that he's drastically overperforming expectations, and even then I'd be surprised if he doesn't get one of the two. As it stands there's a pretty strong divide between early voting, which has favored Sanders, and voting today, which has favored Biden.
> 
> Sanders needed to run up the score on Biden tonight. At present, it looks like Biden's the one doing that.



How do you think the Bernie Bros will take this from the Quid Pro Joes? Do you think they'll vote for Trump now?


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> How do you think the Bernie Bros will take this from the Quid Pro Joes? Do you think they'll vote for Trump now?



If anything, I've seen Republicans against Ttump voting for Joe last night.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> How do you think the Bernie Bros will take this from the Quid Pro Joes? Do you think they'll vote for Trump now?



Last time the spread went something like 10% went for Trump, 70% for Clinton, and the rest either never showed up or voted for a third party candidate. Though that was all self identified and I can't seem to find the exact article from then. 

I could see that happening again, though I don't think Biden is nearly as toxic to some as Clinton was, and I don't think there will be as many Trump protest votes. I could definitely be wrong though. 

The wild card is that it's more about voters in certain areas and not the overall. So if every Bernie Bro in California decides to vote Trump, but Cali still goes blue overall it's fairly meaningless.


----------



## wankerness

jaxadam said:


> How do you think the Bernie Bros will take this from the Quid Pro Joes? Do you think they'll vote for Trump now?



I think the boogeyman of the "Bernie Bros" that the establishment likes to hype up to drive people towards billionaire-friendly, anti-healthcare candidates like Biden or Bloomberg is extremely overrated and is the LEAST of the worries that a Biden nomination would have. His raging dementia that causes him to randomly seem to forget where he is/what he's doing is the real problem. Trump's addled too, but I think he's been used to being stupid for a long time and thus comes off as much more alert than Biden, who tries to be snappy and intelligent like he was a few years ago and then realizes the transmission on his brain is blown. It's sad. That's what often happens when you're in your late 70s. Bernie doesn't have that problem, Warren doesn't have that problem, even Bloomberg doesn't have that problem (his failure in debates and speaking off-the-cuff is due to other insufficiencies), but Biden sure does.

He's also thrown around the idea of nominating a republican to be his VP. What the hell? It's like he's TRYING to get people to stay home. There's no way he lasts to the end of his term, so effectively a vote for him would be a vote for a Republican. If he chose like, Warren, I'd feel a LOT better about things.


----------



## Randy

Exit polls say the bulk of 'Bernie Bros' (aggressive cancel culture tweens) sat out yesterday anyway. I doubt the magically grow industrious enough to show up and protest votes for Trump.

The dynamic is also different now. Bernie and Trump were both 'blow up the system' populists, so there was some overlap in their campaigning and potentially some crossover. That's different now that Trump IS the system and is now a known commodity. There's nobody who was an earnest Bernie voter this time around that would see a second term of Trump as the next best thing.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> Exit polls say the bulk of 'Bernie Bros' (aggressive cancel culture tweens) sat out yesterday anyway. I doubt the magically grow industrious enough to show up and protest votes for Trump.



So you think the Bernie Bros might just be Biden time until November?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

The Olds believe some crazy shit but at least they get out and vote for it. The Youths don't seem to get out and vote for the people whose Tweets they are retweeting. It's a common refrain around election season but it doesn't get any less frustrating to see.


----------



## Randy

TBH, I dunno if anybody benefits from elections being decided by drive-by political activists anyway.


----------



## Ralyks

Bloomberg out, endorsing Biden.
Boy, that was the most expensive trolling.of Trump ever.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Captain Butterscotch said:


> The Olds believe some crazy shit but at least they get out and vote for it. The Youths don't seem to get out and vote for the people whose Tweets they are retweeting. It's a common refrain around election season but it doesn't get any less frustrating to see.



It doesn't help that it's not exactly easy for a fairly significant amount of younger people to actual get out and vote. 

Between fewer polling places, restrictions placed on out of state college students, lack of sanctioned time away from work, etc. some people simply can't vote.

Who am I to tell someone who is one shift away from not making ends meet that they need to make that sacrifice?


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> Bloomberg out, endorsing Biden.
> Boy, that was the most expensive trolling.of Trump ever.



No kidding. Why would anyone want to vote for someone that fiscally irresponsible.


----------



## vilk

Captain Butterscotch said:


> The Olds believe some crazy shit but at least they get out and vote for it. The Youths don't seem to get out and vote for the people whose Tweets they are retweeting. It's a common refrain around election season but it doesn't get any less frustrating to see.


The Olds can miss a shift without being fired. The Youths feel lucky if they can get their early 2000s used car through the month without a major repair sending them into credit card debt.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

If the country really cared about the electorate voting they'd have a few national voting days a year for the (respective) biggest elections. But, this is the US we're talking about so we're busy _reducing_ the number of polling stations available.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

MaxOfMetal said:


> It doesn't help that it's not exactly easy for a fairly significant amount of younger people to actual get out and vote.
> 
> Between fewer polling places, restrictions placed on out of state college students, lack of sanctioned time away from work, etc. some people simply can't vote.
> 
> Who am I to tell someone who is one shift away from not making ends meet that they need to make that sacrifice?





vilk said:


> The Olds can miss a shift without being fired. The Youths feel lucky if they can get their early 2000s used car through the month without a major repair sending them into credit card debt.



Absolutely right. 



JoshuaVonFlash said:


> If the country really cared about the electorate voting they'd have a few national voting days a year for the (respective) biggest elections. But, this is the US we're talking about so we're busy _reducing_ the number of polling stations available.



Very this.


----------



## Randy

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> If the country really cared about the electorate voting they'd have a few national voting days a year for the (respective) biggest elections. But, this is the US we're talking about so we're busy _reducing_ the number of polling stations available.



Broken record, but my biggest concern going into November is 1.) any perception of the DNC with their thumb on the scale of the primary 2.) Joe Biden turns back into a perpetual gaffe machine that challenges constituents to fight him whenever his family's corrupt misgivings come up.

With regard to #1, Biden overwhelming winning black votes in the South but out west, exit polls showing Bernie with a significant lead among Hispanics and modest leads among blacks in Colorado, California, etc. Considering the party has more control over the primary than the feds or the state (though all play a role), the 2+ hour lines in minority areas of Texas and California are going to be perceived a certain way.

Congratulations to Joe but considering the perception of Bloomberg as a mega wealthy billionaire who didn't enter the race when it was about kids being put in cages, Trump greenlighting Russian interference, Trump turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia cutting up a guy and putting him in a suitcase, etc. but only decided to jump in when two of the top 3 candidates were people that promised to be tough on Wall Street and billionaires, I consider the kneejerk Bloomberg endorsement more of an indictment and a liability than a plus.


----------



## stockwell

I think Max is 100% correct on the skew in voting. Retirees can afford to wait at polling places. With reported wait times (at least in California) of 3-11 hours (11 hours!), it's no wonder that voting demographics skew older and richer than the overall population. But we all know the US's democracy is incredibly dysfunctional, that's not a new factor. 

I'm not surprised by Super Tuesday. The moderates consolidated behind Biden, while Warren received an influx of PAC money to keep splitting the progressive wing. With 500 delegates yet to be allocated, it's 400 Biden and 320 Sanders. Considering that the margin in California is still unknown, it's still going to be relatively close. Biden swept the south and Bernie won California. This would have been the projection of most people before Pete's surge. 

Bloomberg dropping out was expected. He entered the race to prevent a Sanders win, and now he realizes he's only weakening Biden's base. It's such a relief to have him out, even if it negatively impacts Bernie. He was always more dangerous than Trump. 

Anyone who extrapolates too far from the results of Super Tuesday should consider a few things: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-because-he-won-over-voters-who-decided-late/

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1235101861876662277?s=20

In short, the majority of voters support M4A and Biden voters are largely people who decided in the past few days. A Biden vs. Bernie race absolutely benefits Bernie. Biden is against M4A, against marijuana legalization, shaky on abortion, against abolishing ICE, shaky on social security, hawkish on foreign policy...we now have an even clearer contrast.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> The Olds can miss a shift without being fired. The Youths feel lucky if they can get their early 2000s used car through the month without a major repair sending them into credit card debt.





JoshuaVonFlash said:


> If the country really cared about the electorate voting they'd have a few national voting days a year for the (respective) biggest elections. But, this is the US we're talking about so we're busy _reducing_ the number of polling stations available.



Meh. I mean, the rules work against college aged kids because of requirements regarding where they're registered vs. where they're living, etc., and they also have a lot less flexibility with getting to the polls but year after year, election after election, the youth turn out is low and when questioned on it, lack of access or opportunity to vote is in the minority. Most of is apathy and misguided abstinence "on principal" AKA laziness.

You can give them the day off paid and bus them to the polls and they still won't reliably participate.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> Meh. I mean, the rules work against college aged kids because of requirements regarding where they're registered vs. where they're living, etc., and they also have a lot less flexibility with getting to the polls but year after year, election after election, the youth turn out is low and when questioned on it, lack of access or opportunity to vote is in the minority. Most of is apathy and misguided abstinence "on principal" AKA laziness.
> 
> You can give them the day off paid and bus them to the polls and they still won't reliably participate.


I don't consider that last sentence of your first paragraph a young people's problem. That's a big problem albeit justifiably with most Americans. IIRC we have some of the lowest total voting numbers in the west.


----------



## thraxil

jaxadam said:


> No kidding. Why would anyone want to vote for someone that fiscally irresponsible.



Not that I like Bloomberg at all, but dude's worth 55 billion and spent about 500 million on the campaign. That's almost a whole percent of his net worth. I'm sure some of us here have spent a larger percentage of our net worth on guitars, so I'm not about to throw stones.


----------



## Randy

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I don't consider that last sentence of your first paragraph a young people's problem. That's a big problem albeit justifiably with most Americans. IIRC we have some of the lowest total voting numbers in the west.



I'm just referencing an article I read a couple years ago post-2016 and they cited an outsized amount of that response from young people. You're right that the overall participation in this country is poor, and even worse when you take into account how many (or how few, really) people work at educating themselves on issues. The paltry participation numbers we have are totally lopsided on big banner races, and it's all based on cable news or social media information, which 50% horse race and 50% outright lies. It's awful.


----------



## jaxadam

Biden/Obama 2020


----------



## Thaeon

jaxadam said:


> No kidding. Why would anyone want to vote for someone that fiscally irresponsible.



As stated above, it was less than 1% of his total wealth. If you have $1000 in the bank, do you bat an eye at $10? Hardly. Also, if billionaires are so terrified of Bernie, what's 1% of your wealth to run unseriously as a spoiler candidate to potentially tip the scales in favor of a candidate that is more forgiving of your wealth?


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> I think Max is 100% correct on the skew in voting. Retirees can afford to wait at polling places. With reported wait times (at least in California) of 3-11 hours (11 hours!), it's no wonder that voting demographics skew older and richer than the overall population. But we all know the US's democracy is incredibly dysfunctional, that's not a new factor.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who extrapolates too far from the results of Super Tuesday should consider a few things:
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-because-he-won-over-voters-who-decided-late/


Eh, that first bit rings like sour grapes to me. California is a poor example to pick, maybe, partly because Bernie probably won, but also partly because they allow early voting (22% or so is the last estimation I saw, which was low by historical norms) and because they allow same-day mail-in voting, with votes counting as long as they're postmarked by the election date. If the line at the polling station is too long, simply pick up a mail-in ballot and drop it off in a mailbox. Or if you're worried about missing a shift, vote early on a day you're free to. Young voters simply didn't bother to show up. If Bernie's argument was he should be the candidate because he can mobilize the youth vote, well, he didn't.  

That said - I'm in favor of a national voting holiday on the first tuesday in november - for primaries, we'd have to address it at the state level, but I know here in MA I believe state law requires employers to give employees two hours PTO every election to go vote. I went first thing in the morning, as soon as polls opened, just to not have to worry about it. 

And, that's another reason I'd be cautious about attributing this to lines - here in MA, we DIDN'T have three to eleven hour waits... and Biden wasn't even the most likely candidate to upset an expected Sanders win, that was Warren, and he beat them both. There was just a LOT of consolidation around Biden in the last 48 hours, it looks like most of his surprise overperformance was a couple points each from Bloomberg and Warren, and a lot of former Buttigieg voters. 

Re: that FiveThirtyEight article... I think you're misinterpreting what you're seeing. After the South Carolina caucus where Biden blew the lest of the field out of the water, we saw some serious consolidaiton in the race. Prominent democrats endorsed Biden, both Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden, and the polling we got on Monday showed a sudden pick-up in support. If you're arguing late decicisions are a sign voters aren't actually committed, that's fine... But at a _minimum_ there's clear evidence of a whole heck of a lot of voters looking for an alternative to Sanders, and thinking tactically about who can realistically beat him. If I'm Sanders, that's not really a good sign.


----------



## Necris

The first Trump vs. Biden debate should consist solely of a doctor asking both of them to draw a clock from memory.


----------



## Drew

That said, if I were to lay out a bull case for Sanders, AFTER failing to hit the bull case i laid out yesteday, this would be it: 

Sanders underperformed, badly, on Super Tuesday, and unless he manages to do far better in California than he did in pretty much every other state, he's going to finish with fewer than expected delegates. However, he'll still get a respectable delegate haul, and hasn't been - I suspect - mathematically eliminated from winning a majority. His anti-establishment message is far more effective as the underdog than as the leader, as we've found, and a rash of high profile endorsements and rivals dropping out and endorsing him, while Bernie Bros themselves have been saying Warren should do just that ever since his surge began and he would no doubt have been happy to accept Harry Reid's endorsement had it been offered, for example, moderate voters coalescening around a single candidate is a scenario that lends well to his "the party is trying to rob me" message. This primary has been one whhere every single other leading candidate has come under scruitiny and attack, and while there are fewer people left to attack than there were, there's no real reason to expect that to stop. So, Sanders is now in the position of an underdog, which suits his campaign, yet still within spitting distance of being able to win a majority. I'd say he's got a reasonably good chance of staging a comeback. 

I'm not sure what that come back would look like - a majority would mean somehow rendering the Biden campaign impotent, which seems awfully hard to do at this point. His best shot may be to rob Biden of an outright majority and force a contested convention, at which point Biden already has enough former rivals endorsing him that in a close race he has a winning coalition, but Sanders may be able to fight for concessions on the platform. Sanders finishing with a majority is a stretch but not impossible, and a plurality is unlikely but also not impossible, but I'm not sure he can win the nomination in a scenario where it's something like 45% Sanders, 44% Biden, 11% everyone endorsing Biden so I really don't know what his end game there would be. 

But, Sanders in _theory_ is well positioned to at least keep this close. I guess his best option here is to stick it out in case Biden creates a massive unforced error or - let's be honest, neither man is young - dies, and Warren seems to be indicating she plans to stick it out for at least the next six races, too, so I think she's looking at this as the "in case of fire, break glass" candidate, in case something happens to Biden or Sanders and one of them becomes unviable and creates a void. Both candidates' odds just got a lot longer, Warren much more so than Sanders, but there's still upside. 

I think we either get a Biden win or a contested convention, though, at this point, unless Sanders really cleans house in CA.


----------



## Drew

Necris said:


> The first Trump vs. Biden debate should consist solely of a doctor asking both of them to draw a clock from memory.


Idunno. We've seen Trump with a sharpie.


----------



## stockwell

It's not sour grapes to point out the obvious. US democracy is dysfunctional at best. It's not designed to work. That's something I've said before Sanders ever ran in 2016 and I'll say it long after he's out of the political sphere. 

Fair point on the 538 article. And I would credit the consolidation, media push, and Warren split with the win rather than a mass of low information voters. CA isn't looking like it's going to be enough to push this to a win, but it is keeping it close. It is disappointing to see turnout that isn't much different from previous races. Independent of who it benefits, I'd hope to see people becoming more politically engaged. 

Sanders has based his campaign around ground game. He's had relatively low ad spending, and the media does him no favors. It seems with Biden as his opponent, he's shifting his strategy. The campaign has started airing ads targeting Biden's resume on Social Security and Medicare. If he had challenged Biden on these grounds when there was no clear frontrunner, he risked coming across as antagonistic. Now that it's a 1v1 he's more free to be aggressive. I think the Sanders campaign is banking on Biden wilting under the spotlight. Because let's face it, Biden being on camera has not been a positive thing for his campaign. 

At this point it doesn't seem like Bernie will win a majority. Even if he wins big in New York and the Midwest (a reasonable projection), Biden will still take Florida and the rest of the south. It's also reasonable to think that Pete/Amy/Warren/Bloomberg's delegates will fall in line behind Biden (AFAIK they're pledged, not bound). There are a few big variables: COVID19 probably benefits a candidate promising universal health coverage and paid sick leave, Warren might drop out, and Biden's mental state is becoming more suspect. 

It's very premature to consider this a massive defeat for Bernie, but it is concerning.


----------



## sleewell

biden should convince michelle obama to be his vp.


----------



## tedtan

If Bernie manages to hang on well enough to force a contested convention, that might put enough pressure on Biden to force him to consider Warren as VP in order to help unite the party. That's not what I would expect from Biden otherwise, but it could be a decent ticket.


----------



## ImNotAhab

sleewell said:


> biden should convince michelle obama to be his vp.



As a non-American spectator this would be thrilling twist in an other wise dismal season 58 of "Prez".


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> It's not sour grapes to point out the obvious. US democracy is dysfunctional at best. It's not designed to work. That's something I've said before Sanders ever ran in 2016 and I'll say it long after he's out of the political sphere.
> 
> Fair point on the 538 article. And I would credit the consolidation, media push, and Warren split with the win rather than a mass of low information voters. CA isn't looking like it's going to be enough to push this to a win, but it is keeping it close. It is disappointing to see turnout that isn't much different from previous races. Independent of who it benefits, I'd hope to see people becoming more politically engaged.
> 
> Sanders has based his campaign around ground game. He's had relatively low ad spending, and the media does him no favors. It seems with Biden as his opponent, he's shifting his strategy. The campaign has started airing ads targeting Biden's resume on Social Security and Medicare. If he had challenged Biden on these grounds when there was no clear frontrunner, he risked coming across as antagonistic. Now that it's a 1v1 he's more free to be aggressive. I think the Sanders campaign is banking on Biden wilting under the spotlight. Because let's face it, Biden being on camera has not been a positive thing for his campaign.
> 
> At this point it doesn't seem like Bernie will win a majority. Even if he wins big in New York and the Midwest (a reasonable projection), Biden will still take Florida and the rest of the south. It's also reasonable to think that Pete/Amy/Warren/Bloomberg's delegates will fall in line behind Biden (AFAIK they're pledged, not bound). There are a few big variables: COVID19 probably benefits a candidate promising universal health coverage and paid sick leave, Warren might drop out, and Biden's mental state is becoming more suspect.
> 
> It's very premature to consider this a massive defeat for Bernie, but it is concerning.


I mean, I agree with your final sentence, at least...  

What makes you think anyone who voted for Biden is a "low information voter"? That seems an awfully big leap. You're also seeing a very consistent trend here - Sanders' numbers weren't great relative to his priors, but they weren't awful either, and in the two upset states, MA and MN, he finished almost exactly where he was projected to - 29% in MN vs 28% polling average, and 27% vs a 29% projection. Warren lagged slightly in MA, 25% vs 21%, but was right on top of her MN polling too, 15% vs polling average of 16%. If we're still going to group Warren and Sanders as a "progressive" lane, and everyone else as "establishment," then Sanders didn't lose because "low information voters" abandoned him, he lost because the establishment lane that wanted an alternative to Sanders finally coalesced around Biden. 

Also, Sanders, the highest-fundraising non-self-funding candidate, has relatively low ad spending? The guy who I can't open Facebook without seeing one of his ads? Sanders, not being previously antagonistic? I think maybe the most compelling way you can spin this to his advantage is he's no longer lobbing shots at the entire field, because the entire field is now Biden, and maybe Warren. 

I do think Sanders should bounce back somewhat. Whether he's actually got a chance to make meaningful inroads here or if this is a simple dead cat bounce remains to be seen, but I'll say the same thing I've been saying for ages here now - if Sanders wants to win, he needs to start thinking about how he can make the case to moderates that they should support him, rather than attacking people who _don't _support him.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> If Bernie manages to hang on well enough to force a contested convention, that might put enough pressure on Biden to force him to consider Warren as VP in order to help unite the party. That's not what I would expect from Biden otherwise, but it could be a decent ticket.


This wouldn't be a bad outcome at all, I think... Though, I have a real hard time seeing Sanders looking at the results and thinking, "well, if I can't win, maybe I can make Warren the VP pick."


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> If Bernie manages to hang on well enough to force a contested convention, that might put enough pressure on Biden to force him to consider Warren as VP in order to help unite the party. That's not what I would expect from Biden otherwise, but it could be a decent ticket.



TBH, if we wanna talk about sour grape, the number of times Hillary's invoked Bernie Sanders since 2016 is the very definition. Worth noting there were long swirling rumors of the Clintons having a similar reaction when she lost to Obama; several times quoted as bashing them to other congresspersons and donors behind closed doors.

I bring that up because, there's a chance the Tim Kaine pick as less about "we don't need no stinkin' Progressives" and may have been an outright Hillary Clinton temper tantrum. Letting Bernie's people craft the platform nationwide and making his pick the co-chair of the party don't wreak of "all or nothing" establishment fundamentalism.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> What makes you think anyone who voted for Biden is a "low information voter"?



Well, the fact his numbers were in the toilet and the voters came to his rescue based on the results of an election three days earlier doesn't wreak of people making decisions based on being "well informed".


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I bring that up because, there's a chance the Tim Kaine pick as less about "we don't need no stinkin' Progressives" and may have been an outright Hillary Clinton temper tantrum. Letting Bernie's people craft the platform nationwide and making his pick the co-chair of the party don't wreak of "all or nothing" establishment fundamentalism.


I mean, it's not impossible. It's tough to say what exactly he brought to the table in 2016 aside from moderately better Spanish than my own. I don't say that to knock the guy, I understand he's well liked and well respected in Virginia, but when you're running against basically the Tea Party made flesh, the strongest case I could see for Kaine was he's blandly nice enough to plausibly be the adult in the room, and that's not maybe the best foot to lead with.

On the other hand, Sanders wasn't exactly going out of his way to extend any olive branches himself at the time, either - I can say that the negotiation on whether or not he was going to endorse Clinton nearly broke down because of which _night _he was scheduled to headline at the convention. Whether or not you think he was justified in being upset at the DNC, he didn't handle it with any particular degree of maturity. 



Randy said:


> Well, the fact his numbers were in the toilet and the voters came to his rescue based on the results of an election three days earlier doesn't wreak of people making decisions based on being "well informed".


Depends what you think they were looking for, TBH. If the primary motivation for Democrats this cycle is "we want someone to win in the general election," then the pattern of voters looking for alternatives after a surprise upset by Buttigieg in Iowa, then coming back in a hurry when he showed that no one else had made inroads into the black Democratic vote in SC, makes a certain amount of sense - we don't have much good post-SC polling data yet but the vote distribution suggests that Biden's basically right back where he started, before Iowa. 

To me, that's a skittish electorate, not a low information one. And if you want to add that to the column of reasons why Sanders shouldn't give up just yet, that's probably fair... Though I do think the majority of the party coalescing behind Biden is doing so because they don't think _Sanders_ can win. Again, I think if something were to happen to Biden's candidacy in the next couple days, Warren would be the most immediate benefactor, though we might get a few campaigns taken off hold again.


----------



## jaxadam

Thaeon said:


> As stated above, it was less than 1% of his total wealth. If you have $1000 in the bank, do you bat an eye at $10? Hardly. Also, if billionaires are so terrified of Bernie, what's 1% of your wealth to run unseriously as a spoiler candidate to potentially tip the scales in favor of a candidate that is more forgiving of your wealth?



I'm glad you brought that up. That's one of the fallacies of wealth, and will demonstrate my point. Wealth isn't kept in a checking account, and expense layouts aren't the same as middle class income; Mike Bloomberg doesn't keep $55,000,000,000 in his "no-interest free basic checking account as long as you run your debit card three times and have a qualified direct deposit" at Wells Fargo, and he doesn't have the "just got out of college starter pack expenses of Netflix, Spotify, and Youtube TV." He is likely far more leveraged than 1% on that presidential gamble, and the whole point is that $500M could have been much better spent on all of this health care everyone is bitching about!


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Sanders wasn't exactly going out of his way to extend any olive branches himself at the time, either - I can say that the negotiation on whether or not he was going to endorse Clinton nearly broke down because of which _night _he was scheduled to headline at the convention. Whether or not you think he was justified in being upset at the DNC, he didn't handle it with any particular degree of maturity.



I think the mistake you're making is attributing Sanders stubbornness to malice or something resembling it. He's not a Democrat and he has no loyalty to them just because they're the major party that's closer to his ideology or because he caucuses with them. 

And I honestly think THAT'S his biggest liability if somebody's going to express skepticism about him at the top of the ballot or getting the job as POTUS, because you really don't know how receptive he's going to be bills from his own party or vice versa, or how supportive he'll be of candidates down ballot.

There are progressive in the Democratic Party but make no mistake, Sanders' campaign is and was an insurgency. I don't think his branding or his attitude toward deal making is just branding, I think that's who he is. An Independent, Democratic Socialist running for the Democratic Party nomination. And I mean, it's got it's pluses and minuses but I think making the Democratic Party look at itself in the mirror periodically is exactly what they were missing, and I think over the 30-40 years he's been on the public stage, I think it's proven he's typically ahead of the Democrats on policy, and the Democrats are slow to keep up with the public on policy; so the idea of someone looking to the future instead of always playing catch is an asset. 

You just match that with having no loyalty to the party (similar could be said of the Green Party), and yeah, you're prone to have fireworks.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> I'm glad you brought that up. That's one of the fallacies of wealth, and will demonstrate my point. Wealth isn't kept in a checking account, and expense layouts aren't the same as middle class income; Mike Bloomberg doesn't keep $55,000,000,000 in his "no-interest free basic checking account as long as you run your debit card three times and have a qualified direct deposit" at Wells Fargo, and he doesn't have the "just got out of college starter pack expenses of Netflix, Spotify, and Youtube TV." He is likely far more leveraged than 1% on that presidential gamble, and the whole point is that $500M could have been much better spent on all of this health care everyone is bitching about!



I think Bloomberg is reactionary to causes that cross his path, and he frequently decides he can "do something" by just throwing money at it, but he's far from altruistic. I think this campaign was 10% thinking he can help, 40% stopping the Communists from taking the rest of his money and 50% a pissing contest with another rich NYC scumbag.


----------



## thraxil

Randy said:


> I think Bloomberg is reactionary to causes that cross his path, and he frequently decides he can "do something" by just throwing money at it, but he's far from altruistic. I think this campaign was 10% thinking he can help, 40% stopping the Communists from taking the rest of his money and 50% a pissing contest with another rich NYC scumbag.



And for billionaires, it's really not that unusual to throw that kind of money around. Larry Ellison, who has a couple billion more than Bloomberg has a fleet of superyachts, the largest of which cost over $200 million. Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who's only like a third as wealthy as either of them spent over $600 million on a yacht (a whopping 3.5% of his net worth). Spending enormous amounts of money on luxury items or or vanity projects like elections is just how the super wealthy strut and preen in front of each other.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I think Bloomberg is reactionary to causes that cross his path, and he frequently decides he can "do something" by just throwing money at it, but he's far from altruistic. I think this campaign was 10% thinking he can help, 40% stopping the Communists from taking the rest of his money and 50% a pissing contest with another rich NYC scumbag.



I'm thinking more like 99% pissing contest.


----------



## Randy

Joe Biden Needs An Economic Platform:
He’s not ready to challenge a populist president.


----------



## Hollowway

Do you guys think Biden and the DNC will pick Warren or another progressive to try to get the Bernie votes? I’m going to vote, and despite wanting Bernie to win the nom (or at least a progressive), I will vote for anyone going against Trump. But, last time I literally wrote Bernie’s same in for the November election, because I was so pissed at Clinton and the DNC. What I don’t know is whether the DNC even cares or thinks about the progressive wing of the party, and if they think they need those votes to win the election. So, TL;DR, do you think the DNC thinks they need the progressive votes to win the election, or do they think they can do without them?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Hollowway said:


> Do you guys think Biden and the DNC will pick Warren or another progressive to try to get the Bernie votes? I’m going to vote, and despite wanting Bernie to win the nom (or at least a progressive), I will vote for anyone going against Trump. But, last time I literally wrote Bernie’s same in for the November election, because I was so pissed at Clinton and the DNC. What I don’t know is whether the DNC even cares or thinks about the progressive wing of the party, and if they think they need those votes to win the election. So, TL;DR, do you think the DNC thinks they need the progressive votes to win the election, or do they think they can do without them?



I don't think they will. 

I think they should, but since we're living in the worst timeline, I think it's more likely they'll pick a much more centrist/establishment VP and lose support from a meaningful, albeit small, coalition of progressives. 

But we'll see. I think the better progressive candidates do across the board the more likely we'll see someone like Warren in that spot. That said, I don't think they'd be wrong to pass over her given primary performance and perceived baggage. 

I just hope it's not something stupid like Buttigieg or an absolute unknown and interchangeable establishment suit.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Yeah, I don't have any confidence in the DNC right now. This is the party that chose tall glass of lukewarm saliva Tim Kaine as VP in 2016.


----------



## sleewell

i think adding warren to either ticket would hand trump the election.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think they will.
> 
> I think they should, but since we're living in the worst timeline, I think it's more likely they'll pick a much more centrist/establishment VP and lose support from a meaningful, albeit small, coalition of progressives.
> 
> But we'll see. I think the better progressive candidates do across the board the more likely we'll see someone like Warren in that spot. That said, I don't think they'd be wrong to pass over her given primary performance and perceived baggage.
> 
> I just hope it's not something stupid like Buttigieg or an absolute unknown and interchangeable establishment suit.



Biggest issue I see is that the establishment lane have decided to turn this into a full on referendum on Progressivism, when it's an unfair fight and allows Dems that are bought by lobbyists to not just dismiss progressive candidates but also paint it as a rejection of progressive policies.

This schmuck over here near the top of the list. Tell me this doesn't read like an 'I've got mine'


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Elizabeth Warren has dropped out.


----------



## Ralyks

Now to see if she backs Bernie or Joe. If she does, I'm guessing Joe because she's not really a Bernie fan.


----------



## wankerness

Ralyks said:


> Now to see if she backs Bernie or Joe. If she does, I'm guessing Joe because she's not really a Bernie fan.



Well, her policies are infinitely closer to Bernie's than Joe, so if she endorses Joe at this stage it would be very hypocritical since he's EXACTLY the sort of candidate she was running as an alternative to.


----------



## Ralyks

wankerness said:


> Well, her policies are infinitely closer to Bernie's than Joe, so if she endorses Joe at this stage it would be very hypocritical since he's EXACTLY the sort of candidate she was running as an alternative to.



That too.
So when does Tulsi drop out, and who remembers that she’s still in it?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Now to see if she backs Bernie or Joe. If she does, I'm guessing Joe because she's not really a Bernie fan.



There's always the third option of not taking sides and just make it clear that she'll support the Democratic candidate once they're named.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's always the third option of not taking sides and just make it clear that she'll support the Democratic candidate once they're named.



Which I think is the best option for her at this point.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

If she picks Joe or Bernie she catches flack, she's a politician at the end of the day.


----------



## tedtan

Hollowway said:


> Do you guys think Biden and the DNC will pick Warren or another progressive to try to get the Bernie votes?



This is what I was talking about a page or so back, and to elaborate a bit on my previous comment, I don't think Bernie or Joe, either one, would choose Warren on their own accord. And I don't think the party is particularly concerned about the progressive wing of the party at this point, either. BUT, if Bernie is able to hold on to a plurality and force a contested convention, the party will almost certainly side with Biden and, if the progressives are a large enough contingent at that point, I could see the party possibly pressuring Biden to choose Warren as VP in order to help unite the progressives and the establishment into a single united front against Trump. But the progressives are not a large part of the overall democratic party right now, so this is not a high probability occurrence; they need to be big enough to matter come time to select a VP in order for this to be possible.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> That too.
> So when does Tulsi drop out, and who remembers that she’s still in it?



I still think that if her campaign didn't get hamstrung she'd be a contender.


----------



## stockwell

Warren won't endorse Bernie. She was economically to the right of most Reaganites during the 80s. I don't think that, under the shallow veil of progressivism, her ideology meaningfully changed since then. She will endorse nobody, or endorse a "blue no matter who" stance and wait for a potential position in the new admin. 

Bernie vs. Biden now, with 540 to 600 total delegates. With the exception of Florida (yikes), a lot of upcoming states are up for grabs. I don't expect a Bernie majority but a contested convention is not unrealistic. Biden has the undivided weight of the entire 'establishment' behind up, whatever that means, but pressing Biden on policy will benefit Bernie. 

Wrt ad spending, you're right. I was looking at ST states and not overall, while also not considering how much Bloomberg/Steyer have skewed the numbers. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-campaign-ads/


----------



## Mathemagician

How can Gabbard afford to continue campaigning? Or is she not actively running adds but just refuses to drop until she lands a book deal/cabinet position?


----------



## ArtDecade

Mathemagician said:


> How can Gabbard afford to continue campaigning? Or is she not actively running adds but just refuses to drop until she lands a book deal/cabinet position?



Cabinet position? GTO. Def a book deal.


----------



## SpaceDock

Not even a book deal, she is just staying in to be a troll and get interviews on Fox News.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah, Gabbard is definitely auditioning to be the token democrat on Fox News. Kind of the Diamond and Silk gig.

Best case for Warren (and the DNC, if they want to keep anyone even remotely liberal engaged) would be she gets chosen as VP by Biden. I doubt it will happen, since he wants to choose a republican or someone else that will be fiscally conservative and not threaten to redistribute wealth away from billionaires or provide healthcare for anyone. But, that would be about the only thing that would make me want to vote for the guy other than "well, nothing will improve, but at least they wouldn't continue to get worse."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> "well, nothing will improve, but at least they wouldn't continue to get worse."



This has been the democrat's battle cry since Bush.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I think the mistake you're making is attributing Sanders stubbornness to malice or something resembling it. He's not a Democrat and he has no loyalty to them just because they're the major party that's closer to his ideology or because he caucuses with them.
> 
> And I honestly think THAT'S his biggest liability if somebody's going to express skepticism about him at the top of the ballot or getting the job as POTUS, because you really don't know how receptive he's going to be bills from his own party or vice versa, or how supportive he'll be of candidates down ballot.
> 
> There are progressive in the Democratic Party but make no mistake, Sanders' campaign is and was an insurgency. I don't think his branding or his attitude toward deal making is just branding, I think that's who he is. An Independent, Democratic Socialist running for the Democratic Party nomination. And I mean, it's got it's pluses and minuses but I think making the Democratic Party look at itself in the mirror periodically is exactly what they were missing, and I think over the 30-40 years he's been on the public stage, I think it's proven he's typically ahead of the Democrats on policy, and the Democrats are slow to keep up with the public on policy; so the idea of someone looking to the future instead of always playing catch is an asset.
> 
> You just match that with having no loyalty to the party (similar could be said of the Green Party), and yeah, you're prone to have fireworks.


How is it, when *I* say that, you get pissed at me?  



Hollowway said:


> Do you guys think Biden and the DNC will pick Warren or another progressive to try to get the Bernie votes? I’m going to vote, and despite wanting Bernie to win the nom (or at least a progressive), I will vote for anyone going against Trump. But, last time I literally wrote Bernie’s same in for the November election, because I was so pissed at Clinton and the DNC. What I don’t know is whether the DNC even cares or thinks about the progressive wing of the party, and if they think they need those votes to win the election. So, TL;DR, do you think the DNC thinks they need the progressive votes to win the election, or do they think they can do without them?


I feel like I'm the token "establishment" voter here, so I'll bite.  

I think the DNC wants the progressive vote. Democrats have always gotten a lot of flack for being the "big tent" party and spanning a wide range of interests and priorities and giving all of the different aspects a voice, while the Republican party has always been the party of Party Unity and Reagan's 11th commandment. I'm sure some Bernie voters here are choking in disbelief reading that first bit, to which I'll simply say if it seems crazy then you're not old enough to remember the W, Clinton, and Reagan eras. It's not impossible that as part of the process of reconciling the party after what's going to be a divisive primary, some sort of overt gesture to the progressive wings possibly including a more progressively aligned VP pick could occur, though I'd say the odds of that happening fall as the level of vitriol out of the Sanders camp increases so if things get really ugly I wouldn't count on it. 

The main reason for that is what Randy alludes to - Sanders _isn't_ a Democrat, and when push comes to shove doesn't really give a shit about preserving that big tent. We saw a little bit of that in 2016 - Randy notes that as a 2020 risk, but in 2016 Sanders essentially didn't do any work supporting down-ballot candidates, a handful tops, I beleive, while Clinton did a TON of joint events. I'm not saying she's some sort of saint for this - it's self serving in that if they were joint fundraisers that broadened her pool too, and she clearly has an interest in having majorities in her own party if she had won the White House. Sanders most likely doesn't care if the Democrats or Republicans control Congress, because based on his campaign strategy I don't think he believes the Dems are much more likely to work with him than the GOP (I question that, for what it's worth - I don't think they can deliver his agenda as written, but just as if Warren had won I think they'd have worked hard to pass whhat they could, I suspect they'd have tried like hell to pass some more pragmatic version of his platform. Just, while Warren likely would have accepted a public option in place of MFA if it looked like the former had the votes to pass but not the latter, I don't think Sanders would).

So, I think if possible the DNC would love to court the progressive vote and keep them fully under the big tent umbrella. I just think there's legitimate concern that, while some of them are likely to hold their nose and vote Anyone But Trump, there are also a sizable component of the Sanders bloc that legitimately are either voting for Sanders, or staying home. And at that point, what's the sense in making a whole bunch of concessions to attract voters who really don't give a shit about you, at the risk of potentially turning off moderates and independents? If the votes aren't there to be courted, then yeah, its not a matter of whether the DNC thinks they "need" the votes, it's that they just don't think they're attainable.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> That too.
> So when does Tulsi drop out, and who remembers that she’s still in it?


I keep forgetting about her. 

Honestly, those early rumors that she was a Russian-backed spoiler candidate gearing up for an independent run were laughable, but the more time goes on.... What _IS _her game plan, here? She has, what, one delegate? Why is she still in this, and to what end? Everyone kept talking about how Bloomberg jumped into the race as the most conservative candidate, but that's not really the case, she was further right than he was in a number of policy areas, wasn't she?


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Warren won't endorse Bernie. She was economically to the right of most Reaganites during the 80s. I don't think that, under the shallow veil of progressivism, her ideology meaningfully changed since then. She will endorse nobody, or endorse a "blue no matter who" stance and wait for a potential position in the new admin.


Oh, idunno, her platform and record both as a Senator from Massachusetts and things like creating the CFPB during the Obama years, both suggest she's pretty true-blue progressive. She tells the story she grew up Republican because she was from Oklahoma, never really thought much about politics until her time as a lawyer started to make her see how much the traditional GOP orthodoxy hurt the little guy, time and time again, and I'm inclined to take her at face value. She's certainly walked the walk for a while now, and frankly has more progressive accomplishments she can point to than Bernie, whose resume is evidently voting against a whole bunch of things that passed into law.


----------



## Drew

FiveThirtyEight's model is unlocked, now that we have good enough data out of CA. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Biden is an outright favorite to win now, 7-in-8 probability. Most of the rest is a 1-in-10 shot a plurality, and Bernie's about 1-in-50 at the moment. 

FWIW, just as Bernie's rise to the favorite seemed overstated to me, I think these are too high - I'd ballpark it maybe 2-in-3 Biden, 1-in-5 no majority, and 1-in-10 Sanders just to account for strategic considerations, Sanders' better ability to attack the leader than be one himself, etc. But Super Tuesday closed a lot of roads to a majority to Sanders.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Oh, idunno, her platform and record both as a Senator from Massachusetts and things like creating the CFPB during the Obama years, both suggest she's pretty true-blue progressive. She tells the story she grew up Republican because she was from Oklahoma, never really thought much about politics until her time as a lawyer started to make her see how much the traditional GOP orthodoxy hurt the little guy, time and time again, and I'm inclined to take her at face value. She's certainly walked the walk for a while now, and frankly has more progressive accomplishments she can point to than Bernie, whose resume is evidently voting against a whole bunch of things that passed into law.



https://apple.news/AOFL6F00nQxKpRlj-JPTfkg

Yeah, I'm not so sure about her supporting Sanders now. And I agree with her. I'm sorry, but looking at my Facebook feed bwith all the people pissed about Biden and how people are awful for voting against Bernie, it's become as bad as, well, reading stuff from Trump supporters. I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for that statement, but it's true. Maybe get those under-30-year-olds out to vote and quit complaining?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AOFL6F00nQxKpRlj-JPTfkg
> 
> Yeah, I'm not so sure about her supporting Sanders now. And I agree with her. I'm sorry, but looking at my Facebook feed bwith all the people pissed about Biden and how people are awful for voting against Bernie, it's become as bad as, well, reading stuff from Trump supporters. I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for that statement, but it's true. Maybe get those under-30-year-olds out to vote and quit complaining?


I'll _join_ you in getting a lot of flack, but I've been saying for YEARS now that Trump and Bernie ran essentially the same playbook - "Everything is _WRONG_ and it's Not Your Fault, and I alone can save you."

I've been having an argument with a - perfectly nice, older, laid back - bassist I used to occasionally see at a blues jam before he moved out of the area, who posted a LONG rant copied from a friend of his' feed where the jist was Bernie is the _only_ candidate offering change, and Biden, Bloomberg, and Warren are all, sic, NO CHANGE candidates. I mean, Bloomberg you could nitpick and Biden is clearly right of Bernie, but there's really not much policy space at ALL between Warren and Sanders, so I was kind of dumbfounded to be reading this. Even Biden, it's a matter of degree and approach - they all share the same objectives, it's just a matter of how you plan on getting there. Finally we got to the point where he was straight-up admitting it was about Bernie the person because it's "always been a cult of personality," and Sanders is scaring the rich because "money IS the policy" and "he talks about the wealthy giving/doing their FAIR share," and I'm quoting here, so I just grabbed a meme of Warren's "you didn't built it" speech, and it's now been two days and he hasn't said anything further because, frankly, I don't know how you CAN say Warren - or Biden, or Buttigieg, or even Bloomberg, who all are proposing higher taxes - doesn't want the wealthy to pay more.

I mean, we've hit a point in this debate, I'm afraid, where it really ISN'T about policy - it's that Sanders' supporters are invested in him personally, and not in any of his policy positions. With Warren usually that means some kind of argument that she isn't a "real" progressive and she "doesn't mean it," which from here bears an uncomfortable resemblance to mansplaining.


----------



## Ralyks

I will say this: why the FUCK would you raise a Nazi flag at a Sanders rally? Really?!


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I will say this: why the FUCK would you raise a Nazi flag at a Sanders rally? Really?!


Someone did that? A protester I assume, and I have to assume far right - if one of his fans is unironically raising a Nazi flag, I've got a real surprise about their candidate for them.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I'll _join_ you in getting a lot of flack, but I've been saying for YEARS now that Trump and Bernie ran essentially the same playbook - "Everything is _WRONG_ and it's Not Your Fault, and I alone can save you."
> 
> I've been having an argument with a - perfectly nice, older, laid back - bassist I used to occasionally see at a blues jam before he moved out of the area, who posted a LONG rant copied from a friend of his' feed where the jist was Bernie is the _only_ candidate offering change, and Biden, Bloomberg, and Warren are all, sic, NO CHANGE candidates. I mean, Bloomberg you could nitpick and Biden is clearly right of Bernie, but there's really not much policy space at ALL between Warren and Sanders, so I was kind of dumbfounded to be reading this. Even Biden, it's a matter of degree and approach - they all share the same objectives, it's just a matter of how you plan on getting there. Finally we got to the point where he was straight-up admitting it was about Bernie the person because it's "always been a cult of personality," and Sanders is scaring the rich because "money IS the policy" and "he talks about the wealthy giving/doing their FAIR share," and I'm quoting here, so I just grabbed a meme of Warren's "you didn't built it" speech, and it's now been two days and he hasn't said anything further because, frankly, I don't know how you CAN say Warren - or Biden, or Buttigieg, or even Bloomberg, who all are proposing higher taxes - doesn't want the wealthy to pay more.
> 
> I mean, we've hit a point in this debate, I'm afraid, where it really ISN'T about policy - it's that Sanders' supporters are invested in him personally, and not in any of his policy positions. With Warren usually that means some kind of argument that she isn't a "real" progressive and she "doesn't mean it," which from here bears an uncomfortable resemblance to mansplaining.



I see the same stuff. Though most of my friends are not so narrow in perspective as to not vote just because Bernie isn't the nominee. Thankfully. I'll be honest. The reason I like Bernie so much is that he's had the same basic agenda for over 40 years and he's backed up his views with his own actions whether or not he's been able to adequately persuade others to his point of view. He has conviction and he's honest. I tend more progressive economically and environmentally. Individual rights I can be moderate to conservative. I guess you could probably call me somewhere in the vicinity of a social anti-authoritarian. Bernie can take a really hard line, just like Trump can. And I'm not generally a fan of that. However, I think approaching it from the perspective that we'll negotiate our way to bringing things back to balance. The problem is that that's not how the current GOP is operating. The only want to stop this group of people from continuing the consistent move to the right of everyone is an equal and opposite force. Anything softer than than is just going to slow it down. Biden is not an equal and opposite force. Neither is Warren. Bernie is the closest thing we have to that. The reason we need an equal and opposite force is that there are people making laws right now who are basing their decisions on the denial of facts. Specifically climate change. Until we as a country can come around to the idea that climate change is a real thing and that we can't let business ignore it just for the sake of profit is THE single biggest issue for me right now. We have a culture of denial of facts. We've used religion as a reason to allow that, and its creeping into secular areas of our culture. That's not acceptable. There has to be objective ground to stand on. Specifically for the creation of public policy.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> I'll _join_ you in getting a lot of flack, but I've been saying for YEARS now that Trump and Bernie ran essentially the same playbook - "Everything is _WRONG_ and it's Not Your Fault, and I alone can save you."
> 
> I've been having an argument with a - perfectly nice, older, laid back - bassist I used to occasionally see at a blues jam before he moved out of the area, who posted a LONG rant copied from a friend of his' feed where the jist was Bernie is the _only_ candidate offering change, and Biden, Bloomberg, and Warren are all, sic, NO CHANGE candidates. I mean, Bloomberg you could nitpick and Biden is clearly right of Bernie, but there's really not much policy space at ALL between Warren and Sanders, so I was kind of dumbfounded to be reading this. Even Biden, it's a matter of degree and approach - they all share the same objectives, it's just a matter of how you plan on getting there. Finally we got to the point where he was straight-up admitting it was about Bernie the person because it's "always been a cult of personality," and Sanders is scaring the rich because "money IS the policy" and "he talks about the wealthy giving/doing their FAIR share," and I'm quoting here, so I just grabbed a meme of Warren's "you didn't built it" speech, and it's now been two days and he hasn't said anything further because, frankly, I don't know how you CAN say Warren - or Biden, or Buttigieg, or even Bloomberg, who all are proposing higher taxes - doesn't want the wealthy to pay more.
> 
> I mean, we've hit a point in this debate, I'm afraid, where it really ISN'T about policy - it's that Sanders' supporters are invested in him personally, and not in any of his policy positions. With Warren usually that means some kind of argument that she isn't a "real" progressive and she "doesn't mean it," which from here bears an uncomfortable resemblance to mansplaining.


Honestly Drew, I feel like your taking the emotion driven rant of a guy on fb and applying it to all Sanders supporters. It's quite ridiculous especially to say that both Bernie and Joe both have the same end goals, but with different routes to achieve them. 

Joe has frequently had to be dragged forward on more "progressive" issues and it's not even a hit on him growing as a person when you consider the fact that he was into his 50's when he voted in favor of the defense of marriage act. I just don't see how a guy who has to be peer pressured into tepid support for bills by the most tepid party in the US could be considered to have the same goals as Bernie. 

As for Warren, the space between her and Bernie on policy has grown significantly since last summer/fall when she was at the height of popularity. The biggest reason for that is because when she began to walk her most progressive policies back when questioned on them. Even before she got into a significant place in the polls she folded, I don't think bolds well for how much she'd back down on her proposals if in some timeline, she actually became POTUS. 

And lastly, I think a lot of "leftists" or "progressives" take issue with how and when she dropped out of the race. If she really thought or believed the moment was bigger than her she would've dropped out before ST and endorsed the only progressive with a chance of winning. But she chose herself over everyone else and played politics by dropping out after ST and endorsing no one.


----------



## efiltsohg

jaxadam said:


> Biden/Obama 2020



obama is too busy smoking weed and playing video games to have any interest in politics ever again


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> I'll _join_ you in getting a lot of flack, but I've been saying for YEARS now that Trump and Bernie ran essentially the same playbook - "Everything is _WRONG_ and it's Not Your Fault, and I alone can save you."
> 
> I've been having an argument with a - perfectly nice, older, laid back - bassist I used to occasionally see at a blues jam before he moved out of the area, who posted a LONG rant copied from a friend of his' feed where the jist was Bernie is the _only_ candidate offering change, and Biden, Bloomberg, and Warren are all, sic, NO CHANGE candidates. I mean, Bloomberg you could nitpick and Biden is clearly right of Bernie, but there's really not much policy space at ALL between Warren and Sanders, so I was kind of dumbfounded to be reading this. Even Biden, it's a matter of degree and approach - they all share the same objectives, it's just a matter of how you plan on getting there. Finally we got to the point where he was straight-up admitting it was about Bernie the person because it's "always been a cult of personality," and Sanders is scaring the rich because "money IS the policy" and "he talks about the wealthy giving/doing their FAIR share," and I'm quoting here, so I just grabbed a meme of Warren's "you didn't built it" speech, and it's now been two days and he hasn't said anything further because, frankly, I don't know how you CAN say Warren - or Biden, or Buttigieg, or even Bloomberg, who all are proposing higher taxes - doesn't want the wealthy to pay more.
> 
> I mean, we've hit a point in this debate, I'm afraid, where it really ISN'T about policy - it's that Sanders' supporters are invested in him personally, and not in any of his policy positions. With Warren usually that means some kind of argument that she isn't a "real" progressive and she "doesn't mean it," which from here bears an uncomfortable resemblance to mansplaining.



There's a world of difference between a candidate that unequivocally supports medicare for all and candidates that say "we won't even try" which accounts for most people who prefer Bernie over the moderates. It's similar with climate change and tax hikes. There's no way Biden's going to do anything very useful on either. Elizabeth Warren lost those who care about such things when she waffled on universal healthcare early in the campaign cycle. She's very obviously the second best and light-years better than the others, but I get totally why people went for Bernie over her if they cared primarily about healthcare and not appeasing wall street. She had a slightly more pragmatic approach that signaled she wasn't as devoted to the causes to Bernie true believers. Curiously I think it was similar to her saying she wouldn't try doing Universal Healthcare (which I believe she later said she would do) is similar to him saying "a woman can't win against Trump." Like, it was her being realistic, but it got her burned at the stake. Like, if Bernie said that, I think he's absolutely right - there's no way that a woman could win against Trump right now in the current climate. Way too much of the country is way too sexist, and so many of the dems meet that Simpsons stereotype of believing they don't deserve nice things and should just compromise as much as possible on everything, be that the sex of the candidate or any attractive policy decisions.


----------



## jaxadam

efiltsohg said:


> obama is too busy smoking weed and playing video games to have any interest in politics ever again



:highfive:


----------



## stockwell

If you're basing your political ideology on social media posts, you're too online. Do yourself a favor and log off for a while. 



Drew said:


> I'll _join_ you in getting a lot of flack, but I've been saying for YEARS now that Trump and Bernie ran essentially the same playbook - "Everything is _WRONG_ and it's Not Your Fault, and I alone can save you."



When will horseshoe theory die? Sanders has explicitly made clear that he's not some kind of savior. The campaign slogan is "not me, us" and he's often talked about himself as "organizer-in-chief." How much clearer does he have to be than making "not me" his slogan? 



Drew said:


> but there's really not much policy space at ALL between Warren and Sanders



Warren backed off of M4A, hasn't pledged to abolish ICE, and supports US coups in other countries. I do think she was better than the Biden types by far. Supporting card check puts her head and shoulders above a Pete or an Amy type. That said, I do think she would have quickly melted into the political machine in the same way Obama did. 



Drew said:


> Even Biden, it's a matter of degree and approach - they all share the same objectives, it's just a matter of how you plan on getting there.



I remember at one point believing that the difference between everyone politically was the information they had access to. I thought that, with the correct argument, everyone would believe exactly what I believe. Looking back, it's deeply gullible. People have different values that drive their political decisions. When the government had to decide whether to segregate or integrate, Biden was the one taking the neutral path and working with segregationists. Sanders was the one getting arrested in the civil rights movement. This is a fundamental conflict of values, between the empty realpolitik that Biden represents and actual change. Biden is not an ally to the left; he is as much standing in our way as Trump is, if not more. It's the American cycle of politics since Nixon: the right makes things worse for 4-8 years, and then the center comes in to legitimize everything they did, but with a nicer tone about it. What do you think the right will do post-Trump if there's not real changes to people's living conditions? 



Drew said:


> I mean, we've hit a point in this debate, I'm afraid, where it really ISN'T about policy - it's that Sanders' supporters are invested in him personally, and not in any of his policy positions. With Warren usually that means some kind of argument that she isn't a "real" progressive and she "doesn't mean it," which from here bears an uncomfortable resemblance to mansplaining.



It's not the cutting political insight that you think it is, to state that most people can be influenced by a political figure's personality. I wonder what percentage of Biden supporters can name one of his policy positions (if he has any). And there's a grain of truth that individual policies aren't the point of contention. It's not about a few changes here or there, it's about a fundamentally different type of politics. 

You seem to be unable to grasp the core of the support for Bernie and a left movement generally. We could spend all day going over the conditions and systems that people are suffering under, but at some point, everyone with their head out of the sand knows. Either you care or you don't care. Some people have the time to sit around and wait for another corrupt centrist to maybe make some slight changes that maybe make things slightly better, and some people don't.

And get out of here with that mansplaining stuff. Is that even worth addressing?


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> When will horseshoe theory die? Sanders has explicitly made clear that he's not some kind of savior. The campaign slogan is "not me, us" and he's often talked about himself as "organizer-in-chief." How much clearer does he have to be than making "not me" his slogan?
> 
> I remember at one point believing that the difference between everyone politically was the information they had access to. I thought that, with the correct argument, everyone would believe exactly what I believe. Looking back, it's deeply gullible. People have different values that drive their political decisions.
> 
> And get out of here with that mansplaining stuff. Is that even worth addressing?



Grabbing three quick points here before I take off for the day. 

1) Based on the sheer number of people, yourself included, I've spoken with who seem to think that Bernie is the ONLY candidate who can save this country, and again noting that Warren and Sanders align almost perfectly in terms of policy (she's still for M4A, she just has a bridge plan to hold us over until we get there, she may not want to "abolish" ICE, but she wants do abolish deportations and do some wholesale restructuring, and frankly we need some sort of Immigration and Customs department(s), we just don't need them to be paramilitary, and I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about with "supporting overseas coups", but for the most part the rap on Warren is she's often been a better advocate for Sanders' policies than Sanders _himself_), the fact people continue to dismiss Warren, well, I don't know why this attitude is so pervasive, but there 100% is a "cult of personality" around Sanders where you all seem to support the man more than the policies. I don't get it either, but if you can write off a candidate whose policies overlap 99% with Bernie's as "corporate" and only "under the shallow veil of progressivism," then it's absolutely about personality and not policy. 

2) I'd say by _far_ the bigger way in which you were gullible was to think that you had perfect access to information, so therefore your policies were "correct." Everyone's position has to be subjective based on their incomplete experience, and while if everyone had your exact experience then most would come around to your perspective, probably... But most people DON'T have your exact experience. Seriously, think about this a bit, and how cocky/condescending it seems to just assume a perfect viewpoint and a perfect synthesis of that viewpoint. People understand the world subjectively, people make cognitive errors, and one of the reasons why I'm not myself in the progressive wing of the Democratic party but am glad they're there is that I can't be sure that there isn't some experience I'm missing or synthesis mistake Ive made that has led me to be wrong, and therefore I really want their input in the process too. Assuming you're right and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong is an _incredibly_ dangerous position to take. 

3) Yes. It is. Where there's smoke there's fire, and there's been a LOT of latent sexism in Bernie's supporters' online presence, with the fact that Warren is routinely dismissed by Sanders' supporters as not being a "real" progressive being a prime example.


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Honestly Drew, I feel like your taking the emotion driven rant of a guy on fb and applying it to all Sanders supporters. It's quite ridiculous especially to say that both Bernie and Joe both have the same end goals, but with different routes to achieve them.
> 
> 
> And lastly, I think a lot of "leftists" or "progressives" take issue with how and when she dropped out of the race. If she really thought or believed the moment was bigger than her she would've dropped out before ST and endorsed the only progressive with a chance of winning. But she chose herself over everyone else and played politics by dropping out after ST and endorsing no one.


I wish it was just one, man.  I'm giving you one particular example, but I've had *dozens* of conversations similar to this on Facebook alone. 

I also - and we'll want to see how the polling evolves before we can say this concretely - don't think it's a safe bet that Warren supporters would automatically drop in line behind Sanders. Very little airspace between the two in terms of policy, but a _radical_ difference in terms of approach. Sanders is the "revolutionary" candidate - big goals, light on detail, blow up the establishment to get it done. Warren was more of a "planner" - wonkish, a TON of detailed policy proposals, and less openly antagonistic to the establishment than offering a different path forward that went a bit further than the moderates. Her supporters tended to be liberal educated elites, while Sanders' supporters tended to be younger and/or blue collar. I'd say she drew support from voters who may have been progressives, but may also NOT have been progressives but just didn't have any particular problem with progressive politics, but they just found Sanders' open hostility too off-putting to get behind and didn't think he could unite the party behind him, while Warren they thought might be able to. If that's the case - and I certainly fit that mold, and did vote for Warren - then Biden would be the natural place to expect her supporters to go. 



wankerness said:


> She had a slightly more pragmatic approach that signaled she wasn't as devoted to the causes to Bernie true believers. Curiously I think it was similar to her saying she wouldn't try doing Universal Healthcare (which I believe she later said she would do) is similar to him saying "a woman can't win against Trump." Like, it was her being realistic, but it got her burned at the stake. Like, if Bernie said that, I think he's absolutely right - there's no way that a woman could win against Trump right now in the current climate. Way too much of the country is way too sexist, and so many of the dems meet that Simpsons stereotype of believing they don't deserve nice things and should just compromise as much as possible on everything, be that the sex of the candidate or any attractive policy decisions.


So, devil's advocate... if you believe Bernie when he says a woman can't be elected president in this climate, a stake-burnable offense, but when Warren risks getting burned at the stake for admitting that Medicare For All just doesn't work, financially, without also raising middle class taxes... do you believe her?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> when Warren risks getting burned at the stake for admitting that Medicare For All just doesn't work, financially, without also raising middle class taxes... do you believe her?



Ugh come on man, you know that's a disingenuous argument. It's been thoroughly explained that there would be tax increases to pay for M4A but it would be offset by the savings in premiums and copays. The only reason the taxes come up is because it's bait for a soundbyte for the Republicans to use against it. You're seriously going there?

Any healthcare expansion is going to cost more money in taxes, including public option. I thought we already concluded we're Democrats because of compassion. Trotting out a Republican talking point that they're comfortable using to save their tax money at the expense of people's lives, ooph, idk.


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> I wish it was just one, man.  I'm giving you one particular example, but I've had *dozens* of conversations similar to this on Facebook alone.
> 
> I also - and we'll want to see how the polling evolves before we can say this concretely - don't think it's a safe bet that Warren supporters would automatically drop in line behind Sanders. Very little airspace between the two in terms of policy, but a _radical_ difference in terms of approach. Sanders is the "revolutionary" candidate - big goals, light on detail, blow up the establishment to get it done. Warren was more of a "planner" - wonkish, a TON of detailed policy proposals, and less openly antagonistic to the establishment than offering a different path forward that went a bit further than the moderates. Her supporters tended to be liberal educated elites, while Sanders' supporters tended to be younger and/or blue collar. I'd say she drew support from voters who may have been progressives, but may also NOT have been progressives but just didn't have any particular problem with progressive politics, but they just found Sanders' open hostility too off-putting to get behind and didn't think he could unite the party behind him, while Warren they thought might be able to. If that's the case - and I certainly fit that mold, and did vote for Warren - then Biden would be the natural place to expect her supporters to go.
> 
> 
> So, devil's advocate... if you believe Bernie when he says a woman can't be elected president in this climate, a stake-burnable offense, but when Warren risks getting burned at the stake for admitting that Medicare For All just doesn't work, financially, without also raising middle class taxes... do you believe her?



of course middle class taxes would be raised. And then the large portion of my middle class paycheck currently going towards private health insurance would stop going there. It would likely be a wash, maybe better, and it would be worth it since I wouldn’t be spending thousands a year on copays and the 10% that isn’t covered. It’s such a disingenuous, moronic argument to screech BUT MY TAXES!!! when in reality the only people who would be paying more for health care are those who don’t get any, ever, and don’t have insurance.


----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> of course middle class taxes would be raised. And then the large portion of my middle class paycheck currently going towards private health insurance would stop going there. It would likely be a wash, maybe better, and it would be worth it since I wouldn’t be spending thousands a year on copays and the 10% that isn’t covered. It’s such a disingenuous, moronic argument to screech BUT MY TAXES!!! when in reality the only people who would be paying more for health care are those who don’t get any, ever, and don’t have insurance.



And Obamacare required those people to get insurance or pay a fine. But somehow that wasn't considered a tax on the middle class.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> I'd say she drew support from voters who may have been progressives, but may also NOT have been progressives but just didn't have any particular problem with progressive politics, *but they just found Sanders' open hostility too off-putting to get behind* and didn't think he could unite the party behind him, while Warren they thought might be able to. If that's the case - and I certainly fit that mold, and did vote for Warren - then Biden would be the natural place to expect her supporters to go.


I feel like this needs to be highlighted because it encapsulates a massive problem with liberals in general. Why should progress be held back because some guy was a little mean in his approach? Why is it that civility is given priority over compassion?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I feel like this needs to be highlighted because it encapsulates a massive problem with liberals in general. Why should progress be held back because some guy was a little mean in his approach? Why is it that civility is given priority over compassion?



Because to them Sanders is calling for the end of their very cushy lifestyle. This is where centrists and the right cross paths. They have theirs, so fuck everyone else. They'll go on about how they want to change things and make it better, but they'll never put the effort in because it's just so hard. So they'll appeal to the regressives and narrowly win re-election with milquetoast platforms that amount to the same-old, same-old but maybe, possibly a little bit better for someone. Maybe. 

Twenty or thirty years ago this was tenable, but the US has slipped so far behind the rest of the developed world that it just makes the idea seem so stale.

Really, this all just reveals what little faith most Dems have in the progressive message of compassion, fairness, equality, and prosperity. That losing the Right terrifies them so is ridiculous.


----------



## StevenC

Do Americans know they're able to just come to Europe and see exactly what kind of a hellscape it is?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

StevenC said:


> Do Americans know they're able to just come to Europe and see exactly what kind of a hellscape it is?


I learn um’d everything I need to know about Europe from National Lampoon’s European Vacation. No need.


----------



## StevenC

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I learn um’d everything I need to know about Europe from National Lampoon’s European Vacation. No need.


No way, me too!


----------



## Flappydoodle

I think the biggest problem you're all going to face is that Trump will beat either Bernie or Biden in an election. Biden is more able to win, but he would be a shit president. He would also realistically only serve one term. You can't appoint a 78 year old to an 8 year job.

Bernie can't win for 3 main reasons. Firstly, I just can't see people getting behind a "socialist" anything. It's still a dirty word to most people. There are enough powers that be which will be strongly against Bernie and might even choose Trump over Bernie, since he is a larger threat to the "establishment". His key supporters, young people, don't vote, which the primary data shows yet again. Bernie has loud support online, but I don't believe he will translate that into a victory in swing states, which is what actually matters. Looking on reddit, honestly about half of the people in his subreddit aren't even American. Secondly, his age and health are issues. He's a whole presidential term older than Trump and he's clearly hiding important details about his recent heart attack. Health is more important even than tax returns. If you're truly objective about it, nobody would ever hire a 78 year old for an 8 year job. Trump is also in his 70's, but is in shockingly good health considering the food he eats. Lastly, Bernie has never actually been attacked. Hillary didn't bother, since she knew she'd get the nomination anyway. Biden is barely attacking him - he's simply going for ignoring and containing, while preaching "unity" as he coasts to an easy victory from now. But Trump sure as hell will attack. And then the college essays, the honeymoon, every time Bernie praised Cuba, Venezuela or some other communist dictatorship, and maybe some new stuff, will come out.

Biden is clearly losing his mind. He has a reputation for gaffes, but it's different this time. You can see the cogs turning much more slowly. He's clearly had plastic surgery to try and look younger for this election, and his face looks unnatural now. He's also very much the same establishment politician that Hillary was - with his ties to big banks, his son getting cushy board positions while he was VP. All of that dirt will have to be discussed too. 

On the other hand, Trump is a known quantity at this point. He's been attacked relentlessly through the last 4 years. There's nothing new to throw at him. People already know he's a petty loudmouth, dodgy business dealings, a serial adulterer etc, but it doesn't shock us any more. And disaster didn't happen - no economic crash, no WW3 with Iran/NK or anybody else. Mueller didn't find collusion. All the horrible predictions from CNN did not come true. And peoples' standard of living has actually gone UP. So that fear of Trump starting nuclear war etc isn't there this time. And he's establishment friendly enough that the wealthy know he won't be taxing them to oblivion etc.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> Ipeoples' standard of living has actually gone UP.



I agree with almost all that you've said, or at least the conclusions drawn, but do you have a source on this one? 

I found an old Market Watch article that wasn't well sourced and read more like an add for the dude's book, and a Gallup poll that was somewhat inconclusive given the methodology. 

I don't doubt it, but it would be cool to have some context.


----------



## narad

Flappydoodle said:


> So that fear of Trump starting nuclear war etc isn't there this time.



The economy is surviving just fine, but I think that one's always on the table.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Ugh come on man, you know that's a disingenuous argument. It's been thoroughly explained that there would be tax increases to pay for M4A but it would be offset by the savings in premiums and copays. The only reason the taxes come up is because it's bait for a soundbyte for the Republicans to use against it. You're seriously going there?
> 
> Any healthcare expansion is going to cost more money in taxes, including public option. I thought we already concluded we're Democrats because of compassion. Trotting out a Republican talking point that they're comfortable using to save their tax money at the expense of people's lives, ooph, idk.



That's not disengenious at all - Warren _walked back her own plan_ because the numbers didn't work:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65a1bc-06f8-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that it's pretty reasonable to think that, if Warren thought her plan would pay for itself and was a net savings for taxpayers, she wouldn't have felt the need to introduce a "transition" proposal to buy time for something that - again, we're assuming this as a starting point - was a net savings from day one.



wankerness said:


> of course middle class taxes would be raised. And then the large portion of my middle class paycheck currently going towards private health insurance would stop going there. It would likely be a wash, maybe better, and it would be worth it since I wouldn’t be spending thousands a year on copays and the 10% that isn’t covered. It’s such a disingenuous, moronic argument to screech BUT MY TAXES!!! when in reality the only people who would be paying more for health care are those who don’t get any, ever, and don’t have insurance.



Not in her original plan:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/601267/

Since the Atlantic is paywalled after the first couple articles, pertinent passages:



> The prevailing assumption was that Warren would finally break an unspoken but durable taboo for top-tier Democratic presidential candidates, who for decades have pledged to shield middle-income voters from the tax increases they invariably try to levy on the rich.
> 
> That assumption, it turns out, was wrong. This morning, Warren released her plan detailing how she’d pay for Medicare for All. The proposal is lengthy—a 37-minute read, according to the estimate on her campaign’s Medium page. But the upshot is that Warren is proposing to put the bulk of the burden for the $20.5 trillion estimated cost of Medicare for All on businesses and the wealthy. Middle-class families would not see their taxes go up “one penny,” she says. Warren has already proposed a 2 percent wealth tax on assets above $50 million, but the money she’d raise from that is going entirely toward new education spending.
> 
> To pay for Medicare for All, Warren would impose an additional 6 percent tax on assets above $1 billion, plus she’d add a tax on financial transactions and raise capital-gains taxes for investors. About half of the money needed would come from a tax on employers: Under Warren’s plan, businesses would pay the government roughly the same amount they now pay for private insurance for their employees. To assuage concerns from unions, she’d offer a reduction to companies that agree to pass along savings to workers through collectively bargained agreements. Warren would achieve additional savings through cuts to military spending and revenue generated by comprehensive immigration reform.
> 
> In releasing such a detailed plan, Warren solves a couple of problems for herself. Her Democratic rivals can no longer criticize her for dodging the tax question, and as she looks ahead to a possible general election, she is denying Republicans an easy attack line by vowing not to soak the middle class.
> 
> 
> But the fiscal assumptions in Warren’s plan may prove to be a target for Democrats and Republicans alike. The $20.5 trillion estimated cost is an eye-popping number, but it’s far less than the $32 trillion that think tanks pegged to Senator Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All plan, which Warren had previously backed. That’s $11.5 trillion in fewer taxes she’d have to raise or spending she’d have to cut, and it immediately drew scrutiny from her fellow Democratic candidates.



You MIGHT be able to make the financial side of this work if you did raise middle class taxes, but Warren vowed not to, while Sanders hasn't provided a detailed proposal but says he intends to cover it by mostly targeting less transparent areas like payroll taxes.

Either way, Sanders didn't estimate the cost of his but think tanks are putting it at a $32B, while Warren's own estimation was 20.5B.

FWIW - I'm totally fine with middle class tax increases, and increases on capital gains taxes. I think my taxes SHOULD be higher. But if even Warren, the candidate with by far the most detailed policy proposals in this campaign, doesn't think Medicare for All pays for itself, that's probably worth thinking about.


EDIT - but, again - my original point here is a number of Sanders supporters think Warren admitting her original M4A plan was unfeasible and walking it back a little by introducing a transition plan was a sin that got her "burned at the stake," and they still see it as an unforgivable move on her part, but Sanders' equivalent sin of saying a woman couldn't win was "realistic." Aren't we kind of working under a double standard here? I think it's kinda ridiculous to crucify Warren and say she's "not really a progressive" because she eventually backtracked and went for a phased approach, especially when even _Sanders' plan itself _contained a one-year transition period.


----------



## Randy

So take the money from somewhere else for fuck sake. Guaranteed medical coverage is a million times more useful than other shit we waste money on. Show me the establishment Democratic proposal that pays for itself that doesn't still include people shooing away the ambulance during a medical emergency so that they don't have to pay for it.

Arguing against a medical plan because it's too generous is shameful.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So take the money from somewhere else for fuck sake. Guaranteed medical coverage is a million times more useful than other shit we waste money on. Show me the establishment Democratic proposal that pays for itself that doesn't still include people shooing away the ambulance during a medical emergency so that they don't have to pay for it.
> 
> Arguing against a medical plan because it's too generous is shameful.


Every candidate's plan would increase taxes. I'm fine with that. And, again, I voted for Warren. I'm saying it's ludicrous to crucify Warren for backtracking and accepting she was going to need a phased approach, and saying she's operating "under the shallow veil of progressivism," when Sanders himself is proposing a phased approach. Sanders is getting let off the hook for both being fuzzy with details and phasing into M4A, while Warren's progressive cred is being questioned because she released a far more detailed plan and then had to backtrack and introduce a phased approach of her own. 

If you've got an alternate explanation other than Bernie Bros refusing to take a woman seriously, or Bernie supporters being sucked up into some sort of cult of personality that has nothing to do with policy, I'm all ears. And I say that noting that you, too, voted for Warren.


----------



## Hollowway

Nothing too contribute here, but I just wanted to say that the @Drew and @Randy discussion is _really_ good, and I'm learning way more than you'd expect on a guitar forum.  And props to you guys for debating this like gentlemen. I'm generally like everyone else here, in that I want reasonable things like other first world countries, and I don't consider that "progressive" or "left wing" like the media keeps saying. What I will say is that I really, really wish we had a young upstart, like Obama, that could bridge the gap between Bernie and Biden. I worry that if Biden is the nom that the young voters won't turn out in big enough numbers, and if Bernie is the nom, then the DNC is going to dismantle the whole party before letting him run. Either way, I'm becoming more pessimistic about the general election. I REALLY hope Biden doesn't keep putting his foot in his mouth (and recognizes the difference between his wife and sister) and that he picks a less centrist VP so that Bernie can direct his followers to vote for the ticket, and they'll show up to do so.


----------



## Randy

Oh there's totally a cult of personality following Bernie. But Warren has terrible instincts.

She's ultra intelligent and she's principally right, but she's gaffe prone in ways that make me question how she's holds up against Trump head to head.

First the DNA test thing.

She ran a pretty clean and consistent campaign but the "Bernie said a woman can't be elected president" thing was knowingly disingenuous. It was a leaked statement to the press shortly before a debate knowing that it was going to come up. And she knows Bernie isn't a misogynist but she gaslighted a comment, most likelya benign statement about how unfair the deck legitimately is stacked, and she used it as a power play.

And I'm not even mad she did that. I mean, that probably pissed off the cult of personality but it was bad instincts considering they found a clip of Sanders 20 years earlier saying the opposite. She could've stopped there, I don't think the moderater did her any favors but the "you called me a liar" thing with the hot mic and no handshake looked like a petty continuation.

Then she took the aggression out on Bloomberg, and I'd say the first night it worked to her favor. Then the second debate and she kept pushing the NDAs and then the "kill it" line, which was overboard. Totally overplayed her hand when she was winning.

So yeah, I like her ideas and her resume, I like her tenaciousness but it doesn't mean shit it she loses, and she makes mistakes you can't make against Trump.


----------



## Ralyks

Hollowway said:


> I worry that if Biden is the nom that the young voters won't turn out in big enough numbers



Problem is, a good part of what helped Biden win Super Tuesday is that people under 30 barely came out to vote. Bernie admitted it himself.


----------



## Hollowway

Ralyks said:


> Problem is, a good part of what helped Biden win Super Tuesday is that people under 30 barely came out to vote. Bernie admitted it himself.


Yeah. Probably less of them will come if Biden gets the nomination, but that's a good point. I will say that, however jaded and cynical they may be (and they have a right to be) I have zero sympathy for young voters if they don't show up to vote in the next election. Someone who has a high student loan debt, who doesn't own a house, or who can't afford medical insurance, and does NOT bother voting in the next election, had better not make a peep about things being unfair after this election if Trump wins.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Problem is, a good part of what helped Biden win Super Tuesday is that people under 30 barely came out to vote. Bernie admitted it himself.



Youths are perpetually fickle. No better incentive for kids to vote than being drafted and sent overseas to die, and meanwhile, those were the stakes in '72 in the McGovern race that keeps being referenced, where he was the anti-war candidate and lost all but two states.

HOWEVER, you look at someone like Obama that ran against much older, experienced politicans (Biden, Hillary, Richardson, Gravel, Dodd, etc) and won. He had crossover appeal, but you can't also underestimate how the party and donors got in line when he looked like a lock. It's a little bit of 'chicken and the egg' but Obama's competition were leaning HEAVILY on experience (remember the '3am phone call' Hillary ads?) but he gave the powered parties and voters something to have faith in.

Most of the flak Obama took was also that his policy ideas sounded far flung and expensive. His plans were incrementally more fleshed out than Sanders but still were constantly being picked apart by other candidates and "experts". He still won and he still delivered SOME substantive change.

So Obama is the gold standard for youth appeal that can win. If I'm weighing the major candidates against Obama, Biden is a senile snail's pace consensus builder with a ton of skeletons, Warren is probably closer but terrible instincts and holds grudges that look petty and belie progress, Buttigieg is literally a plagiarized Obama copy with no actual ideas so he replaces substance with snark, and I think Bernie is closest but he's a fossil with a long record to pick on, no friends and dealbreaker party affiliation (or lack thereof).

Anyway, kinda OT at this point but yeah... I think it's not necessarily true that we're locked into perpetually being led by geriatrics just because boomers vote more reliably. I think Obama is proof you can run on transformational politics and win, and it's not all "I'll keep everything the way it is!" Peter Pan for scared old people bullshit like the last four years.


----------



## stockwell

Obama is proof that you can run on transformational politics as long as you don't do the actual transforming. It's even more depressing that what we have now is VP Obama picked to throw a bone to conservatives. 

However this election turns out, I'm grateful for one thing: Biden getting more camera time. He astounds every time he's on screen. It's like surrealist performance art at this point. He's looking like late second term Reagan at this point.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/07/opin...ale-president-dynastic-women-smith/index.html

Never fear, your XX-chromosome savior is here!


----------



## narad

Well if it's true for Argentina, Myanmar, and Thailand, it's certainly true for the US.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Well if it's true for Argentina, Myanmar, and Thailand, it's certainly true for the US.


I've never heard of these states, are they over beside Hawaii or Alaska?


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> I've never heard of these states, are they over beside Hawaii or Alaska?



I think they're near Latveria?


----------



## gunch

Short of Biden pooping himself in public I don't think Bernie's going to make it.


----------



## stockwell

gunch said:


> Short of Biden pooping himself in public I don't think Bernie's going to make it.



I like those odds.


----------



## USMarine75

gunch said:


> Short of Biden pooping himself in public I don't think Bernie's going to make it.





allheavymusic said:


> I like those odds.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


>



What's with this self-affirming meme? I'll be the judge of that, thank you.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> What's with this self-affirming meme? I'll be the judge of that, thank you.



I can only post what the internet provides.

It also provided this today:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B9deEqUFS2e/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

(sorry I don't know how to embed instagram on here)


----------



## Drew

Hollowway said:


> Nothing too contribute here, but I just wanted to say that the @Drew and @Randy discussion is _really_ good, and I'm learning way more than you'd expect on a guitar forum.  And props to you guys for debating this like gentlemen.


It's probably at times tough to tell sometimes (  ), but I like Randy, and while we disagree a lot, and sometimes heatedly, I definitely take his perspective very seriously and there are times he has shaped my own opinions, for sure.



Randy said:


> Oh there's totally a cult of personality following Bernie. But Warren has terrible instincts.
> 
> *lots of good examples*


Yeah, I mean, I can't disagree with any of this. If Clinton/Trump and his stupid news conference was the litmus test for "times when it's ok to not shake hands with your co-debator," I think that one fell well shy, and she definitely made a mistake by doubling down on that NDA attack - Bloomberg was done anyway by that point, there wasn't much upside for her there except any moment she was attacking him was one more moment she had the mic.

None of this still does a good job explaining why Sanders supporters are falling over each other to attack her progressive cred, rather than her tactical sensibilities (and honestly, I think Sanders hasn't given much thought to what an end game would look like for his campaign either, so it's not like his credit is too good here, either).


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Anyway, kinda OT at this point but yeah... I think it's not necessarily true that we're locked into perpetually being led by geriatrics just because boomers vote more reliably. I think Obama is proof you can run on transformational politics and win, and it's not all "I'll keep everything the way it is!" Peter Pan for scared old people bullshit like the last four years.


And, honestly, I would be hesitant to draw bigger lessons about the future of the Democratic Party from this election, too.

Trump has done significant, possibly irreparable harm to the democratic institutions of this country, to checks against executive power, to our environment, to our treatment of minorities, to the balance between individual and corporate interests, and to our standing in the world, in little more than three years. It's fucking horrifying, when you stop and total it all up.

In this kind of an environment, if you think of it from the standpoint of say emergency room triage, your first order of business has to be to stop the bleeding. Get him out, stop things from getting worse. Once we've stabilized the situation you can worry about how you're going to make life better for Americans, but before you can do that you have to stop it from getting _worse_. We've been spending a lot of time here talking about health care policy, but honestly that's all kind of academic and besides the point - Sanders isn't losing because Democrats are necessarily opposed to Medicare for All (broadly, they're not), or because they don't think he could pass it into law if elected (very broadly, they don't), but because they don't think Sanders can beat Trump. Full stop. Biden emerged as the candidate with the best shot of winning, and the party quickly fell in line behind him because he's fairly uncontroversial. Democrats think Biden can beat Trump, they don't think Sanders can, and I think for much of the party that's enough.

If Sanders were to win the primary (which is extremely unlikely, his odds have plummeted to 1-in-100 in the FiveThirtyEight model), I'd vote for him because, again, you have to stop the bleeding, but I'd be fucking terrified about his odds in November.

But, coming full circle again here, I don't think I'd take Biden's presumptive victory as proof that the DNC will only support old white geriatrics. I think it's as simple as a well-liked candidate with close ties to the Obama administration and little obvious baggage is the lowest-risk candidate we have to run in the general election, and the costs of fucking this up are FAR too high to gamble.


----------



## gunch

For the last 3 years I’ve been bonafide bern or bust but it’s increasingly evident that it’s a zero sum game and people my age in the left going on blast on Twitter aren’t as powerful as they think they are

the problem is what exact chance does Biden got


----------



## Drew

gunch said:


> For the last 3 years I’ve been bonafide bern or bust but it’s increasingly evident that it’s a zero sum game and people my age in the left going on blast on Twitter aren’t as power as they think they are
> 
> the problem is what exact chance does Biden got


To win the primary? Very good. 

To win the general election? Honestly there are so many external factors in play, not the least of which the very real chance that this coronavirus is going to blow up into a pandemic, tip us into recession, and kill tens of thousands of Americans, that it's tough to put general odds on it, but his odds are probably the best of anyone we could run, and I still believe he would have been our best chance in 2016, as well. He has less baggage than anyone else in the primary, and if you're worried about him being a liuttle geriatric and Reagan-esq these days, well, that's a name that triggers a right-wing circle jerk to this day, so that's hardly the worst comparison we could make.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> None of this still does a good job explaining why Sanders supporters are falling over each other to attack her progressive cred, rather than her tactical sensibilities



That's the 'cult of personality' factor. I will say, I voice a lot of granular observations about this stuff but I don't think I'm smarter or more well informed than any other Democratic voters, I just think most voters see this stuff and throw it into the stew and not ask themselves why they feel the way that they do. If Warren looked AS Progressive as Sanders or more consistently on the "correct" side of issues, I don't think they'd be putting that wedge between them. By comparison, I see a lot of Sanders supporters that have no issues with AOC for example.



Drew said:


> But, coming full circle again here, I don't think I'd take Biden's presumptive victory as proof that the DNC will only support old white geriatrics. I think it's as simple as a well-liked candidate with close ties to the Obama administration and little obvious baggage is the lowest-risk candidate we have to run in the general election, and the costs of fucking this up are FAR too high to gamble.



The fact it came down to literally the three oldest, whitest men running in the last few races says otherwise. I'd love to think this country is less base than that, but they're not.



gunch said:


> the problem is what exact chance does Biden got





gunch said:


> Short of Biden pooping himself in public I don't think Bernie's going to make it.



That's you answering your own question. Literally and metaphorically. If Biden looks as cognizant as he did for the last two weeks, it's a safe win. History seems to indicate that's not likely, unfortuantely.

The 'X' factor is how bad Trump continues to look on the way there. If we're taking bets, Trump actually seems more likely to shit himself all the way into November. The CDC press conference was literally the most cringey gaffe-fest I've ever seen from a public figure, full stop. And I get that Trump gets away with that stuff but the tolerance for it (especially in the context of a pandemic and an impending stock market collapse) is at an all time low; and he's becoming more deluded by the day.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> she definitely made a mistake by doubling down on that NDA attack


 Forgot I wanted to snip that part.

I thought the attacks on the NDAs were eh, okay. But the "kill it" comment was too far. It was a very clear and deliberate headshot, she absolutely knew how it would sound and meanwhile the accusation itself is almost impossible to verify. The tone of that line by itself just sounded so out of place. The two reactions I heard from people was disbelief she went so far and disgust over the fact it left her mouth. I heard little if any "oh my god, Bloomberg said that?" reactions, if any.

Also, the SNL skit was another cringey thing. I mean, that's not so much on her but McKinnon dressing as Warren just to hug her? WTF was that? She also had the Friday before Super Tuesday when she was on Ellen and said something alone the lines of how she was going to ream out Trump. Yeah, that'll show him! And meanwhile, while she has a reputation of being like a naggy librarian or teacher (whether that's accurate/sexist or not).

It's like she has a total inability to read a room.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That's the 'cult of personality' factor. I will say, I voice a lot of granular observations about this stuff but I don't think I'm smarter or more well informed than any other Democratic voters, I just think most voters see this stuff and throw it into the stew and not ask themselves why they feel the way that they do. If Warren looked AS Progressive as Sanders or more consistently on the "correct" side of issues, I don't think they'd be putting that wedge between them. By comparison, I see a lot of Sanders supporters that have no issues with AOC for example.
> 
> 
> 
> The 'X' factor is how bad Trump continues to look on the way there. If we're taking bets, Trump actually seems more likely to shit himself all the way into November. The CDC press conference was literally the most cringey gaffe-fest I've ever seen from a public figure, full stop. And I get that Trump gets away with that stuff but the tolerance for it (especially in the context of a pandemic and an impending stock market collapse) is at an all time low; and he's becoming more deluded by the day.


First bit - that's another one of these situations where we're so used to disagreeing with each other, it's not obvious when we're in agreement.  That was my whole point all along, Sanders' supporters attacks on Warren for being "no true progressive" are simply finding a way to justify supporting the man and writing off someone coming from an extremely similar policy space. 

And re: the X-factor, yeah... This involves some conversion with this, the coronavirus, and the Trump Presidency threads... But over and above his administration being behind the ball on the response, I'd be hard pressed for him to think of a _worse _way to handle the response and talk about it publicly than what he's doing. He's like bending over backwards to set himself up to fail.



Randy said:


> It's like she has a total inability to read a room.


I mean, insert every critique of the coastal liberal elite, progressive OR moderate, ever.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> I mean, insert every critique of the coastal liberal elite, progressive OR moderate, ever.



"Gimme a break! Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program for God's sake."


----------



## stockwell

A week later, and we're still waiting on the results of 100 delegates to be allocated. At least, we're waiting in California, Colorado, and Utah. No pattern there. Surely couldn't impact the primary in any way. 

I've come around to thinking that Biden will win the general if he wins the nomination, partly because of Trump handling COVID19 poorly right before an election. Also partly because his handlers will be able to keep him out of the limelight and the news won't broadcast his decline the way they could. For example, CNN changing the debate to a seated format with pre-approved audience questions. Can't wait to see the hard-hitting, good faith questions both candidates receive. 

Axios is reporting rumors in Biden's campaign that he's considering Bloomberg as head of the World Bank. Not sure it'll come true, but holy hell is that a chilling thought. What if the World Bank, but even more evil?


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> A week later, and we're still waiting on the results of 100 delegates to be allocated. At least, we're waiting in California, Colorado, and Utah. No pattern there. Surely couldn't impact the primary in any way.
> 
> I've come around to thinking that Biden will win the general if he wins the nomination, partly because of Trump handling COVID19 poorly right before an election. Also partly because his handlers will be able to keep him out of the limelight and the news won't broadcast his decline the way they could. For example, CNN changing the debate to a seated format with pre-approved audience questions. Can't wait to see the hard-hitting, good faith questions both candidates receive.
> 
> Axios is reporting rumors in Biden's campaign that he's considering Bloomberg as head of the World Bank. Not sure it'll come true, but holy hell is that a chilling thought. What if the World Bank, but even more evil?


Does it ever get tiring, spending all day looking for conspiracy theories that explain why the only reason Sanders isn't winning is the evil DNC?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Does it ever get tiring, spending all day looking for conspiracy theories that explain why the only reason Sanders isn't winning is the evil DNC?



Only reason? Of course not. 

But if the DNC political machine hadn't chosen Biden, do you really think that he would have made it as far? Or that the DNC doesn't at all sanction some of the most poorest faith attacks on Sanders? 

You've said before that the primary is the DNC's baby, and that an independent shouldn't expect support from a party that isn't theirs, so it's kinda weird to keep coming back to this. 

You can't really blame folks for reading into some of the terrible optics coming out of such a fractured party.


----------



## stockwell

The political environment and the Sanders campaign strategy are also factors for why he's not winning right now, nobody said it was just the DNC. But if you don't think a political party with a robust history of machine politics would try to prevent an ideological outsider from changing the party direction, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not talking about 9/11 trutherism here. Would this seem unusual if you heard it was happening in another country, and if not, why is the US above suspicion? Our notoriously well-functioning and beloved election system? 

Nobody's saying it's a smoky room with a bunch of cackling vaudeville villains tweaking mustaches and smoking cigars. It's just party members reacting negatively to an outsider. That said, it seems pretty obvious that party leadership stepped in to mediate the Biden consolidation right before ST. I was really surprised when Pete dropped out especially. Tell me honestly that you don't think Pete/Amy/Warren got offered cabinet positions to allow Biden to step up. It's nothing alien to our politics.


----------



## Randy

allheavymusic said:


> Nobody's saying it's a smoky room with a bunch of cackling vaudeville villains



Speak for yourself. This is the party that actually hired John Podesta in 2020.


----------



## Vyn

I can't remember whether it was a post in this thread, an article linked in this thread or something I read elsewhere however I think it rings true here:

In an ER situation, priority #1 is stop the patient's condition from getting worse, ie stop the bleeding. Then you can move on to fixing the patient. America is currently an ER patient and stopping the bleeding is getting Trump out of office. The most effective way to do that is to unite the party under a candidate that appeals to most of the voting base that is LIKELY to turn out on the day come November - and to be honest (as much as I hate to admit it) Biden appeals to a wider base than Bernie does. It's that simple.


----------



## Hollowway

Vyn said:


> I can't remember whether it was a post in this thread, an article linked in this thread or something I read elsewhere however I think it rings true here:
> 
> In an ER situation, priority #1 is stop the patient's condition from getting worse, ie stop the bleeding. Then you can move on to fixing the patient. America is currently an ER patient and stopping the bleeding is getting Trump out of office. The most effective way to do that is to unite the party under a candidate that appeals to most of the voting base that is LIKELY to turn out on the day come November - and to be honest (as much as I hate to admit it) Biden appeals to a wider base than Bernie does. It's that simple.


That may be true, but (and I’m at risk for typecasting myself here) the DNC has to recognize that Bernie (and Warren) were in the race, and got a significant portion of the party whooped up about Medicare for all, student loan reform, etc. So I think Biden desperately needs a VP who can appeal to those voters. Picking another centrist all but insures the young, progressive voters sit home in November. As has been shown, they don’t come out en force for Bernie as it is, so anything less than that is risky. I think the DNC needs to get all of the possible voters out there. And the progressives aren’t going to be swayed by, “back to the way it was before Trump.”


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> I can't remember whether it was a post in this thread, an article linked in this thread or something I read elsewhere however I think it rings true here:
> 
> In an ER situation, priority #1 is stop the patient's condition from getting worse, ie stop the bleeding. Then you can move on to fixing the patient. America is currently an ER patient and stopping the bleeding is getting Trump out of office. The most effective way to do that is to unite the party under a candidate that appeals to most of the voting base that is LIKELY to turn out on the day come November - and to be honest (as much as I hate to admit it) Biden appeals to a wider base than Bernie does. It's that simple.



If he wins the nomination, then yeah, by definition he appeals to a wider base.

I think the argument that's being made here is

1.) What happens if Biden has less delegates come convention time and the super delegates or OTHER candidates giving their delegates is what it takes to put Biden over? That blurries the definition of a "wider base" or even negates it entirely.

2.) Assuming they both make it to the convention near 50/50 and you need to decide the candidate based on their chances in the general, I think it's up for debate who that is. It's after Democrats already had all their opportunities to voice their preference, so appeal within the party is a null factor in a scenario of a near perfect split. The near 90% approval rating of Trump reveals you're not getting and Republicans, so conservative appeal is a waste. Who either attracts independents or helps drive turnout within the party?

The debate right now is either "anybody but Trump" isn't inspiring enough to drive the numbers you need (along the potential threat of "Bernie or bust"ers) vs. a "Socialist" candidate is too big a pill for the average voter to swallow. MSM coverage would lead you to believe that's cut and dry but they, along with people like Drew, selectively dismiss consistently higher net favorability polls and higher head-to-head polls vs Trump that say otherwise.

Those numbers may have shifted, idk, but they were in Bernie's favor literally all of 2016 and at least up until a week or two ago in this cycle. If you're in a scenario where it's 50/50 and up to decide who beats Trump head to head, I actually haven't seen a convincing strategic argument for Biden besides "some Democrats won't vote for the other guy" which paints both ways at this point.

Anyway, that's all blah if either crosses the finish line over 50% which I think is increasingly likely and the best result for the party and whoever that person ends up being.


----------



## Vyn

Hollowway said:


> That may be true, but (and I’m at risk for typecasting myself here) the DNC has to recognize that Bernie (and Warren) were in the race, and got a significant portion of the party whooped up about Medicare for all, student loan reform, etc. So I think Biden desperately needs a VP who can appeal to those voters. Picking another centrist all but insures the young, progressive voters sit home in November. As has been shown, they don’t come out en force for Bernie as it is, so anything less than that is risky. I think the DNC needs to get all of the possible voters out there. And the progressives aren’t going to be swayed by, “back to the way it was before Trump.”



Complete tangent here - it's worth noting (and this actually applies to all forms of politics, I'm focusing on the side that I usually fall into which is mid-to-upper class, high income, university educated etc) that people's attention spans are shorter across all age groups (not just young people) so while Sanders and Warren are able to generate momentum behind progressive ideas, keeping them going AND keeping them going for the duration of the primaries is kind of unrealistic when you thing about it - when the average 'viral' video or sensation is dead in the water after 2 weeks max usually, imagine trying to capture the attention span of voters for effectively 4 years (the next election campaign basically starts at the end of the most recent election these days). If anything, there's a huge level of fatigue and all but the die-hards in each camp just can't give a shit anymore provided that a candidate is selected.

Progressives won't be swayed by getting things to "back the way it was before Trump" however you can't improve them from that point without getting the asshat out of office - and logically if you had a choice between 4 more years of Trump or back to the Establishment for a while, I'd pick Establishment - which it's also worth noting is slowly but surely swinging more and more towards progressive agendas. it's probably not happening at the rate that people would like to see or even at a rate where results are measurable (+10 years plus kinda thing) however it is happening. 



Randy said:


> If he wins the nomination, then yeah, by definition he appeals to a wider base.
> 
> I think the argument that's being made here is
> 
> 1.) What happens if Biden has less delegates come convention time and the super delegates or OTHER candidates giving their delegates is what it takes to put Biden over? That blurries the definition of a "wider base" or even negates it entirely.
> 
> 2.) Assuming they both make it to the convention near 50/50 and you need to decide the candidate based on their chances in the general, I think it's up for debate who that is. It's after Democrats already had all their opportunities to voice their preference, so appeal within the party is a null factor in a scenario of a near perfect split. The near 90% approval rating of Trump reveals you're not getting and Republicans, so conservative appeal is a waste. Who either attracts independents or helps drive turnout within the party?
> 
> The debate right now is either "anybody but Trump" isn't inspiring enough to drive the numbers you need (along the potential threat of "Bernie or bust"ers) vs. a "Socialist" candidate is too big a pill for the average voter to swallow. MSM coverage would lead you to believe that's cut and dry but they, along with people like Drew, selectively dismiss consistently higher net favorability polls and higher head-to-head polls vs Trump that say otherwise.
> 
> Those numbers may have shifted, idk, but they were in Bernie's favor literally all of 2016 and at least up until a week or two ago in this cycle. If you're in a scenario where it's 50/50 and up to decide who beats Trump head to head, I actually haven't seen a convincing strategic argument for Biden besides "some Democrats won't vote for the other guy" which paints both ways at this point.
> 
> Anyway, that's all blah if either crosses the finish line over 50% which I think is increasingly likely and the best result for the party and whoever that person ends up being.



1 - If that situation happens, it's actually game over: There are more swing Republicans/centre dems/centre independents that won't vote for Bernie than young progressives/Bernie or bust that won't vote for Biden however the amount of muck it gives Trump about an unified party is insane.

2 - Again in my previous point: There are more swing Republicans/centre dems/centre independents that won't vote for Bernie than young progressives/Bernie or bust that won't vote for Biden, so Biden has to be the choice for the broader audience. Shove a progressive VP there and call it a day IMO. 

I think the thing for me is that Biden for better or for worse comes off as being able to compromise and that's infinitely more valuable than sticking to your guns. Whilst the punter looks favourably on Bernie for holding firm to his values (and I do do, I give the dude massive credit for it) that hard-line stance (progressive or conservative) just doesn't work.


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> 1 - If that situation happens, it's actually game over: There are more swing Republicans/centre dems/centre independents that won't vote for Bernie than young progressives/Bernie or bust that won't vote for Biden however the amount of muck it gives Trump about an unified party is insane.
> 
> 2 - Again in my previous point: There are more swing Republicans/centre dems/centre independents that won't vote for Bernie than young progressives/Bernie or bust that won't vote for Biden, so Biden has to be the choice for the broader audience. Shove a progressive VP there and call it a day IMO.
> 
> I think the thing for me is that Biden for better or for worse comes off as being able to compromise and that's infinitely more valuable than sticking to your guns. Whilst the punter looks favourably on Bernie for holding firm to his values (and I do do, I give the dude massive credit for it) that hard-line stance (progressive or conservative) just doesn't work.



Maybe, maybe not. If it played out the way you describe then sure.

I don't consider the bulk of American politics to be linear left and right, nor do I consider Sanders to be explicitly hard left. 

Sanders made a public statement last month about banning the blanket use of face recognition in law enforcement. That's a privacy rights issue that tracks to the right and particularly to libertarians.

One of the things Democrats attack Sanders on the most is his gun rights record. He was against suing manufacturers from liability in cases when a family members was killed by one of their products, and he also voted against the Brady Bill at one point. Now he's become much more liberal on gun control but it's worth pointing out that Vermont is very socially liberal but is still one of the most lax states on gun control. Sportsman, hobbyist and survival gun ownership is all pretty high and fairly unregulated in his home state.

There was a recent video on Vice about a bill to make it legal/easier for farmers be able to repair their own equipment () because it's currently near impossible to repair them on site and the manufacturers made access to the software to repair them inaccessible, deliberately. The two people pushing that bill are Sanders and Warren, and I think I can draw a pretty straight line between appealing to farmers and center left/right appeal.

Then Bernie's overall policy prescription, which centers on hourly workers (like focus on unions, and minimum wage) and enhancing benefits to lower and middle class people (health care reform, college debt reform). That's all inherently blue collar and center left/right as far as benefits and appeal. You strip away the "socialist" label, and workers rights is inherently populist and broad appeal.

By comparison, what are Biden's center left/right bonafides? Just favoring incrementalist changes that don't turn off corporations too much?


----------



## vilk

Vyn said:


> There are more swing Republicans/centre dems/centre independents that won't vote for Bernie than young progressives/Bernie or bust that won't vote for Biden



I can't believe that you'd say this. In the United States, old people are pretty famous for voting for anyone with a D next to their name. _"I've been voting a straight democrat ticket since 19XX!" _they'll proudly declare, almost bragging about giving power to people they've never heard of and don't know anything about simply because they ran as a democrat. 

Biden enthusiasts are predominately older people, and will vote for absolutely anyone who runs against Trump. Bernie enthusiasts barely even show up to vote for Bernie; why the hell would you think they'll show up to vote for someone that they actively dislike?


----------



## Thaeon

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I feel like this needs to be highlighted because it encapsulates a massive problem with liberals in general. Why should progress be held back because some guy was a little mean in his approach? Why is it that civility is given priority over compassion?



Completely agree. Sometimes the right thing to do, isn't the nice thing to do.



Drew said:


> It's probably at times tough to tell sometimes (  ), but I like Randy, and while we disagree a lot, and sometimes heatedly, I definitely take his perspective very seriously and there are times he has shaped my own opinions, for sure.



Observing, and even participating in the spirited debate between you and @Randy has been helpful in fleshing out some of how I think. We don't generally agree since I tend more progressive, but its nice to know that there's at least a couple people out there you can disagree with pretty vigorously without there being drama. You and Randy tend to set the tone for tolerance in the political debates here. I think that its easy to get wound up in the differences we all have, but really, I think most of us skew fairly close to each other with the exception of the few conservatives we have here. And I will say that most of them tend to be pretty civil as well with a few exceptions. I honestly find as much consistently fact checked media in these political threads as I do in my own searches. Its an enjoyable conversation to be part of.



jaxadam said:


>




I find this horrifying...


----------



## tedtan

Vyn said:


> If anything, there's a huge level of fatigue and all but the die-hards in each camp just can't give a shit anymore provided that a candidate is selected.



This is a good point. Outside the lead up to a major election, most people simply don't have the time or mental bandwidth to care about politics beyond "my team" vs. "their team". But at the same time, in order to win an election, we still need to get as many of them out to vote as possible come election day, which is the hard part.




Vyn said:


> Progressives won't be swayed by getting things to "back the way it was before Trump" however you can't improve them from that point without getting the asshat out of office - and logically if you had a choice between 4 more years of Trump or back to the Establishment for a while, I'd pick Establishment - which it's also worth noting is slowly but surely swinging more and more towards progressive agendas. it's probably not happening at the rate that people would like to see or even at a rate where results are measurable (+10 years plus kinda thing) however it is happening... I think the thing for me is that Biden for better or for worse comes off as being able to compromise and that's infinitely more valuable than sticking to your guns. Whilst the punter looks favourably on Bernie for holding firm to his values (and I do do, I give the dude massive credit for it) that hard-line stance (progressive or conservative) just doesn't work.



I agree here, too.

It's politics - a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours kind of thing. The republicans blocked Obama in most of his attempts at change, and the democrats have tried to do the same against Trump. The problem with Sanders is that he's spent ~30 years in politics without scratching anyone's back, so he'll have both the republicans and the democrats cock blocking him and won't get anything accomplished even if he is elected to POTUS.

At this point, Bernie's main benefit to the US is to bring these issues to the table and put them out there so everyone has an chance to think about them. Then, at some point down the line, not only will their initial negative reactions to these ideas dissipate, along with the socialist tagline, but someone else who has payed the game will be able to begin implementing them.

Don't get me wrong, I him credit for sticking to his guns, but that's not politics, or, at least, not effective politics.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> The political environment and the Sanders campaign strategy are also factors for why he's not winning right now, nobody said it was just the DNC. But if you don't think a political party with a robust history of machine politics would try to prevent an ideological outsider from changing the party direction, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not talking about 9/11 trutherism here. Would this seem unusual if you heard it was happening in another country, and if not, why is the US above suspicion? Our notoriously well-functioning and beloved election system?


I mean, a couple of things here -

1) The "party" didn't really have to do all that much - once voters showed some evidence of coalescing behind Joe Biden, the most "shadowy intervention" you saw was a couple high profile endorsements and candidates with no path forward being quietly encouraged to drop out. Which, if you expect me to believe Sanders wouldn't have jumped for joy to get Harry Reid's endorsement if he won SC, or if you think Bernie Bros WEREN'T suggesting Warren should drop out to make room for Sanders, then I don't know what to tell you either.

2) I'd say Bernie changed party direction - higher minimum wages, increased financial regulation, and some form of universal health care plan were part of all candidate's platforms in 2020. As a Sanders supporter, you should celebrate that. It just made Sanders a lot less different from the pack than he was in 2020, stripped his support down from 2016 levels to "personality" driven support, and left him unable to come close to a majority. Even today he's polling low 30s in national polling aggregates, with Biden low 50s.

3) I think you have a WILDLY idealized understanding of how party politics work outside of the United States. 

I also think that if Sanders HAD won a majority of delegates, or if SC had been very close and then he'd come away with a clear majority on Super Tuesday, then the DNC would have lined up behind Sanders. They may not have liked it much, and Sanders himself deserves a lot of credit for the grudging reception he would have gotten, but if he was on track to win an outright majority, he'd have been the nominee. Sanders' problem wasn't that the DNC was dead set on stopping him - it was that he never managed to grow his support beyond 20-30% of the Democratic Party, and Democratic _voters_ wanted a more moderate, palatable, less openly hostile candidate. If you're going to run as an ideological outsider, you kinda have to accept the fact you're running with minority support and plan accordingly. Honestly, his strategy of continuing to attack moderates once he became the leader is probably as responsible for moderate voters falling in line behind Biden as anything the DNC COULD have done. To turn around and blame the DNC for Sanders' failing to appeal to a majority of voters, though, is awfully, well, facile.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Observing, and even participating in the spirited debate between you and @Randy has been helpful in fleshing out some of how I think. We don't generally agree since I tend more progressive, but its nice to know that there's at least a couple people out there you can disagree with pretty vigorously without there being drama. You and Randy tend to set the tone for tolerance in the political debates here. I think that its easy to get wound up in the differences we all have, but really, I think most of us skew fairly close to each other with the exception of the few conservatives we have here. And I will say that most of them tend to be pretty civil as well with a few exceptions. I honestly find as much consistently fact checked media in these political threads as I do in my own searches. Its an enjoyable conversation to be part of.


Eh, I've kind of been operating under the assumption that the biggest difference between a "progressive" in the Democratic party today, and a "moderate" is the difference between "what do we WANT to do," and "what can we actually ACCOMPLISH." If someone could wave a magic wand and give us single-payer healthcare with no workforce impact or other negative unintended side-effects, and higher taxes but voters predominately seeing it as a fair trade, I'd be all for it. I just think it's impossible to pass into law today, and there are a lot of negative side effects that Sanders is either downplaying or thinking of as features rather than bugs. I could be wrong, but I don't think too many moderates are ideologically opposed to progressive platform items like this. It's just progressives want to swing for the fences, moderates want to play inside baseball. 

That said - thanks - honestly, I enjoy having this outlet to help formulate my own thinking, and it's kind of refreshing to be on the more conservative side of the debate, relatively speaking, when outside in the real world I'm usually considered fairly liberal.  And I think it's important to disagree - fiercely, at times - with someone, but if they've done their homework and are able to articulate and support their positions, and not just ape party lines, still disagree respectfully. FWIW I'd say you fall into that camp too, where I don't believe I've ever read one of your posts and walked away thinking you're an idiot.


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> I can't remember whether it was a post in this thread, an article linked in this thread or something I read elsewhere however I think it rings true here:
> 
> In an ER situation, priority #1 is stop the patient's condition from getting worse, ie stop the bleeding. Then you can move on to fixing the patient. America is currently an ER patient and stopping the bleeding is getting Trump out of office. The most effective way to do that is to unite the party under a candidate that appeals to most of the voting base that is LIKELY to turn out on the day come November - and to be honest (as much as I hate to admit it) Biden appeals to a wider base than Bernie does. It's that simple.


99% sure that was me, though probably in the Trump and not Primary thread. They've gotten awfully blurry lately though.


----------



## jaxadam

Thaeon said:


> I find this horrifying...



In a good way, or in a bad way?

You know, Sleepy Creepy Quid Pro Joe is almost 80 and is clearly losing his mind. There is a strong argument against giving a senile 80 year old a potential 8 year job.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> In a good way, or in a bad way?
> 
> You know, Sleepy Creepy Quid Pro Joe is almost 80 and is clearly losing his mind. There is a strong argument against giving a senile 80 year old a potential 8 year job.


Eh, if this was Biden vs Buttigieg you might have a point, but Biden is 78, Bernie is 77, and Trump is 73, and certainly no stranger to verbal diarrhea, either. I think we've come to terms with the fact that whoever wins in 2020 will be the oldest president we've ever elected.


----------



## wankerness

Biden clearly has the onset of dementia. Trump clearly has full-blown dementia. Glass houses, stones, etc. Debates should be awesome.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> Biden clearly has the onset of dementia. Trump clearly has full-blown dementia. Glass houses, stones, etc. Debates should be awesome.


Popcorn stocks rise on the news.


----------



## jaxadam

wankerness said:


> Biden clearly has the onset of dementia. Trump clearly has full-blown dementia. Glass houses, stones, etc. Debates should be awesome.



Do you think they’ll have to read off of one of those eye charts?


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Eh, I've kind of been operating under the assumption that the biggest difference between a "progressive" in the Democratic party today, and a "moderate" is the difference between "what do we WANT to do," and "what can we actually ACCOMPLISH." If someone could wave a magic wand and give us single-payer healthcare with no workforce impact or other negative unintended side-effects, and higher taxes but voters predominately seeing it as a fair trade, I'd be all for it. I just think it's impossible to pass into law today, and there are a lot of negative side effects that Sanders is either downplaying or thinking of as features rather than bugs. I could be wrong, but I don't think too many moderates are ideologically opposed to progressive platform items like this. It's just progressives want to swing for the fences, moderates want to play inside baseball.
> 
> That said - thanks - honestly, I enjoy having this outlet to help formulate my own thinking, and it's kind of refreshing to be on the more conservative side of the debate, relatively speaking, when outside in the real world I'm usually considered fairly liberal.  And I think it's important to disagree - fiercely, at times - with someone, but if they've done their homework and are able to articulate and support their positions, and not just ape party lines, still disagree respectfully. FWIW I'd say you fall into that camp too, where I don't believe I've ever read one of your posts and walked away thinking you're an idiot.



I appreciate that. Coming from someone that stays as informed as you do, that's a compliment. I would be remiss if I said that I'd never done anything idiotic. I used to be a conservative.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I appreciate that. Coming from someone that stays as informed as you do, that's a compliment. I would be remiss if I said that I'd never done anything idiotic. I used to be a conservative.


 We all have our faults.


----------



## Thaeon

jaxadam said:


> In a good way, or in a bad way?
> 
> You know, Sleepy Creepy Quid Pro Joe is almost 80 and is clearly losing his mind. There is a strong argument against giving a senile 80 year old a potential 8 year job.



Is it okay if I answer "both"? If you're correct, the debates between he and Trump should be an absolute shit show. Good for wanting to bury yourself in the ground and collect the inevitable memes that will make you laugh AND cry.

In Joe's defense, at least he'd have a competent cabinet selected to run things when he inevitably could not grasp reality any longer.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> A week later, and we're still waiting on the results of 100 delegates to be allocated. At least, we're waiting in California, Colorado, and Utah. No pattern there. Surely couldn't impact the primary in any way.


Want to revisit this, by the way, as this comment jumped back into memory while reading some pre-voting coverage today. 

I'm less familiar with what's going on in Colorado and Utah, but purely from a delegate standpoint they're clearly not the prize here. And, the mail-in ballots still being counted have been coming in more favorable to _Biden_ than to Sanders, due to his late surge after South Carolina. If anything, the delays in California are _helping _Sanders, by overreporting his margin while the final votes are tabulated. 

So, yeah, those delays, _totally_ the DNC screwing Bernie!


----------



## Randy

Meh. Sanders win in California was already totally blunted in the coverage that night anyway. I saw little if any coverage hailing Sanders win there as anything but a consolation prize.

Speaking of prizes, do I get one for predicting Biden was going to threaten a potential voter before the next contest?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Meh. Sanders win in California was already totally blunted in the coverage that night anyway. I saw little if any coverage hailing Sanders win there as anything but a consolation prize.
> 
> Speaking of prizes, do I get one for predicting Biden was going to threaten a potential voter before the next contest?


It also didn't hurt that it was widely expected, and that Biden's surprise wins in Massachusetts and Minnesota were _not _expected, and got most of the coverage. But, I'm not the one arguing that the fact we're still tabulating late mail-in ballots there is a DNC conspiracy to hurt Sanders, when the reality is it's likely blunting Biden narrowing the gap further. 

Missed that story, what happened?


----------



## Randy

Him telling that factory worker he was full of shit and some speculation he said he wanted to slap him.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> It also didn't hurt that it was widely expected, and that Biden's surprise wins in Massachusetts and Minnesota were _not _expected, and got most of the coverage. But, I'm not the one arguing that the fact we're still tabulating late mail-in ballots there is a DNC conspiracy to hurt Sanders, when the reality is it's likely blunting Biden narrowing the gap further.



Minimal coverage of Massachusetts and Minnesota, everything was specifically about the volume of states he picked up, regardless of which ones they were and how many delegates they were worth. The whole night was "WOW! BIDEN JUST WON SO MANY STATES!", which I think is selectively overreporting an already expected result.


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


>




while many of us say we want a slick talker, that is exactly what people voted against in 2016.

I personally prefer someone who says dumb stuff on accident than some who says dumb stuff on purpose


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/stat...mbed/fgl47k?responsive=true&is_nightmode=true


Yikes


----------



## jaxadam

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1237479693764431872?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1237479693764431872&ref_url=https://www.redditmedia.com/mediaembed/fgl47k?responsive=true&is_nightmode=true
> 
> 
> Yikes



Wow. That guy is gone. I wonder what VP pick will be feeding him apple sauce before the debates.


----------



## SpaceDock

^ I am not going to carry Biden’s water but at least he is talking to real people. Trump does town halls on Fox where they ask him the most pandering questions I have ever heard. 

Honestly this worker is not correct when he says Biden wants to take away guns and Biden has aright to get fired up about the misinformation. 

I also really want to point out that I am on Trump newsletter distributions and it is their game plan to paint Biden as senile. Good job towing their line guys.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

SpaceDock said:


> ^ I am not going to carry Biden’s water but at least he is talking to real people. Trump does town halls on Fox where they ask him the most pandering questions I have ever heard.
> 
> *Honestly this worker is not correct when he says Biden wants to take away guns and Biden has aright to get fired up about the misinformation.*
> 
> I also really want to point out that I am on Trump newsletter distributions and it is their game plan to paint Biden as senile. Good job towing their line guys.



I'm not sure this is fair either.
Biden stated that he wants Pete to be his gun guy if he makes it. Pete "Hell Yes I'm Taking Your AR-15" Buttigieg. How is that not capitulating that he's gunning for your guns?
Also, 100 round mags? lol- where are those legal?

Sure, he can get a little tilted, so can you or I, or Donald Trump. It's reasonable to get fed up with dealing with repetitive, slanderous half truths and maybe lashing out as a result, but it's _*admirable*_ not to; and that's the type of person most folks want in office. It's one of Trump's largest criticisms from the left. A key difference though is that Trump tends to lash out against people in power- the press, political opponents, famous people, etc. Joe here is getting in the face of an average american- some random union worker. While it's never a good look to lose your cool, it's definitely a darker mark on your record when you lose it on an everyman.

If he keeps this stuff up, the republicans won't even really need to waste their time trying to paint him as anything.


----------



## Randy

I don't think there's anything wrong with confronting deliberate misinformation and provocateurs like that guy, my main issue is how angry he seems to get and how he latches on and won't let go. That doesn't come across as healthy, whether it's a mental thing or just who he is, it's not a good look (as the reception in this thread would indicate).

Biden could have and would have been better served if he just said hey buddy, I'm not anti second amendment, I own a couple shotguns myself and my sons hunt, and here's my record, and just move on. The fact the guy was reading some shit off his phone, why bother?


----------



## SpaceDock

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm not sure this is fair either.
> Biden stated that he wants Pete to be his gun guy if he makes it. Pete "Hell Yes I'm Taking Your AR-15" Buttigieg. How is that not capitulating that he's gunning for your guns?
> Also, 100 round mags? lol- where are those legal?
> 
> Sure, he can get a little tilted, so can you or I, or Donald Trump. It's reasonable to get fed up with dealing with repetitive, slanderous half truths and maybe lashing out as a result, but it's _*admirable*_ not to; and that's the type of person most folks want in office. It's one of Trump's largest criticisms from the left. A key difference though is that Trump tends to lash out against people in power- the press, political opponents, famous people, etc. Joe here is getting in the face of an average american- some random union worker. While it's never a good look to lose your cool, it's definitely a darker mark on your record when you lose it on an everyman.
> 
> If he keeps this stuff up, the republicans won't even really need to waste their time trying to paint him as anything.



No, you are just plain wrong. Pete did not say that quote, it was Beto. Also, Biden said of Beto “we haven’t seen the last of him” “he is going to take care of the gun problem with me.” The misinformation that you are spreading is also taken from right wing talking points. One of my coworkers after Super Tuesday also said this when regurgitating their Facebook feed. What is wrong with someone like Beto being involved in gun reform? It does not mean that Biden’s stance is to remove all guns, that is hyperbolic nonsense.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Correction- Beto, not Pete. I don't know why I always mix the two of them up


----------



## SpaceDock

I do agree that staying cool under duress is a very admirable quality. Sadly our culture is more interested in slams on the debate stage than policy talk. We have who we have because this is a dark mirror of our world. We view people with different political opinions as being evil instead of just disagreeing on policy.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

SpaceDock said:


> No, you are just plain wrong. Pete did not say that quote, it was Beto. Also, Biden said of Beto “we haven’t seen the last of him” “he is going to take care of the gun problem with me.” The misinformation that you are spreading is also taken from right wing talking points. One of my coworkers after Super Tuesday also said this when regurgitating their Facebook feed. What is wrong with someone like Beto being involved in gun reform? It does not mean that Biden’s stance is to remove all guns, that is hyperbolic nonsense.



Beat me to it.
Correction aside, how is that misinformation? Where did I say Biden's stance was to remove all guns?
Beto is a very anti-gun politician. Anyone who is not very anti-gun absolutely doesn't want him involved in gun reform. Biden running with it implies that they're on the same page. That's as brass tacks as you can get; I fail to see how that's misinformation.


----------



## SpaceDock

^ Right wing media was spouting that Biden was making Beto his gun guy or appointing him to head ATF,etc. that is the misinformation.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

SpaceDock said:


> ^ Right wing media was spouting that Biden was making Beto his gun guy or appointing him to head ATF,etc. that is the misinformation.





Joe Biden said:


> "And by the way, this guy can change the face of what we're dealing with, with regard to guns- assault weapons - with regard to dealing with climate change, and I just want - I'm warning Amy, if I win, I'm coming for him."



How does that not directly imply that he wants to bring him into the fold in a policy-molding position?


----------



## SpaceDock

Sure, I can’t argue that he wont want influential democrats involved in his policy.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> my main issue is how angry he seems to get and how he latches on and won't let go. That doesn't come across as healthy, whether it's a mental thing or just who he is, it's not a good look (as the reception in this thread would indicate).



That’s actually one of the big indicators of dementia. The higher functioning parts of the brain tend to go first (rationalizing, reasoning, etc.) and patients tend to get aggressive and have a hard time letting it go. Ironically they will forget all about it later. They generally start to revert to a more childlike state of demands and shouting.


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.theboisetimes.com/post/joe-biden-mistakes-idaho-for-iowa-in-visit-to-boise-fundraiser


----------



## Ralyks

Well, Biden seems to have won Michigan, Missouri, and Mississippi...


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> That’s actually one of the big indicators of dementia. The higher functioning parts of the brain tend to go first (rationalizing, reasoning, etc.) and patients tend to get aggressive and have a hard time letting it go. Ironically they will forget all about it later. They generally start to revert to a more childlike state of demands and shouting.


 
Thanks Dr, your doing a great job of pushing the “Biden is senile” Trump agenda. Have you noticed how much of a looney toon we already have in office? People have been speculating about Trumps mental health for years. I could start posting the same type of gaffe crap you are. 

I think we all recognize that we have a field of ancient relics of a bygone era who will run our country. We are left with a choice: angry old racist who doesn’t believe in global warning, the news, and is destroying our court system or the old man who is angry about racists, global warming, and the destruction of our court system.


----------



## stockwell

Saw the video of him threatening that union rep over policy questions. Is there a betting pool on when he tries to fight a voter? 



SpaceDock said:


> We are left with a choice: angry old racist who doesn’t believe in global warning, the news, and is destroying our court system or the old man who is angry about racists, global warming, and the destruction of our court system.



If you're describing Biden as being "angry about racists", I think you're unaware of his history. You realize he worked with segregationists, right? That he supported Strom Thurmond up to and including delivering his eulogy? And wrote the infamous 94 crime bill? Biden was Obama's VP pick precisely because he was a concession to racists. This was Biden's take on desegregating busing: 



> Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.



Biden is absolutely a virulent racist. And he just admitted on CNN that he voted for the Iraq war KNOWING FULL WELL THAT WMDS WERE A LIE. He openly admitted it! I hope he lives and maintains his mental health long enough to see that clip be submitted as evidence to a tribunal on US war crimes. 

If the general turns out to be Biden vs. Trump, I will vote third party. The Democratic Party does not represent me. They would rather grovel before the GOP than give the left a scrap of change or progress. I'm sick of harm reduction votes for racist, corporatist war criminals. And based on the polling (~80% of primary voters under 30 voting for Sanders), the Democratic Party will die within my lifetime. Good riddance.


----------



## Ralyks

Apparently Biden being a racist doesn't matter, because he's pretty much taking most of the African American votes. Plus all the "Ridin'with Biden" memes I see. Plus the fact that he's, well, outpacing Bernie by a decent margin.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Also, 100 round mags? lol- where are those legal?



In all but 9 states, and further grandfathered in in an additional 5. So just about everywhere.


----------



## Randy

It is what it is, at this point. I guess reaching something resembling a conclusion now is good but expect eight months of degrading analysis of Biden like we saw just over the last 12 hours, but all day every day. The goal by November is to paint Biden as such an embarrassment that it'll be difficult to encourage Democrats to admit they're voting for him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> It is what it is, at this point. I guess reaching something resembling a conclusion now is good but expect eight months of degrading analysis of Biden like we saw just over the last 12 hours, but all day every day. The goal by November is to paint Biden as such an embarrassment that it'll be difficult to encourage Democrats to admit they're voting for him.



On the flip side it also means that Trump is so damn bad that we're willing to vote for Biden.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am not a Biden fan, I actually donated to Amy . However there is really no comparison between Biden and Trump. I get that some will write in Bernie on their ballot with a tear in their eye because they will never compromise their ideals. I on the other hand realize the lesser of two evils. I work for terrible corporate overloads that make my skin crawl but I got bills to pay. That’s being an adult. We want more progressive candidates, get out there and campaign for them or run yourself. I have given up on the under 30 crew ever showing up for a vote even though they are so filled with vitriol on how things should be. Joe is it unless he drowns in the apple sauce. Now becomes the time to face the collective enemy unless y’all want four more years of Trump instead of four years of old guard moderate nothingness. I for one could use the break.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

If the younglings would stop whining and commit to simply voting we could maybe see some change. But. Damn! It’s like turn off the phone and actually do something that has a greater impact than complaining. “How do I reach these keeds?!?”


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> “How do I reach these keeds?!?”



Give them candidates worth voting for. 

The younger generations have never known of a viable candidate that wasn't a "lesser of two evils". If all they've ever known was Bush2, Obama, and Trump, can you blame them for feeling like this is all a bunch of bullshit?


----------



## Randy

I'm in the generation of people who was pushing Occupy Wall Street and was pushing for Bernie 4 years ago, and I'm squarely in my mid 30s. It's not just stoned Instagram college kids who are or should be supporting a progressive agenda. I'm sure it's people my age that are social media and meme savvy that have been pushing his presence on Insta/Twitter/Facebook, and those places have appeal to the younger audience but I think it's inaccurate to assume it's "kids" in that age bracket organically pushing Bernie on the socials but then not showing up.

Bernie's out and it's on him. I mean, his treatment was shitty but courting kids is a waste, as is running for a Democrat a second time without registering or acting like you're interested in engaging with the party at large. All the fears stoked by the socialist thing would go away if you could find more than two people in the party he's pursuing the nomination of that would support him but you couldn't and they didn't

Now let's see how bad the party can fuck up before November. I saw Napolitano floating John Kasich as VP, so the sky is the limit.


----------



## wankerness

If he chooses a republican running mate, I'm moving out of this country, flat-out, no matter what it takes, as with his health we'd basically be voting for the VP anyway. Pathetic. At this point the best-case scenario is looking like Biden gets knocked out through some kind of external circumstance (be it full-blown dementia meltdown or coronavirus) before election season starts and some totally different dem candidate gets put in instead. Though knowing the DNC, they'd probably choose Hillary.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> If you're describing Biden as being "angry about racists", I think you're unaware of his history. You realize he worked with segregationists, right? That he supported Strom Thurmond up to and including delivering his eulogy? And wrote the infamous 94 crime bill? Biden was Obama's VP pick precisely because he was a concession to racists. This was Biden's take on desegregating busing:
> 
> Biden is absolutely a virulent racist. And he just admitted on CNN that he voted for the Iraq war KNOWING FULL WELL THAT WMDS WERE A LIE. He openly admitted it! I hope he lives and maintains his mental health long enough to see that clip be submitted as evidence to a tribunal on US war crimes.


Idunno, who should I trust here, some kid on the internet parroting Sanders talking point, or _every single black voter in America_? Man, what a real dilemma. Who could possibly choose? 



Randy said:


> I'm in the generation of people who was pushing Occupy Wall Street and was pushing for Bernie 4 years ago, and I'm squarely in my mid 30s. It's not just stoned Instagram college kids who are or should be supporting a progressive agenda. I'm sure it's people my age that are social media and meme savvy that have been pushing his presence on Insta/Twitter/Facebook, and those places have appeal to the younger audience but I think it's inaccurate to assume it's "kids" in that age bracket organically pushing Bernie on the socials but then not showing up.
> 
> Bernie's out and it's on him. I mean, his treatment was shitty but courting kids is a waste, as is running for a Democrat a second time without registering or acting like you're interested in engaging with the party at large. All the fears stoked by the socialist thing would go away if you could find more than two people in the party he's pursuing the nomination of that would support him but you couldn't and they didn't.


Not much to add here, safe for two comments: 

1) I don't think moderate Democrats have any particular problem with progressive policy _goals_. We just don't think the next president can deliver them, and would rather support someone who can actually deliver actual, achievable progress. This is why you see 74% of Democratic voters supporting Medicare for All (a fact Sanders supporters love to point to), but Sanders is struggling to get more than 30% of the _vote_. 

2) Your final point on Sanders, on how he pledged to register as a Democrat, didn't, hasn't done a thing to engage with the party, and is it any wonder his campaign is floundering and doing worse than it did in 2016, is very well taken. 


FiveThirtyEight's election tracker is unlocked after the primaries last night. Sanders' probability has fallen to 0.1%. To be fair, that doesn't account for any possibility that Biden suspends his campaign. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo


----------



## Drew

Sanders' speech to reporters in Vermont from a half hour ago - "On Sunday I am very much looking forward to the debate in Arizona with my friend Joe Biden," and noting that beating Trump was his ultimate goal, "the American people will have the opportunity to see which candidate is best positioned to accomplish that goal."

That's a pretty big change in tone. Think he's reading the writing on the wall, and is dropping the hostility in the interest of delivering a united party for the convention?


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Thanks Dr, your doing a great job of pushing the “Biden is senile” Trump agenda. Have you noticed how much of a looney toon we already have in office? People have been speculating about Trumps mental health for years. I could start posting the same type of gaffe crap you are.



I can't promise he hasn't left the party since, but back in the day jaxadam was a fairly moderate Republican. You knew that, right?


----------



## sleewell

tim apple lol


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Sanders' speech to reporters in Vermont from a half hour ago - "On Sunday I am very much looking forward to the debate in Arizona with my friend Joe Biden," and noting that beating Trump was his ultimate goal, "the American people will have the opportunity to see which candidate is best positioned to accomplish that goal."
> 
> That's a pretty big change in tone. Think he's reading the writing on the wall, and is dropping the hostility in the interest of delivering a united party for the convention?



Where have you been? In the same 60 minutes interview where everyone got a rage boner over the 30 year old clip about Cuba, he committed to supporting the Democratic nominee but also specifically said Biden should be the nominee if he enters the convention with a majority of delegates even if it's under 50%. Sanders has no love for the DNC but he's been consistent on supporting the nominee and has had minimal attacks in individuals


----------



## Necris

The media has put a lot of effort into characterizing Bernie Sanders as hostile and the continuation of his campaign as a sign of his unwillingness to fall in line with the DNC for months now so it's not surprising some people will see this as a sudden softening in tone.


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> The media has put a lot of effort into characterizing Bernie Sanders as hostile and the continuation of his campaign as a sign of his unwillingness to fall in line with the DNC for months now so it's not surprising some people will see this as a sudden softening in tone.



Clyburn yesterday saying the DNC should cancel all the rest of the primaries and debates.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> I can't promise he hasn't left the party since, but back in the day jaxadam was a fairly moderate Republican. You knew that, right?



_Conservative _Republican man, get it right. _Conservative _Republican. I lean so far right I don't even make left turns.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> _Conservative _Republican man, get it right. _Conservative _Republican. I lean so far right I don't even make left turns.



Well, I think moderate Republican means, like, normal Republicans but you're okay with chicks making out and stuff.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Where have you been? In the same 60 minutes interview where everyone got a rage boner over the 30 year old clip about Cuba, he committed to supporting the Democratic nominee but also specifically said Biden should be the nominee if he enters the convention with a majority of delegates even if it's under 50%. Sanders has no love for the DNC but he's been consistent on supporting the nominee and has had minimal attacks in individuals


It's a bit of a shift from his campaign appearances, and it's about a 180 from where his supporters are. 

I also tuned out the Cuba clip, to be fair.  

And, to be fair, having tracked down the full speech, while it opens a _lot_ more conciliatory than his Super Tuesday speech and it reads like he knows the writing is on the wall, it's only somewhat softer than what we got on Super Tuesday. 

Super Tuesday:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...cript-sanders-reacts-to-super-tuesday-results

Today: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/bernie-sanders-press-conference-transcript.html

I'd read the chances here as he's running mostly to shape policy, at this point, than to win.


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> Give them candidates worth voting for.
> 
> The younger generations have never known of a viable candidate that wasn't a "lesser of two evils". If all they've ever known was Bush2, Obama, and Trump, can you blame them for feeling like this is all a bunch of bullshit?



But wasn’t Bernie supposed to be that guy that would get the youth turnout because of his progressive agenda? I don’t think kids will vote unless they replace the free “I voted” stickers with a juul.


----------



## SpaceDock

wankerness said:


> If he chooses a republican running mate, I'm moving out of this country, flat-out, no matter what it takes, as with his health we'd basically be voting for the VP anyway. Pathetic. At this point the best-case scenario is looking like Biden gets knocked out through some kind of external circumstance (be it full-blown dementia meltdown or coronavirus) before election season starts and some totally different dem candidate gets put in instead. Though knowing the DNC, they'd probably choose Hillary.



This really surprises me! I think that finding some middle ground between Democrats and Republicans is exactly what we need, not the pendulum swing further out with every election.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

SpaceDock said:


> But wasn’t Bernie supposed to be that guy that would get the youth turnout because of his progressive agenda? I don’t think kids will vote unless they replace the free “I voted” stickers with a juul.



I think a lot of the problem is with the primaries. Its tough enough to get people to show up for a general, and getting people to primaries is much more challenging. 
You don't just need young voters, you need young activists; people that are willing to do everything they can to push the needle further. Showing up to rallies, answering polls, etc- all this to make sure that their guy even makes it to the ballot box.

I bet if it were Bernie in the general, he'd have a stronger showing than what he's getting now- but that's irrelevant, because he'll never get there.
Apathy also plays a huge role in all this; I was really excited for Gabbard, I donated to her campaign, spread her message, and did what I could to raise awareness. It was the first time I've ever felt strongly enough about one single candidate to want to actively get involved in the primary process (granted, I'm young, but still). But after they screwed her, man, it's tough to care now. I can definitely empathize with the 2016 Bernie crew because that stuff is super demoralizing and makes you feel like your vote and opinion don't matter.



SpaceDock said:


> This really surprises me! I think that finding some middle ground between Democrats and Republicans is exactly what we need, not the pendulum swing further out with every election.



Definitely; it's just a huge, huge curve ball to pitch to your party. I guarantee you he'd have a horde of angry democrats for colleagues. Even if that wasn't the case, in this specific instance, with Joe being...Joe...a lot of people have concerns about his ability to serve a full term. So why would a democrat voter want to vote for him if they think they may actually be voting for a republican to take office in a couple years? 
It's all fucked, dude. Things are so strange right now


----------



## wankerness

SpaceDock said:


> This really surprises me! I think that finding some middle ground between Democrats and Republicans is exactly what we need, not the pendulum swing further out with every election.



if joe was healthy and young I would not feel nearly as strongly about this.


----------



## SpaceDock

Do you guys remember when McCain wanted to run with a Democratic VP but the RNC chose Palin for him? For me, that is when this civil war of tribe vs tribe started. We used to understand we were the same but had different policy differences. Now they are the enemy and working across the isle gets you booted from the party. I would give major props to Biden if he can break the cycle.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> This really surprises me! I think that finding some middle ground between Democrats and Republicans is exactly what we need, not the pendulum swing further out with every election.



It's one thing finding middle ground with a centrist, it's an entirely different ballgame to cede half the ticket to the GOP. 

It also serves no political end. If Trump was doing worse amongst Republicans maybe it would be a way to grab some voters, but that's not the case.



SpaceDock said:


> Do you guys remember when McCain wanted to run with a Democratic VP but the RNC chose Palin for him? For me, that is when this civil war of tribe vs tribe started. We used to understand we were the same but had different policy differences. Now they are the enemy and working across the isle gets you booted from the party. I would give major props to Biden if he can break the cycle.



The one thing Palin introduced was rabid anti-intellectualism. 

Things have always been tribal, there just wasn't the coverage there is now. 

In the modern era I'd say the tipping point was Reagan, who cascaded into Bush1, and really came to a head Clinton's second term. It got messier after that, with Bush2, and the fallout of Obama subsequently. 

The fact is, the GOP is never going to return the favor in good faith. That's been their M.O. since at least 89'.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Do you guys remember when McCain wanted to run with a Democratic VP but the RNC chose Palin for him? For me, that is when this civil war of tribe vs tribe started. We used to understand we were the same but had different policy differences. Now they are the enemy and working across the isle gets you booted from the party. I would give major props to Biden if he can break the cycle.


Are you sure you're not remembering this wrong? I remember Kerry doing some very public flirtation with the idea of naming McCain as his running mate, and frankly, it would have been very interesting to see that one play out. But I don't recall McCain doing the same.

EDIT - you may be thinking of Lieberman, who WAS a Democrat, but by 2008 was an independent who initially caucused with the Democrats but who had progressively loosened his ties to the party by then.


----------



## SpaceDock

Yes, I am talking about Lieberman who was Al Gores Vp choice as well. He left the Democratic Party after endorsing McCain and called himself an independent democrat thereafter. I actually really despised Liebermans politics, I did a thesis on him in college because he was a proponent of banning violent video games. 

My point is that I applaud those who work with people from across the isle but it is often a death sentence for their career. Also, as Max pointed out, the RNC choosing Palin was the beginning of the “Obama’s a Muslim” bs that also gave us Trump and the modern political landscape.


----------



## stockwell

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's one thing finding middle ground with a centrist, it's an entirely different ballgame to cede half the ticket to the GOP.
> 
> It also serves no political end. If Trump was doing worse amongst Republicans maybe it would be a way to grab some voters, but that's not the case.
> 
> The fact is, the GOP is never going to return the favor in good faith. That's been their M.O. since at least 89'.



Exactly. If anyone had any doubt about the GOP's good faith, remember that they openly stole 2000 from Gore, and the Democrats rolled over and let it happen. Democrats are obsessed with capitulating to and pleasing Republicans, and Republicans never give them anything in return. It is a purely sadomasochistic relationship at this point. It can only push us further and further right. 

A Biden presidency will be, at best, as bad as Obama. He will keep the cages for immigrant children (after all, the Obama-Biden admin built them), but he'll keep it quiet and people will ignore it as another 3 million people are deported. He'll keep drone striking civilians and hospitals and weddings and rescue operations. He'll stuff his cabinet full of every Wall Street exec he can, just like Obama. People will still end up in jail, lives ruined, for using drugs. I can't swallow my bile long enough to vote for that. 

It's fine to have contempt for me, the left, and "kids". Maybe the Democrats don't need 80% of people under 30 to maintain power. Maybe they don't need the left. Try it and we'll see. The Sanders campaign already accomplished more than I could have hoped for by providing a gateway for liberals to enter the left. Provided global pandemic and climate change don't bolster the rising tide of international fascism, I'm somewhat optimistic about the 21st century. Can't be worse than the last one, right?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> My point is that I applaud those who work with people from across the isle



To what end though? 

We've sort of run out of quaint, mostly harmless issues to work with. 

As I said earlier, we've fallen so far behind the rest of the developed world in health care, environmental stewardship, worker's rights, gun control, etc. We're pretty much dealing with a side that, even if they admit that there is a problem, they don't want to do anything about it. 

To paraphrase a disgraced comedian:

"Imagine if you're ready to go out, but a member of your party refuses to tie their shoes."

The GOP is the obstinate child who refuses to tie their shoes. They don't care. They'll never work in good faith. It's all about remaining in power and milking every dime from donors and lobbyists until they die. 

Not that the Dems are much better as a whole, it's just the bar is so low.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> EDIT - you may be thinking of Lieberman, who WAS a Democrat, but by 2008 was an independent who initially caucused with the Democrats but who had progressively loosened his ties to the party by then.



Woo, is that minimizing what happened. Lieberman was a DINO that was aggressively anti-Democrat (think Joe Manchin on steroids), and he was primaried out by Ned Lamont (who I donated to at the time, because Lieberman was such a wreck) and only ran as an independent out of necessity. He seldom voted with the Democrats and they eventually started avoiding allowing him all together because it was presumed he was leaking strategic information to the Republicans.

The guy is a very dark mark on the Democratic Party and the fact he was on the ticket for the 2000 election is a perfect indication of how off base the party can be if left to their own devices.


----------



## SpaceDock

Max, I agree that we are way behind other countries in progressive reforms and that republicans are absolutely ridiculous. The problem is that the voting public doesn’t seem to see it that way. I feel like if Bernie did 85% of his routine and dropped the socialist moniker, he might get somewhere. I was optimistic about several candidates but here we are.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Max, I agree that we are way behind other countries in progressive reforms and that republicans are absolutely ridiculous. The problem is that the voting public doesn’t seem to see it that way. I feel like if Bernie did 85% of his routine and dropped the socialist moniker, he might get somewhere. I was optimistic about several candidates but here we are.



It's easy to blame conservative voters, but that equally, and possibly more so in my opinion, falls on the Democratic establishment for doing such a shit job galvanizing their voting base and making so many concessions for the GOP, so much so that it has significantly fractured the party.

Moving further to the right to gain votes isn't going to fix any problems and certainly won't lead to progress.

On the bright side, there will be more elections. This isn't the end. We just have to keep pushing for progress in earnest and more importantly pay attention to smaller, more local races. Demographics skew more progressive year over year. We just need to engage that, not call it out.


----------



## USMarine75

Anyone else watch Hillary on GPS this past weekend?


----------



## SpaceDock

^ yes, cringe. While she is not the monster the GOP has painter as, she is not very likable and says stuff that just seems so smug/jerky.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Exactly. If anyone had any doubt about the GOP's good faith, remember that they openly stole 2000 from Gore, and the Democrats rolled over and let it happen. Democrats are obsessed with capitulating to and pleasing Republicans, and Republicans never give them anything in return. It is a purely sadomasochistic relationship at this point. It can only push us further and further right.


Why are you even participating in this discussion? There's respectful discussion with mature, open, disagreement, and then there's saying "one whole political party is into weird bondage kinks." You're not trying to engage and discuss and maybe have some hope of shaping other's opinions, at this point you're just trolling and looking to disparage and insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want to talk about bad faith, well...



Randy said:


> Woo, is that minimizing what happened. Lieberman was a DINO that was aggressively anti-Democrat (think Joe Manchin on steroids), and he was primaried out by Ned Lamont (who I donated to at the time, because Lieberman was such a wreck) and only ran as an independent out of necessity. He seldom voted with the Democrats and they eventually started avoiding allowing him all together because it was presumed he was leaking strategic information to the Republicans.
> 
> The guy is a very dark mark on the Democratic Party and the fact he was on the ticket for the 2000 election is a perfect indication of how off base the party can be if left to their own devices.


I remember in 2000 Lieberman feeling like an afterthought, and I enjoyed watching him get primaried that next cycle. I kinda wonder if part of the rationale was just to get him out of the Senate. You know the old joke about how a farmer had two sons, one ran away and joined the circus and the other became Vice President and neither was ever heard from again. That said, I don't remember why the Gore camp chose him to run.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Why are you even participating in this discussion? There's respectful discussion with mature, open, disagreement, and then there's saying "one whole political party is into weird bondage kinks." You're not trying to engage and discuss and maybe have some hope of shaping other's opinions, at this point you're just trolling and looking to disparage and insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want to talk about bad faith, well...



I don't think the guy is especially nice or that his tone is particularly helpful, but his analysis of the Democratic Party structure is correct. It's just that, despite the fact I'm also a Democratic Party skeptic, he ends up at a different conclusion on things than I do. Even if he were arguing with me instead of you (which he's done a few times), I still think he adds to the discussion.

If you want to put the shoe on the other foot, imagine for a second if the Republican Party looked at their leadership and their trend downward with the same level of skepticism. Would be totally justified and probably healthy, no?


----------



## Necris

From my perspective the concepts of "bipartisanship" and "the undecided voter" are nothing more than masterstrokes of propaganda which have allowed the DNC to continuously shift rightward. It really does seem like the wing of the party that are now pushing Biden, and who pushed Hillary in 2016, are committed to ensuring that the party never moves anywhere near anything that could be interpreted as "progressive" without a fight and it's hard to see these people as political allies.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Why are you even participating in this discussion? There's respectful discussion with mature, open, disagreement, and then there's saying "one whole political party is into weird bondage kinks." You're not trying to engage and discuss and maybe have some hope of shaping other's opinions, at this point you're just trolling and looking to disparage and insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want to talk about bad faith, well...
> 
> 
> I remember in 2000 Lieberman feeling like an afterthought, and I enjoyed watching him get primaried that next cycle. I kinda wonder if part of the rationale was just to get him out of the Senate. You know the old joke about how a farmer had two sons, one ran away and joined the circus and the other became Vice President and neither was ever heard from again. That said, I don't remember why the Gore camp chose him to run.



I notice you singling out that dude personally more than I've noticed any amount of him trolling, disparaging, or insulting anyone here.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I notice you singling out that dude personally more than I've noticed any amount of him trolling, disparaging, or insulting anyone here.


I consistently disagree with him. 


Randy said:


> I don't think the guy is especially nice or that his tone is particularly helpful, but his analysis of the Democratic Party structure is correct. It's just that, despite the fact I'm also a Democratic Party skeptic, he ends up at a different conclusion on things than I do. Even if he were arguing with me instead of you (which he's done a few times), I still think he adds to the discussion.
> 
> If you want to put the shoe on the other foot, imagine for a second if the Republican Party looked at their leadership and their trend downward with the same level of skepticism. Would be totally justified and probably healthy, no?


I think it's less about conclusion than tone. Looking at the GOP and thinking that under Trump the Republican Party has lost their way, and _telling _other Republicans that, is something that I think you can do in a civil conversation. In a Republican dominated conversation, though, chiming in with a _"The GOP is obsessed with capitulating to and pleasing the KKK, and the white power movement never gives them anything in return. They're purely a bunch of self-hating cucks at this point. It can only push us further and further and further to open xenophobia"_ is the kind of statement where not only are you not likely to win over anyone to your viewpoint, you're either singularly lacking self-awareness or you KNOW you're not going to convert anyone and that's precisely your point.

Is the observation that the Democratic Party has a history of pandering to the center more or less accurate? Sure. Is the way it's phrased here likely to be a good faith attempt to foster a discussion about that as an electoral strategy, rather than an excuse to sling mud and insult something he doesn't consider himself part of? Not even close. I think that distinction matters here.


----------



## Randy

Hey, I think all angles on this are fair, including Drew's establishment lane even if he's outnumbered.

@allheavymusic unabashedly sticks his fingers in his ears in the way he gets onto something and just rolls with it, and I can understand how that would frustrate someone. I like debating Drew but I think he's almost as inflexible in his positions, but it's just masked in approaching why, for example, Bernie Sanders is wrong but doing from 10 different angles. It's yin and yang, but I think both positions are fairly represented.

To the overall discussion, I think @Necris is right and this "old white guy that's not a communist" panic thing cements it IMO. I said it, idk, either pre or post-2016 election. Donald Trump is such a caricature of the Republican Party, at some point the pendulum swinging away from him was going to cause a "I'll vote for anybody with a D next to their name" over-correction, and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz's and Jim Clyburns of the world poke their head out from around the corner and go "...oh really...?"

There's a small handful of Democrats that earnestly argue AGAINST Progressive policies as an endpoint, but Necris is right, it's perpetually "well yeah, we can't do that NOW but maybe someday" and they kick the can down the road into eternity. I used the example earlier in this thread of FDR and the New Deal, Social Security, etc. in the midst of and as a REACTION TO The Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, WWII, so on. The idea that we're in the midst of crisis that requires action, so lets take the most tepid response to it is nonsense and doesn't gel with the Democratic Party of the previous 80 years.

EDIT: I'd extend that statement to say it doesn't gel with effective leadership of the previous, idk, 140 years+. Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln both well deserving of praise for taking bold action when it was necessary, despite the likely fallout among opposition, even among voters and among their own party.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Hey, I think all angles on this are fair, including Drew's establishment lane even if he's outnumbered.
> 
> @allheavymusic unabashedly sticks his fingers in his ears in the way he gets onto something and just rolls with it, and I can understand how that would frustrate someone. I like debating Drew but I think he's almost as inflexible in his positions, but it's just masked in approaching why, for example, Bernie Sanders is wrong but doing from 10 different angles. It's yin and yang, but I think both positions are fairly represented.
> 
> To the overall discussion, I think @Necris is right and this "old white guy that's not a communist" panic thing cements it IMO. I said it, idk, either pre or post-2016 election. Donald Trump is such a caricature of the Republican Party, at some point the pendulum swinging away from him was going to cause a "I'll vote for anybody with a D next to their name" over-correction, and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz's and Jim Clyburns of the world poke their head out from around the corner and go "...oh really...?"
> 
> There's a small handful of Democrats that earnestly argue AGAINST Progressive policies as an endpoint, but Necris is right, it's perpetually "well yeah, we can't do that NOW but maybe someday" and they kick the can down the road into eternity. I used the example earlier in this thread of FDR and the New Deal, Social Security, etc. in the midst of and as a REACTION TO The Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, WWII, so on. The idea that we're in the midst of crisis that requires action, so lets take the most tepid response to it is nonsense and doesn't gel with the Democratic Party of the previous 80 years.
> 
> EDIT: I'd extend that statement to say it doesn't gel with effective leadership of the previous, idk, 140 years+. Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln both well deserving of praise for taking bold action when it was necessary, despite the likely fallout among opposition, even among voters and among their own party.



That's probably fair.  I hope I at least come across as being more willing to hear you out and that I will admit it when I'm wrong, because you're absolutely right, I do find people who refuse to even consider the possibility their beliefs wrong irritating, doubly so when they don't actually understand what they're talking about.  

I DO think Sanders would get a much warmer reception in Democratic circles if he wasn't so openly hostile and didn't wear the "Socialist" badge with such unabashed pride, and I definitely get that arguing for incremental change looks an awful lot like kicking the can down the road, and in some cases probably is, depending on the intentions of the speaker.


----------



## stockwell

Disagreement makes for more interesting discussion than if we all shared the same exact perspective. I do try to apply the principle of charity when reading others' arguments, even if I know they're coming from a very different worldview. But it is always frustrating to be casually dismissed or unfairly painted as close-minded. Nobody likes being talked down to. 

So much of this election cycle has been dominated by tone policing. Sanders is too angry, his supporters are too mean, etc. etc. It's the prioritization of civility over content, and it saddens me that many people's disgust for Trump seems to be rooted in his personal distastefulness and cruelty rather than the political project he helms. Biden could implement the exact same policies as Trump, and some people would be fine as long as it didn't affect them and he was nice on TV. Again, Obama deported 3 million people purely to collect political currency with the GOP, which he never even managed to redeem. The difference between open hostility and justified anger is whether you believe someone is yelling at you or for you. There's a lot of things that people should be angry about in this country.


----------



## gunch

allheavymusic said:


> Disagreement makes for more interesting discussion than if we all shared the same exact perspective. I do try to apply the principle of charity when reading others' arguments, even if I know they're coming from a very different worldview. But it is always frustrating to be casually dismissed or unfairly painted as close-minded. Nobody likes being talked down to.
> 
> So much of this election cycle has been dominated by tone policing. Sanders is too angry, his supporters are too mean, etc. etc. It's the prioritization of civility over content, and it saddens me that many people's disgust for Trump seems to be rooted in his personal distastefulness and cruelty rather than the political project he helms. Biden could implement the exact same policies as Trump, and some people would be fine as long as it didn't affect them and he was nice on TV. Again, Obama deported 3 million people purely to collect political currency with the GOP, which he never even managed to redeem. The difference between open hostility and justified anger is whether you believe someone is yelling at you or for you. There's a lot of things that people should be angry about in this country.



like the fed dumping 1.5 trillion into the stock market


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

gunch said:


> like the fed dumping 1.5 trillion into the stock market


Supporting big business and not Joe Public during Corona virus is such a terrible choice. The worse is yet to come.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t think anyone else could be doing as terrible of a job as Trump in the last 24 hours. Let’s not get upset in choosing who is going to take down this clown. Time to move on from this dumpster fire before we have a toilet paper based economy.


----------



## Randy

Something that should worry anyone that wants to get rid of Trump is how effective the fear campaign against Bernie as "far left" was. There was a stark contrast between Sander's performance and, by comparison, Biden's performance before and after a week of the frontrunner "Socialist" barrage.

If being "far left" concerned people within the party so much that they ran in the opposite direction, imagine what happens during the general election when Trump paints the whole party the same way.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Disagreement makes for more interesting discussion than if we all shared the same exact perspective. I do try to apply the principle of charity when reading others' arguments, even if I know they're coming from a very different worldview. But it is always frustrating to be casually dismissed or unfairly painted as close-minded. Nobody likes being talked down to.
> 
> So much of this election cycle has been dominated by tone policing. Sanders is too angry, his supporters are too mean, etc. etc. It's the prioritization of civility over content, and it saddens me that many people's disgust for Trump seems to be rooted in his personal distastefulness and cruelty rather than the political project he helms. Biden could implement the exact same policies as Trump, and some people would be fine as long as it didn't affect them and he was nice on TV. Again, Obama deported 3 million people purely to collect political currency with the GOP, which he never even managed to redeem. The difference between open hostility and justified anger is whether you believe someone is yelling at you or for you. There's a lot of things that people should be angry about in this country.


Well, maybe try thinking of it from this perspective: What's likely to be more effective at turning people to your point of view? Providing them thoughtful, articulate analysis and using logic to try to persuade them, or yelling at them for not already agreeing with you? 

There's plenty of reasons to be angry in the world today, even a month ago before we were in the middle of a viral pandemic. No one's questioning Bernie's right to be angry. I think what's more debatable though is whether or not lashing out with that anger is _helpful_. Is attacking the "Democratic establishment" as being corrupt and beholden to corporate interests likely to make that same establishment support you? Or is it likely to be more effective to make the case that your policies are sensible ones that would help _everyone_, progressives and moderates alike? 

Past a certain point, whether or not you have the "right" to be angry doesn't really matter. The bigger question is, whether or not anger is an effective agent of change. And I don't think Sanders gets that.


----------



## Drew

gunch said:


> like the fed dumping 1.5 trillion into the stock market


So, repo purchases are a topic that get really wonky really quickly, so I'm not going to try to do a detailed explanation here. but, high level, what the Fed is doing is buying $1.5 trillion dollars of short term bonds from banks with a giant credit card, with the intent of returning all of those purchases in 1 to 3 months time, depending on the term of the repo. Since the purchase has a contractual repurchase it is being done without real money, since the banks are guaranteed to be able to get their bonds back from the Fed at the end of the repo the bonds are treated as collateral still held by the banks, and the whole thing is a giant short term loan where the Fed is using money that doesn't actually exist to pump a ton of liquidity into the markets at a time banks don't want to sell Treasury bills because of Dodd-Frank requirements for minimum capitalization levels, so they're hoarding them, demand is far outstripping supply, and even Treasury bills, normally the most liquid investments in the world, are having their bid-ask spreads widen. 

If none of that makes any sense... What the Fed is NOT doing, ius taking $1.5 trillion in taxpayer money, and giving it to Wall Street. I keep seeing memes and social media posts about "sure, we can spend $1.5 trillion on Wall Street, but not college education," but not a dime of taxpayer money is being spent on this.


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think a lot of the problem is with the primaries. Its tough enough to get people to show up for a general, and getting people to primaries is much more challenging.
> You don't just need young voters, you need young activists; people that are willing to do everything they can to push the needle further. Showing up to rallies, answering polls, etc- all this to make sure that their guy even makes it to the ballot box.
> 
> I bet if it were Bernie in the general, he'd have a stronger showing than what he's getting now- but that's irrelevant, because he'll never get there.
> Apathy also plays a huge role in all this; I was really excited for Gabbard, I donated to her campaign, spread her message, and did what I could to raise awareness. It was the first time I've ever felt strongly enough about one single candidate to want to actively get involved in the primary process (granted, I'm young, but still). But after they screwed her, man, it's tough to care now. I can definitely empathize with the 2016 Bernie crew because that stuff is super demoralizing and makes you feel like your vote and opinion don't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely; it's just a huge, huge curve ball to pitch to your party. I guarantee you he'd have a horde of angry democrats for colleagues. Even if that wasn't the case, in this specific instance, with Joe being...Joe...a lot of people have concerns about his ability to serve a full term. So why would a democrat voter want to vote for him if they think they may actually be voting for a republican to take office in a couple years?
> It's all fucked, dude. Things are so strange right now



An App. An App is how you get the under 30 vote. Which, baffles me why there isn't one at this point. We've managed to digitize it in most states. All we need is local implementation of a federally provided software. The only difficult thing to bring to the fore is security and fake accounts. These are actual problems we can work on though.



Drew said:


> Well, maybe try thinking of it from this perspective: What's likely to be more effective at turning people to your point of view? Providing them thoughtful, articulate analysis and using logic to try to persuade them, or yelling at them for not already agreeing with you?
> 
> There's plenty of reasons to be angry in the world today, even a month ago before we were in the middle of a viral pandemic. No one's questioning Bernie's right to be angry. I think what's more debatable though is whether or not lashing out with that anger is _helpful_. Is attacking the "Democratic establishment" as being corrupt and beholden to corporate interests likely to make that same establishment support you? Or is it likely to be more effective to make the case that your policies are sensible ones that would help _everyone_, progressives and moderates alike?
> 
> Past a certain point, whether or not you have the "right" to be angry doesn't really matter. The bigger question is, whether or not anger is an effective agent of change. And I don't think Sanders gets that.



Hostility, sure. I don't see Sanders as Hostile though. Defiant, yes. But that's a trait that has deep roots in this countries political and cultural climate. Which is why I think characters like Trump and Bernie resonate with people. I also view anger as a very positive emotion when directed at injustice. Unfocused its wasted energy and likely to cause damage at its worst. At its best, its the fuel we use to change things. What I can say for @allheavymusic, is that at least there is a direction for his ire and it has justification. He may not be converting people, but he may not be attempting persuasion. He may be attempting to light a fire. Both are effective at catalyzing change.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Thaeon said:


> An App. An App is how you get the under 30 vote. Which, baffles me why there isn't one at this point. We've managed to digitize it in most states. All we need is local implementation of a federally provided software. The only difficult thing to bring to the fore is security and fake accounts. These are actual problems we can work on though.



They're trying; that app was at the heart of a lot of the mess that was the Iowa caucus. I agree though- it's definitely something that can be shaped into something workable.
It definitely won't be easy however...because any piece of software is vulnerable to attack if the right people are motivated enough. Screwing with a US election is definitely some juicy motivation for bad actors.

Then there's also the black box issue...people don't trust what they can't see, and there's absolutely zero chance of an open source app. So no matter how bulletproof the software is, there's always going to be a sizeable contingent of people that won't trust that its results are genuine.


----------



## vilk

I can't speak for AHM, but sometimes I just want an outlet for my political thoughts and feelings. As compared with other posters here, I can admit that I don't have the smarts or the knowledge to get into deep debates and ratify my points the way Drew or Bostjan do... but I don't believe that means I should be disallowed from expressing myself here, and I don't think it means I'm a troll either.


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> They're trying; that app was at the heart of a lot of the mess that was the Iowa caucus. I agree though- it's definitely something that can be shaped into something workable.
> It definitely won't be easy however...because any piece of software is vulnerable to attack if the right people are motivated enough. Screwing with a US election is definitely some juicy motivation for bad actors.
> 
> Then there's also the black box issue...people don't trust what they can't see, and there's absolutely zero chance of an open source app. So no matter how bulletproof the software is, there's always going to be a sizeable contingent of people that won't trust that its results are genuine.



I don't disagree. However, progress. Everything is going digital. Period. At some point their'll be enough of a minority in the groups that don't trust that that it will change. They'll have had their voice, but it will be a drop in the pond. We have reason to not trust what we can see too if you remember the hanging chads in Florida that drove a complete recount of an entire state. They will argue that, but it holds little water, because they don't trust a system to be correct that isn't completely transparent. Lack of transparency protects the vote. We're still delivering digital data that can be intercepted and altered. You can always break the chain and localize each system, call the local results in from each county, and then deliver digital verification later. There will always be potential points of failure and manipulation in any system though.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Hostility, sure. I don't see Sanders as Hostile though. Defiant, yes. But that's a trait that has deep roots in this countries political and cultural climate. Which is why I think characters like Trump and Bernie resonate with people. I also view anger as a very positive emotion when directed at injustice. Unfocused its wasted energy and likely to cause damage at its worst. At its best, its the fuel we use to change things. What I can say for @allheavymusic, is that at least there is a direction for his ire and it has justification. He may not be converting people, but he may not be attempting persuasion. He may be attempting to light a fire. Both are effective at catalyzing change.


Yes, but you're also not someone who identifies as a moderate Democrat, you know? All of his appeals for money I've seen are some variation of "the corporate and billionare backed Democratic establishment is out to get me, so donate so we can beat the corporations and billionares!" As a moderate Dem, my reaction to that is "hey, fuck you buddy, I'm a moderate because I'm pragmatic, not because I'm some sort of corporate selllout or billionare sycophant." Whereas Warren, despite being just as vocal about wanting to take on corporations and take power back from billionares, doesn't come across as personally blaming establishment-lane voters for them.

I mean, this is as much about rhetoric and how you build and frame an argument as anything else, and making sure your message is presented in a way that the listener will be open to it is kind of critically important. When I'm saying my impression has been Sanders has zero interest in winning support from moderate Democrats, this is exactly what I had in mind.



vilk said:


> I can't speak for AHM, but sometimes I just want an outlet for my political thoughts and feelings. As compared with other posters here, I can admit that I don't have the smarts or the knowledge to get into deep debates and ratify my points the way Drew or Bostjan do... but I don't believe that means I should be disallowed from expressing myself here, and I don't think it means I'm a troll either.


FWIW, I've never read your posts and thought you weren't capable of expressing yourself or arguing your position.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Thaeon said:


> I don't disagree. However, progress. Everything is going digital. Period. At some point their'll be enough of a minority in the groups that don't trust that that it will change. They'll have had their voice, but it will be a drop in the pond. We have reason to not trust what we can see too if you remember the hanging chads in Florida that drove a complete recount of an entire state. They will argue that, but it holds little water, because they don't trust a system to be correct that isn't completely transparent. Lack of transparency protects the vote. We're still delivering digital data that can be intercepted and altered. You can always break the chain and localize each system, call the local results in from each county, and then deliver digital verification later. There will always be potential points of failure and manipulation in any system though.



I'm no tech troglodyte but an app doesn't sit well with me unless somewhere, somehow there is a piece of paper as a backup.


----------



## thraxil

Thaeon said:


> An App. An App is how you get the under 30 vote. Which, baffles me why there isn't one at this point. We've managed to digitize it in most states. All we need is local implementation of a federally provided software.



With 20 years of professional experience writing software, I will say: the less technology involved in elections, the better. Voting machines are a security disaster. Any kind of 'App' would be even worse.


----------



## Thaeon

thraxil said:


> With 20 years of professional experience writing software, I will say: the less technology involved in elections, the better. Voting machines are a security disaster. Any kind of 'App' would be even worse.



I don't doubt it. Security is huge. Most don't understand that with anything like that, you have a measure of time before there is a security breach. There is no "Secure" data. Just how much money and time do you want to spend on being annoying to anyone trying to access said data. With an election at stake and hostile governments wanting influence, there isn't adequate annoyance available to deter them. However, that wasn't really my argument. It was that an App, especially one on a smart phone is how you get the sub 30 somethings to vote.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Yes, but you're also not someone who identifies as a moderate Democrat, you know? All of his appeals for money I've seen are some variation of "the corporate and billionare backed Democratic establishment is out to get me, so donate so we can beat the corporations and billionares!" As a moderate Dem, my reaction to that is "hey, fuck you buddy, I'm a moderate because I'm pragmatic, not because I'm some sort of corporate selllout or billionare sycophant." Whereas Warren, despite being just as vocal about wanting to take on corporations and take power back from billionares, doesn't come across as personally blaming establishment-lane voters for them.
> 
> I mean, this is as much about rhetoric and how you build and frame an argument as anything else, and making sure your message is presented in a way that the listener will be open to it is kind of critically important. When I'm saying my impression has been Sanders has zero interest in winning support from moderate Democrats, this is exactly what I had in mind.



I TEND progressive. There are some things I can be pretty moderate or even conservative on. Though the latter is few and far between. I can understand that perception. Though I don't think that is the intended meaning behind what he's been saying. I think his intended meaning is that corporate big money dems are buying the elections and the DNC. That they've been disingenuous towards the moderate Dem the way that Trump has towards everyone.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Use paper ballots with fraud prevention measures (like money, checks, etc.) that are to be mailed at no cost, and make it compulsory with the option of not selecting a candidate.


----------



## Thaeon

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I'm no tech troglodyte but an app doesn't sit well with me unless somewhere, somehow there is a piece of paper as a backup.



Its pretty easy to set up redundancies and even print periodic results.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Yes, but you're also not someone who identifies as a moderate Democrat, you know?



Chicken or the egg. Are you a moderate because progressive rhetoric turns you off or does progressive rhetoric turn you off because you're a moderate? I don't think you can accuse anyone of not being objective if it's one or the other, just like yours motivations are no more or less objective.

I'm not trying to make this personal but the fact the industry you're making a living in is the target of Bernie Sanders and you don't like his rhetoric isnt lost on me and if anything, that wreaks of lacking objectivity more than you can leverage on anyone else in here about who they they like or why they like them just because of their political leanings.


----------



## narad

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I'm no tech troglodyte but an app doesn't sit well with me unless somewhere, somehow there is a piece of paper as a backup.



Moss would support electronic voting.


----------



## SpaceDock

I would never recommend an app or website for voting because that is just so unsafe and primed for manipulation.

I don’t know how the rest of you even do vote because in Colorado we have mail in ballot by default. I don’t know that I would ever vote if I had to go somewhere, stand in line, etc because I avoid stuff like that if at all possible. 

We need to make mail in ballot the standard across the US, that is the best next step imo.


----------



## Randy

I'm gonna put on my fascists hat for a second and say voting should be mandatory or you get fined. And you can abstain or vote 'nobody' if you want but the point is that sitting out the election because you're lazy or being deliberately skipped to favor one party or the other shouldn't be acceptable for 50% of this country. If you want to NOT vote you have to actually have some interaction with BoE, and at that point if you're going it out of laziness then you might as well just vote.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> my fascists hat



I envision this as a Mao Zedong hat but pink with rhinestones.


----------



## stockwell

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t think anyone else could be doing as terrible of a job as Trump in the last 24 hours. Let’s not get upset in choosing who is going to take down this clown.



Bernie is advocating for single-payer healthcare, and Biden said he'd veto it even if it was passed by both chambers. We're in a pandemic. Lives depend on everyone having access to healthcare. And the "how are we gonna pay for it" line looks even more absurd looking at the measures taken to stabilize the market. 

The issue isn't paper or digital and it never will be. Paper works, digital can work. Low voter turnout and election issues are not surprising considering that the US isn't designed to be democratic. American citizens do not have the constitutional right to vote. It's left to states to decide. The entire system was designed to grant voting rights only to the powerful land-owning class. While certain forms of voter discrimination are banned, or at least banned explicitly, the fundamental problems have not been fixed. This is why voter suppression takes dozens of different forms and absolutely still works: felony disenfranchisement, ID laws, underfunded voting centers, long lines, gerrymandering, no national holiday for voting, hanging chads, etc. We're never going to have a legitimate democracy until we pass an amendment guaranteeing the right to vote and actually dedicate the resources to enforcing it. Paper or digital, FPTP or ranked choice, these are all secondary to the core problem. 

And it's even worse for primaries, considering that parties have a legal right to change their own bylaws. The only thing that prevents the DNC from choosing whatever candidate they want is the optics. Both parties can legally rig their primaries if they want to, it shouldn't be surprising when they exercise that ability. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's literally how the system works. I mean, the GOP cancelled a half dozen primaries, you literally could not vote for not-Trump if you were in the wrong state. 

I'm anxious to see what happens at the debate. I can't help but think that if Bernie gets a chance to actually confront Biden on policy for even an hour, Biden will crack. Maybe it's wishful thinking, we'll see.


----------



## Ralyks

allheavymusic said:


> I'm anxious to see what happens at the debate. I can't help but think that if Bernie gets a chance to actually confront Biden on policy for even an hour, Biden will crack. Maybe it's wishful thinking, we'll see.



Only thing is, Bernie already said publicly what he's going to ask Biden policywise. And there's belief that Bernie sees the writing on the wall for his chances at getting the nod and it's more or less coaching Biden on how to appeal to Bernies base. He even started with "I will debate MY FRIEND Joe Biden..."


----------



## possumkiller

Bernie was never going to happen. They would never let it happen. The Democratic party is just the same rich white guys from the Republican party pretending to be an adversary to give people the illusion that the system works.


----------



## Randy

Bernie "assessing" his campaign, which is basically a low key way of saying his people are on the phone with Biden's people to see what they're going to get as a consolation prize.

I'm not going to say I love this outcome but I thought the process that got us here was much better than 2016, and I think the difference in Sander's campaign at this stage is both amiable and also a good illustration of what's different this time around. I've got my issues with Biden but he's not the boogeyman Hillary Clinton was. And the faults of the Trump administration now that things are 'life or death' in all four corners of this country do solidify the need to get the guy the fuck out of there, hell or high water.


----------



## vilk

Randy said:


> I've got my issues with Biden but he's not the boogeyman Hillary Clinton was.


 Just curious, why do you say this?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Just curious, why do you say this?



Because it's mostly true. There hasn't been nearly as much traction with the whole Burisma thing vs. Benghazi which was drawn out for years.

Honestly, I've seen more vitriol towards Biden from the left (myself included) than being framed as a liberal socialist deep state terrorist from the right.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I've seen more vitriol towards Biden from the left (myself included) than being framed as a liberal socialist deep state terrorist from the right.


Probably because they don't have anything to fear from him. He isn't going to make any big changes that makes his benefactors or other very wealthy people uncomfortable.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> Just curious, why do you say this?



He was on the stage next to Hillary Clinton in 2008 and she looked like a maniac. 

I continually go back to the 'hands off' relationship the US had with Pakistan when Taliban fighters were coming down out of the mountains and broadsiding troops in Afghanistan, with Americans unable to strike back and unable to find Osama bin Laden either. Everybody knew bin Laden was over the border into Pakistan but they couldn't go get him, they couldn't even admit they knew he was there because Pakistan was a 'sovereign ally'.

In the context of the 2008 race, Hillary Clinton had voted for the Iraq War, as did Biden, Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time but he was vocally skeptical of the war when it happened. By 2008, people had tired of it and especially Americans constantly being ambushed and bin Laden one step ahead.

During the one debate, the moderator asked if they heard bin Laden was over the border to Pakistan and they had Intel they could get him there (which BTW, ended up being the case), would they do it. Obama said yes absolutely and Hillary spent her whole time saying no and Obama's answer was evidence he has no idea what he was doing. Biden sided with Obama on it. Later in either that debate or the next, the question came up about whether they would negotiate with Iran and Obama said he'd sit down with them and see, Hillary once again said "ha! Noob! You can't sit with Iran, that would legitimize them", and once again, Biden deferred to Obama's position on it.

In context, Hillary showed horrible instincts (I know I harp on this a lot) on the Iraq war vote and people were looking to see some evidence of critical thinking, and she displayed none. She moved to regretting her Iraq vote but she hadn't actually learned anything in the process. Obama looked like he had much better instincts, and in context, Biden looked like maybe not a policy builder but he had the ability to learn.

I think Biden is a consensus builder. He's a glacier's pace incrimentalist but he basically moves whatever direct the tide is going. Sometimes it's good (overhaul of healthcare), sometimes it's bad (crime bill) but it's something you can work with. Hillary was very stubborn and would push for plutocratic policy even if it was 180 degrees from everything everyone else wanted around her.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Chicken or the egg. Are you a moderate because progressive rhetoric turns you off or does progressive rhetoric turn you off because you're a moderate? I don't think you can accuse anyone of not being objective if it's one or the other, just like yours motivations are no more or less objective.
> 
> I'm not trying to make this personal but the fact the industry you're making a living in is the target of Bernie Sanders and you don't like his rhetoric isnt lost on me and if anything, that wreaks of lacking objectivity more than you can leverage on anyone else in here about who they they like or why they like them just because of their political leanings.


Eh, again, I don't really have a problem with any progressive political objectives, and as someone who works in the financial ndustry, I apprecite the prospective it gives me, but I also appreciate the fact that some of this perspective is on _problems_ in my industry. Like, I'm not all "deregulate the banks!" I can speak better than most to some of the unintended consequences of bank regulation (not the least of which right now, where Dodd-Frank prohibitions on prop trading and capital requirements make it a LOT harder for bank-affiliated dealers to step in and take the other side of a trade, as we're in the middle of a bona-fide liquidity crisis), but at the end of the day I'm all for more rather than less regulation, provided it's done sensibly. Universal healthcare, I mean my issue with Medicare for All is that I don't think it's a political possibility, not that I've got some issue with single payer. I'm a strong believer in living wages, and some of that is informed _by_ what I do for a living - we have a 70% consumer spending driven economy, we're better off if consumers can spend. Likewise, I don't know how to solve the problem of student debt, but I think we desperately need to, as it's impacting new household formation and the ability of millennial couples to afford mortgages. 

I mean, I voted for Warren for a reason. My problem with Sanders is that I think he's a grouchy old asshole, and that his "establishment Democrats are a problem that must be overcome!" rhetoric is hopelessly antagonistic and makes it essentially impossible for him to build a majority coalition inside the Democratic party. 

I'll pop in as much as I can, but this is the first time I've been on since Friday. It's basically 2008 out there.


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> My problem with Sanders is...that his "establishment Democrats are a problem that must be overcome!" rhetoric is hopelessly antagonistic and makes it essentially impossible for him to build a majority coalition inside the Democratic party.



This is probably true, that coalition seems unworkable. There's no redeeming the Democrats. Possumkiller's posted image captured the cycle perfectly. The purpose of the Democratic Party, intentionally or not, is to defuse any potential left movement in the US. "I like your ideas, but they're politically impossible" might as well be their motto. They tell us that we're their only option, and we HAVE to vote for them, otherwise the right will be even worse. Biden is such a huge middle finger to anyone who believed in redeeming the Democrats. Biden didn't just vote for the Iraq war, he led Democratic support for it. He didn't just vote for the crime bill, he wrote it. The sooner the left realizes that Democrats are as much their opponent as the GOP, the better. 

I can't tell if Hillary is worse or better than Biden, honestly. But they share the same electoral weaknesses, and come the general (assuming there is one), there will be blood in the water. We're in for some entertaining debates.


----------



## possumkiller

For people that aren't already well off, establishment Democrats _are _a problem that must be overcome. We're in a two party system and both parties work for the wealthy. The Democrats are about as left leaning socialist or less than any European right wing party.


----------



## Randy

Threads all bleeding together but worth mentioning how woeful the Democratic response to the economics of COVID fallout have been. Nancy Pelosi's first offer on stimulus were tax credits, and the Republicans first shot was fucking Andrew Yang's plan  Biden campaign eerily quiet on the issue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Threads all bleeding together but worth mentioning how woeful the Democratic response to the economics of COVID fallout have been. Nancy Pelosi's first offer on stimulus were tax credits, and the Republicans first shot was fucking Andrew Yang's plan  Biden campaign eerily quiet on the issue.



I feel like this is a good representation of the Dems that frames what we've been trying to tell @Drew for the last few months. 

That said, the GOP's plan is to UBI what Obamacare is to Universal Healthcare. 

I have had fun needling some conservative coworkers over their socialist Trump though.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like this is a good representation of the Dems that frames what we've been trying to tell @Drew for the last few months.
> 
> That said, the GOP's plan is to UBI what Obamacare is to Universal Healthcare.
> 
> I have had fun needling some conservative coworkers over their socialist Trump though.



Dat awkward moment when 'negotiate from the center' Democrats first offer comes in to the right of the Republicans. Whoops!

Yeah I'm having fun with the Trump pretzel. The latest was everyone going on about dictator Cuomo (I'm not a fan of the shut downs either) and Trump today saying a national shutdown wasn't necessary but NY and CA are special cases, basically endorsing the lockdown.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> This is probably true, that coalition seems unworkable. There's no redeeming the Democrats. Possumkiller's posted image captured the cycle perfectly. The purpose of the Democratic Party, intentionally or not, is to defuse any potential left movement in the US. "I like your ideas, but they're politically impossible" might as well be their motto. They tell us that we're their only option, and we HAVE to vote for them, otherwise the right will be even worse. Biden is such a huge middle finger to anyone who believed in redeeming the Democrats. Biden didn't just vote for the Iraq war, he led Democratic support for it. He didn't just vote for the crime bill, he wrote it. The sooner the left realizes that Democrats are as much their opponent as the GOP, the better.
> 
> I can't tell if Hillary is worse or better than Biden, honestly. But they share the same electoral weaknesses, and come the general (assuming there is one), there will be blood in the water. We're in for some entertaining debates.


I mean, devil's advocate, but...

1) If Sanders' failure to build ANY inroads into building a coalition inside the Democratic Party is proof the Democrats are "unredeemable," then why is he even bothering to run as a Democrat in the first place? and
2) What if they're right, that Sanders' ideas are politically impossible in the United States? I mean, you figure if there's any mainstream political party that should be receptive to his proposals, it should be the Democrats, so shouldn't it maybe be taken into account that they don't think his platform has any chance of being passed into law?


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> 1) If Sanders' failure to build ANY inroads into building a coalition inside the Democratic Party is proof the Democrats are "unredeemable," then why is he even bothering to run as a Democrat in the first place?



From my perspective or his? Bernie is old enough to have seen a Democratic party that had to work with the labor movement, because unions used to have at least some real power. Maybe he genuinely believes in a return to that pre-Carter Democratic party that still worked with labor. Maybe he believes that in the two party system, all he can do is pull one party left. I don't know what he believes, or his political strategy. I'm speaking from my perspective when I say that Democrats oppose everything I've come to believe. 



Drew said:


> 12) What if they're right, that Sanders' ideas are politically impossible in the United States? I mean, you figure if there's any mainstream political party that should be receptive to his proposals, it should be the Democrats, so shouldn't it maybe be taken into account that they don't think his platform has any chance of being passed into law?



Politically impossible is a meaningless phrase here. What you mean is that the right has power in this country, and will refuse even the tiniest center-left social-democratic reforms. This is not the unusual thing. The problem is that instead of a meaningful left or even center-left opposition, we have a center-right party that kills any left momentum before the GOP has to worry about it. There's no reason to believe that a mainstream party would support any left political projects unless they have to, and we can't force them to like we could when unions had genuine power. 

It is terrifying that this pandemic is happening at a time when the right has power and the left has none. Historically, economic crises push people towards illiberalism. I don't want to see what happens when that impulse is funneled through our existing political system. It doesn't feel that hyperbolic to say that the seeds of a new American fascism have been planted. Actually, Stephen Miller is still in the White House, so I shouldn't have to hedge that statement.


----------



## Drew

"Politically impossible" is an incredibly meaningful phrase. It means you don't have the votes to pass something. If American liberals don't think Sanders' platform is one that can muster enough votes to pass into law, that's a pretty valid reason to instead prefer a candidate who they think CAN make some real, concrete, tangible improvements. 

The best ideas in the world are worthless if they can't be put into practice.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> a candidate who they think CAN make some real, concrete, tangible improvements.



Not to put words into dudeman's mouth, but I think his argument is that no such person can exist

Which of Biden's or _any democrat's_ policies do you think the GOP and the conservative right will work with?


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Not to put words into dudeman's mouth, but I think his argument is that no such person can exist
> 
> Which of Biden's or _any democrat's_ policies do you think the GOP and the conservative right will work with?


Well, that kinda gets back to my point, indirectly - if we can hold on to the House majority and get back to a Senate majority, even if a 50-50 tie with, oh, VP Warren as the tiebreaker, then it doesn't matter what the GOP wants because we can pass legislation as part of budget reconciliation once a year, and it becomes much more important what we can do that 1) will be revenue neutral over a 10-year budgetary breakeven period, and 2) that we can get Democrats representing a majority of the house and 50 Senators to support, so a platform respecting the pain points of the most moderate members of the Democratic Senate, that can be plausibly revenue neutral (or less than $150b over 10 years, the rules here are pretty complex and I forget exactly what the tests are for what's allowable under budgetary reconciliation), is pretty workable.

From an electoral standpoint, then, it becomes a matter of not running a top-of-ticket platform that's likely to hurt candidates in moderate or lean-Republican states, that we need to pick up to be able to accomplish this. The clearest modern example of this is Ted Kennedy and Scott Brown - the ACA has become a lot more popular with time, but universal healthcare, even in a market-based format derived from Romney's state wide healthcare plan in Massachusetts, was unpopular enough that Scott Brown was able to use that as a rallying point adfter Kennedy's death to launch a successful bid to take his old Senate seat and put it in Republican hands, forcing the ACA to pass via resolution. Ultimately, it cost Obama House and Senate majorities after his first two years. That's a risk worth taking if you think you can get something done with the time you have, and with the benefit of hindsight it was a prudent one to take since we DO have expanded access to healthcare, especially in states that maintained their ACA exchanges. But, it's a LOT riskier of a proposition wen you're running on a _platform_ of doing something, rather than going ahead and doing it damn the electoral consequences.

you may or may not agree, but I think that's an important way to frame this discussion - what is an electoral platform that 1) will make concrete improvements in the daily lives of most Americans, but 2) isn't so far outside the current political norms in America that its going to hurt the chances of moderate Democrats running in traditionally conservative districts who we need to win to hold onto a House majority and take back the Senate? An idealogical firebrand probably isn't the best way to balance those considerations.

EDIT - and I totally get that this is an ugly, pragmatic, inside-baseball sort of answer... But that's precisely why I'm saying what's "politically possible" is hugely important here, because we've got an awfully, awfully fine line to walk even for what IS politically possible.


----------



## sleewell

can we please get cuomo to replace biden on the ticket? 

he would would shred trump in every debate.


----------



## Necris

I think you should look into Cuomo a bit more before you ask for that. The main, admittedly major, advantage of Cuomo in that hypothetical scenario is that his brain isn't actively melting like Biden's, but that's a very low bar.


----------



## Drew

Cuomo and Biden, honestly, would be pretty much a wash from a policy/idealogy standpoint. Cuomo is another centerist moderate Democrat, and in an ironic reversal of the Biden story, owes a lot of his success in politics to his father's name. 

Still, he's young enough to serve two terms. I'd be happier about Biden as our pick if he pledged to serve one. Ditto with Sanders, if somehow he manages to stage the world's most implausible comeback.


----------



## Ralyks

As a New Yorker, I don't know ANYONE that actually likes Cuomo (myself mostly included). But damn if he hasn't stepped up during the recent crisis.


----------



## jaxadam

Bernie drops out, Biden is your man.


----------



## Drew

Got into it at greater length in the "other" thread, but I think Sanders bowing out is in the long run GOOD for the progressive movement. He's pulled the party pretty far to the left since Obama, most of his policy goals are now in the Democratic mainstream, and a lot of the problem with his 2020 campaign was it became a litmus on him personally and only HIS policies were good enough, rather than an actual discussion on how best to accomplish things like universal health care coverage and making college education attainable for everyone. 

The Bernie Bros in my facebook feed are having a meltdown and bitching about a "rigged" election, which is tough to swallow when Sanders had an outsized role in setting the rules for 2020 (something no other candidate was able to do), and where he broadly underperformed in 2020 compared to 2016 in every single primary. But, I don't think Sanders is the death knell of the progressive movement. I think his concession today is a liberation, and will give us the chance to see what a progressive movement will look like without Bernie there to define it. I think, win or lose in 2020, the next Democratic candidate after Biden will be further still to the left of where Biden is today, and he's already left of Clinton in 2016, and Obama in 2008.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think the DNC did so much to cater to Bernie this time around and republican propaganda tried to set all this up as some rigged election against him which is just bs. Bernie continued to claim that he could get things done by having the largest turnouts and largest coalition, but then no one showed up for him. 

I will never say that I am in love with Joe, but I don’t love any politician. This is about four more years of Trump or anything else. I hope all the Bernie Bro’s don’t burn it down being whiny little bitches.


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> Bernie drops out, Biden is your man.



I think you have just become a troll in these threads. Please try to have arguments on policy or at least something beyond 4chan trash. It is the cult of personality behind Trump that can’t build up any of his ideas or policies and instead try to focus their efforts on personal attacks and “opponent is sick” claims.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I hope all the Bernie Bro’s don’t burn it down being whiny little bitches.



I used to be super against protest voting (and not voting). I've softened to the concept though. I don't think I'd ever do it though. 

For some people there genuinely isn't a meaningful difference between the parties' policies and the direct impact it'll have on their lives.


----------



## SpaceDock

Politics is always a lesser of two evils scenario. If people think a Trump presidency is no different from that of Obama, Clinton, or Biden; they are not reading enough. While the protest voters believe that these mainstream candidates won’t do everything their dream candidates would, it is about moving the needle in a direction over time. Most people do not want a revolution or world changing shift in policies, most people do want incremental improvements. This is why republicans have been so successful while not holding a majority in the population, they keep moving that needle due to their consistent support of their main ideals without calling for a revolution.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Politics is always a lesser of two evils scenario. If people think a Trump presidency is no different from that of Obama, Clinton, or Biden; they are not reading enough. While the protest voters believe that these mainstream candidates won’t do everything their dream candidates would, it is about moving the needle in a direction over time. Most people do not want a revolution or world changing shift in policies, most people do want incremental improvements. This is why republicans have been so successful while not holding a majority in the population, they keep moving that needle due to their consistent support of their main ideals without calling for a revolution.



It's hard to sell a poor disenfranchised person on slowly inching towards possibly doing better maybe.


----------



## Mathemagician

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hard to sell a poor disenfranchised person on slowly inching towards possibly doing better maybe.



An easy example is minimum wage. The last increase adjusted for inflation means it should be at about $18/hr.

Now you go and tell them you MAY support increasing the federal minimum to $12-15 “But it would be onerous on the economy” after over 10 years of no increases AND inflation absolutely eating up the value of a dollar.

They aren’t going to be all that interested in “slow and steady” if you don’t even support their basic right to work>eat>sleep.

Seriously in 2020 the “true” minimum wage is $20/hr in most mid-low COL areas.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think minimum wage should not be a national issue but instead a state one. The wages in Wyoming and California being the same does not make sense at all. I think having local minimum wages and incentives for companies raising wages for their lowest payed employees would make the most sense. Imagine if the Trump corporate tax cuts would have stipulated those companies needed to pay their employees more instead of it just being a handout for stock buybacks.


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hard to sell a poor disenfranchised person on slowly inching towards possibly doing better maybe.



I totally agree that it is a hard sell, but it is more realistic. I didn’t just land a high paying job, I incrementally worked my way up from a low wage position to a high paid one. You don’t just sell out arenas with a band, you start in basements and dive bars then work towards those things. It is the “easy solution” and “just do it now” attitude that causes so many of our problems. If we can’t work towards improvement and will only accept “everything or nothing” we are boned.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I totally agree that it is a hard sell, but it is more realistic. I didn’t just land a high paying job, I incrementally worked my way up from a low wage position to a high paid one. You don’t just sell out arenas with a band, you start in basements and dive bars then work towards those things. It is the “easy solution” and “just do it now” attitude that causes so many of our problems. If we can’t work towards improvement and will only accept “everything or nothing” we are boned.



That's great, and I agree, but tell that to someone below the poverty line that they need to skip a shift of work to vote for someone who might make their grand kids (that they don't have yet) lives better...maybe.

If they don't see even the potential for change, even small change, they're not going to engage. 

Obviously throwing milquetoast candidates at these folks doesn't work, that's why we're having this conversation.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## SpaceDock

^Making my point for me bro, go troll somewhere else Jaxassadam


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's great, and I agree, but tell that to someone below the poverty line that they need to skip a shift of work to vote for someone who might make their grand kids (that they don't have yet) lives better...maybe.
> 
> If they don't see even the potential for change, even small change, they're not going to engage.
> 
> Obviously throwing milquetoast candidates at these folks doesn't work, that's why we're having this conversation.



I can’t agree more, I wouldn’t vote if it meant that I had to go somewhere either. I live in one of the few states that has defaulted to mail in ballots and that is the only way I vote. If I had to use vacation or not get paid at work to go vote, I would never vote. I think that is part of our problem, why don’t all states default to mail in ballots? Ask the republicans.


----------



## Necris

I'd probably want to run that question by the Democrats too, honestly. Lets not pretend that it's only the Republicans who benefit when large groups of people potential voters sit out elections, both primaries and generals, because they're faced with the choice between paying their bills and voting. To say nothing of ridiculous voting lines on election day or any of the new voter suppression tactics which appear every election cycle.


----------



## Smoked Porter

My scattered thoughts-
It's nice that hard work paid off for you @SpaceDock, but it hasn't for millions of others, whether it's been democrats or republicans in control. Joe Biden has a horrific record on pretty much everything I care about, why should I vote for him? And then, there's that rape allegation.

Incrementalism is unacceptable when it comes to healthcare. Tens of thousands of people are dying every year that don't have to, and hundreds of thousands are going bankrupt from medical bills. Biden's current stances and record say he's not going to fight to do anything about that.

Besides that, his record on the Iraq war, economics, and criminal justice sucks. I voted for Obama, I sucked it up and voted for Hillary in 2016, and I'm not doing it any more. Biden, Obama, the Clintons, and democrats like them have made it clear they won't fight for my values, and I'm done enabling their shitty politics with my votes. That doesn't make people like me a whiny little bitch.


----------



## SpaceDock

^ I can certainly respect that opinion but we are still left with a binary choice unless you exclude yourself from it. I won’t carry Biden’s water but if it is him or Drumpf, easy choice.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> I can’t agree more, I wouldn’t vote if it meant that I had to go somewhere either. I live in one of the few states that has defaulted to mail in ballots and that is the only way I vote. If I had to use vacation or not get paid at work to go vote, I would never vote. I think that is part of our problem, why don’t all states default to mail in ballots? Ask the republicans.



Because then we'd suddenly elect a local version of Putin or Saddam Hussein, with their usual 99-1 victory and 102% turnout


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Because then we'd suddenly elect a local version of Putin or Saddam Hussein, with their usual 99-1 victory and 102% turnout



Doubtful. 

It's not like voting machines/computers haven't been shown to have abysmal security.


----------



## Gortrocity

Alignment is very rare in American politics. It has only happened twice by a strict definition. I feel like every single election people talk about alignment and re alignment but seriously it is over used.


----------



## Gortrocity

That is not a reason to resort to extreme political views. That’s what trump did. Raising wages, debt forgiveness, and amnesty are SELLOUT policies that will have zero traction in the legislature. Thus, as an order to preserve political capital - the dems need to focus on a small bipartisan goal - my suggestion would be to fix social security


----------



## philkilla

Smoked Porter said:


> My scattered thoughts-
> It's nice that hard work paid off for you @SpaceDockJoe Biden has a horrific record on pretty much everything I care about, why should I vote for him? And then, there's that rape allegation.



Just rape? Don't forget the pedophilia.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It feels so weird hating Joe for literally everything Trump is also.

Like, he's gross and rich and ineffective as a leader...and so is Joe.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> It feels so weird hating Joe for literally everything Trump is also.
> 
> Like, he's gross and rich and ineffective as a leader...and so is Joe.


Exactly. I think for the average (poverty class) person, it will make little difference which one of them wins 2020.


All this talk about incremental changes is bullshit. They have been incrementally fucking us over for decades to get us to this point and now they expect us to sit around and wait for them to incrementally unfuck it.


----------



## possumkiller

jaxadam said:


>


When did this socialism happen? 

Do you mean the corporate socialism where trillions of taxpayer dollars are being given away to billion-dollar corporations so their CEOs can give themselves billion-dollar bonuses for bankrupting their companies?


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> Just rape? Don't forget the pedophilia.



Dr. Phil droppin' some knowledge!


----------



## philkilla

jaxadam said:


> Dr. Phil droppin' some knowledge!



Eyyyyyy


----------



## Hollowway

I think that anyone in still supporting Trump is in the, “some people just want to watch the world burn,” camp, or are not doing their own research. However, I can’t fault most for voting for him in 2016. He talked a good game, and sounded like a different flavor or what Bernie is trying to do. (At least in the economic and politics realm. Not so much with the racism and misogyny.) I didn’t vote for him (I wrote in Bernie’s name) but I had no idea he was going to turn out to be such a narcissistic crybaby who just hires criminals and family members (and yes, I realize what that Venn diagram looks like). 
The bigger question for me is how the hell, after 4 years, the dems ended up here. They’ve had all this time to plan, and in what should be the easiest election to win, their candidate is apparently being told to stay out of the spotlight because of fear what he’s going to say. If he is having significant mental decline they need to pull him now before the debates start, or Fox News is going to serve him on a platter. The dems have had 4 years to start laying a groundwork for this, and we’re STILL hearing stuff like Hillary might want to be a Vice President. Why hasn’t the DNC been working towards a populist anti Trump for 4 years?


----------



## philkilla

Hollowway said:


> Why hasn’t the DNC been working towards a populist anti Trump for 4 years?



Weren't they though? Up until a few months ago the list of Democratic candidates was huge. Allow me to speculate for a moment; the DNC is just as corrupt as our current administration and for "reasons" none of those candidates fit the bill.


----------



## Gortrocity

Because they spend this whole time trying to impeach him


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Gortrocity said:


> Because they spend this whole time trying to impeach him



The DNC is the campaign and funding committee of the Democratic Party, while it sets the running platform, it does not lead the party in day to day policy construction and individual voting, it holds . Those are more of speakership roles in individual houses, as well as voiced concerns from individual constituencies.


----------



## Ralyks

Bernie endorsing Biden. That's going to be tough for Bernie supporters to digest.


----------



## philkilla

I'm sure he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart.


----------



## Necris

I'm confused that people seem to find Sanders endorsing Biden to be a surprise. He's always said he would endorse the frontrunner; he eventually endorsed Clinton, why would it be unthinkable that he'd endorse Biden now?
The only people this can possibly be surprising to are liberals who were so unhinged post-2016 that they rewrote the story of that election to Bernie actively running against Clinton in their minds and Bernie-fans who weren't really paying attention, projected their contempt for the DNC onto Sanders and assumed it was a given he'd stick it to the DNC this time around.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Necris said:


> I'm confused that people seem to find Sanders endorsing Biden to be a surprise. He's always said he would endorse the frontrunner; he eventually endorsed Clinton, why would it be unthinkable that he'd endorse Biden now?
> The only people this can possibly be surprising to are liberals who were so unhinged post-2016 that they rewrote the story of that election to Bernie actively running against Clinton in their minds and Bernie-fans who weren't really paying attention, projected their contempt for the DNC onto Sanders and assumed it was a given he'd stick it to the DNC this time around.



Folks are mostly using it as a poor faith sticking point to sow further divide between the majority centrist and loud minority far left progressive wings of the party. 

It's conservative strategy pulled straight from every race since 2016.

Most progressives are pragmatic enough to ignore this and vote against the GOP vs. the few that will protest vote/not vote. 

Of course Biden needs to court Sanders supporters in earnest, but it's, overall, not the challenge some paint it as.


----------



## Boofchuck




----------



## MaxOfMetal

Boofchuck said:


> View attachment 79540



I don't care who you are. That's fucking funny.


----------



## jaxadam

The only thing progressive about Biden is his dementia.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> The only thing progressive about Biden is his dementia.



I'd never call him a "progressive", but i_f he's to be believed_ his own positions have steadily trended more progressive since prior to serving as VP, at a time when most centrists have either dug in or moved slightly right.

Again, that's a big "if". It's certainly a good move to align himself with certain policies at this juncture, how that shakes out post November is anyone's guess.

https://www.ontheissues.org/joe_biden.htm

Imagine being such a dumpster fire that you make Joe Fucking Biden seem like a viable option.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Imagine being such a dumpster fire that you make Joe Fucking Biden seem like a Republican.



FTFY


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> FTFY



He's pretty much the most milquetoast centrist you can find. His blood type is practically Wonder Bread.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> He's pretty much the most milquetoast centrist you can find. His blood type is practically Wonder Bread.



It's funny that he'll be running against an incognito democrat (Trump) in the fall.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> It's funny that he'll be running against an incognito socialist (Trump) in the fall.



FTFY

Mostly kidding of course, a one time payment is far from defining of his political beliefs, which are mostly non-existent. 

Though it's weird, you're like the third or fourth person I've run into who's mentioned that this week.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Drew

Necris said:


> I'm confused that people seem to find Sanders endorsing Biden to be a surprise. He's always said he would endorse the frontrunner; he eventually endorsed Clinton, why would it be unthinkable that he'd endorse Biden now?
> The only people this can possibly be surprising to are liberals who were so unhinged post-2016 that they rewrote the story of that election to Bernie actively running against Clinton in their minds and Bernie-fans who weren't really paying attention, projected their contempt for the DNC onto Sanders and assumed it was a given he'd stick it to the DNC this time around.


There's a little bit of revisionist history there, though. He did endorse Clinton in 2016. Until about 72 hours before the convention, it was really unclear if he would, and one of his team's big sticking points was he was unhappy about which night he was going to be the keynote speaker. 

What's surprising isn't that he endorsed Biden - I think that was more likely than not, trying to be pretty objective - but rather the fact he did it _now_, and he didn't insist on another 2016-style protracted fight leading into the convention telling his supporters he still had a chance to win the whole while. Word is his advisors were being pragmatic here, and thought a clean end to the primary and a graceful capituation to reality would put him in a far stronger bargaining position without the bad blood of 2016. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd never call him a "progressive", but i_f he's to be believed_ his own positions have steadily trended more progressive since prior to serving as VP, at a time when most centrists have either dug in or moved slightly right.


I don't know about that - I think it's easy to lose track of how far LEFT the Democratic establishment has moved since 2008. Every single candidate, possibly but only possibly excepting Bloomberg as I really don't remember, was calling for a $15 minimum wage this time around, for example. Joe Biden is "conservative" compared to Bernie because he wants a public option rather than Medicare for All, but thats still left of where the ACA finally came in (to be fair, Obama had supported a public option there, as well, but he was left of the party in that respect and couldn't muster the support to get it done). 

I think it's easy to say, _today_, that the DNC hasn't budged, because there hasn't been a ton of leftward movement in 2020. I think if you step bac, though, the whole field is left of where Clinton was in 2016, and she was left of Obama in 2008. Bernie probably deserves a lot of credit for that, though I'd be remiss not to point out the _huge_ role Warren had in setting the parameters of policy in this primary.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> FTFY
> 
> Mostly kidding of course, a one time payment is far from defining of his political beliefs, which are mostly non-existent.
> 
> Though it's weird, you're like the third or fourth person I've run into who's mentioned that this week.



Where did we run into each other? One of the Great Lakes MAGA rallies? I didn't recognize you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Where did we run into each other? One of the Great Lakes MAGA rallies? I didn't recognize you.



I was wearing this shirt:




And wrap around shades, because of course wrap around shades.


----------



## Randy

100%, if Biden were President today there would be no direct financial assistance checks FWIW


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> 100%, if Biden were President today there would be no direct financial assistance checks FWIW


Because Biden wouldn't sign it, or because the Republican-controlled Senate would want to screw him at every opportunity?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Because Biden wouldn't sign it, or because the Republican-controlled Senate would want to screw him at every opportunity?



Because the Treasury Secretary was the first person to signal that interest, and it would've been dependent on Biden and his cabinet to come up with it. Pelosi famously rejected the idea during caucus meetings and I don't remember Obama sending out any direct financial assistance checks at any stage of the recession, so nothing in history or the make-up of this party indicates any interest in going there until Trump did.


----------



## tedtan

While that's true, the current situation (e.g., shutting the economy down due to a pandemic) is quite a bit different from a recession resulting from the real estate bubble bursting due to overly risky lending and investing, or anything else anyone alive in the western world has experienced before, so its hard to predict what past presidents would have done under these circumstances.


----------



## Randy

That's fine but it doesn't answer Pelosi's posture on THIS specific bill.

EDIT: Also, it didn't take a pandemic to get GWB to send out tax rebate checks either.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Not that I'm complaining, but one time cash payments aren't all that helpful to the majority of Americans, speaking big picture, and that's if you qualify for them and you happen to live in an area where the particular amount is even helpful. 

I'm glad that people got them, and I really hope they help people, and I think they generally will.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> That's fine but it doesn't answer Pelosi's posture on THIS specific bill.
> 
> EDIT: Also, it didn't take a pandemic to get GWB to send out tax rebate checks either.



No, it doesn't.

But being in the position to actually make such a decision changes things.

Like you, I expected more from the democrats and was surprised to see it coming from Trump. But his approval rating was falling, and even if he won't admit it, he knows he screwed the pooch in handling the corona virus, so he's probably going by his gut to bribe his way back into favorable ratings.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not that I'm complaining, but one time cash payments aren't all that helpful to the majority of Americans, speaking big picture, and that's if you qualify for them and you happen to live in an area where the particular amount is even helpful.
> 
> I'm glad that people got them, and I really hope they help people, and I think they generally will.





tedtan said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> But being in the position to actually make such a decision changes things.
> 
> Like you, I expected more from the democrats and was surprised to see it coming from Trump. But his approval rating was falling, and even if he won't admit it, he knows he screwed the pooch in handling the corona virus, so he's probably going by his gut to bribe his way back into favorable ratings.



I'm in agreement, I guess I just wanted to point out that the Pelosi offer of tax credits is/was unforgivable, and the 'adults in the room' establishment wing that have officially seized the identity of the party for the next 4 to 5 years, and this was their first gesture of how they help Americans in their time of need. Not a good look.

Democrats should be able to make their appeal for leadership independent of Donald Trump. When they come out SHORT of what he's doing (regardless of his intentions), that's an unsettling situation. I'm either in fear of their ability to defeat him due to 'out-of-touchness', or worried about their capability to lead if they're handed the near certain win.

Considering the last two primaries were the battle between progressives and moderates, and the ability to appeal to both, this was like... the absolute worst look possible.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I'm in agreement, I guess I just wanted to point out that the Pelosi offer of tax credits is/was unforgivable, and the 'adults in the room' establishment wing that have officially seized the identity of the party for the next 4 to 5 years, and this was their first gesture of how they help Americans in their time of need. Not a good look.
> 
> Democrats should be able to make their appeal for leadership independent of Donald Trump. When they come out SHORT of what he's doing (regardless of his intentions), that's an unsettling situation. I'm either in fear of their ability to defeat him due to 'out-of-touchness', or worried about their capability to lead if they're handed the near certain win.
> 
> Considering the last two primaries were the battle between progressives and moderates, and the ability to appeal to both, this was like... the absolute worst look possible.





Trump and the GOP called Pelosi's bluff and it exploded in her, and the Democratic Establishment as a whole's face. It was the perfect opportunity for them to swing left on the rebound but they chickened out. This should cost Pelosi speakership, but it of course won't. 

Again, the "we're not as bad as Trump...probably" is an absolutely awful strategy.


----------



## Randy

Slow and Steady Centrism Doesn’t Cut It When Everything Is Going to Hell All at Once



> The big man himself, Obama, said in his video endorsement of Biden that his own 2008 platform would be inadequate to address current challenges; he even disparaged, dare I say _belittled_, the idea of responding to a crisis by proposing new tax credits.


----------



## jaxadam

Here's the guy...

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-stumbles-televised-interview-coronavirus-192859533.html


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Here's the guy...
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/biden-stumbles-televised-interview-coronavirus-192859533.html



Ok, I get that Biden can't talk great, but are we going to pretend Trump has proven to be the most eloquent talker?
Hold on, need to make my cofveve...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Ok, I get that Biden can't talk great, but are we going to pretend Trump has proven to be the most eloquent talker?
> Hold on, need to make my cofveve...



Whataboutism isn't a great look on either side. We chose Biden, and we have to reckon with his faults. 

Let's not let both sides lack introspection. 

Trying to play off Biden as _the real_ mush brained predator is merely the latest conservative doublespeak. Just like framing Trump as somehow _the real_ democrat in the race.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just like framing Trump as somehow _the real_ democrat in the race.



He telegraphed this in the Super Bowl ad, where it was all about how he's done more about social justice than Dems because he freed a black woman jailed for non-violent drug offense. Numbers don't shape up to wear he can win the race on "build the wall" voters alone, so he's trying to siphon off disenfranchised Dems.


----------



## jaxadam

Uh oh...

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/19/8379...rmer-biden-staffers-sexual-assault-allegation


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Uh oh...
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/04/19/8379...rmer-biden-staffers-sexual-assault-allegation



I caught the "The Daily" podcast the other day about this. It puts progressives in a tough position. On one hand, there's definitely a strong push not to doubt the stories of the people who speak out about sexual assault, but simultaneously, ..it's so hard to believe this one. This sort of thing stands out as being weirdly out of character for anyone but like a poorly written made-for-TV movie abusive husband:

"Reade said that she pulled away and that Biden pointed his finger at her and said, "You're nothing to me, nothing.""


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I caught the "The Daily" podcast the other day about this. It puts progressives in a tough position. On one hand, there's definitely a strong push not to doubt the stories of the people who speak out about sexual assault, but simultaneously, ..it's so hard to believe this one. This sort of thing stands out as being weirdly out of character for anyone but like a poorly written made-for-TV movie abusive husband:
> 
> "Reade said that she pulled away and that Biden pointed his finger at her and said, "You're nothing to me, nothing.""



Investigate in earnest and let the voters decide. 

The really sad thing is, I don't see this changing anyone's opinion in this race, regardless of what shakes out. 

Conservatives were never going to vote for him anymore, and progressives are already prepared to sell their souls for four years of not-Trump. 

I see little advantage for the GOP to push this so hard, as the immediate thought, mentioned above, is that Trump himself has had a number of allegations against him. You'd think they wouldn't want to throw stones in a glass house. Then again, it's not like the "deplorables" care.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> prepared to sell their souls for four years of not-Trump



Waiting to hear the Democratic hypocrisy on this one. Lots of people that said Franken et al deserved a painful political death over this ("All allegation must be taken seriously""It's insulting to victims to presume they're making it up, regardless of the evidence or lackthereof""You have to do the right thing regardless of politics", etc)

Would like to see how Never Trumpers are going to resolve this one. Promote Stacey Abrams to the top of the ticket?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Waiting to hear the Democratic hypocrisy on this one. Lots of people that said Franken et al deserved a painful political death over this ("All allegation must be taken seriously""It's insulting to victims to presume they're making it up, regardless of the evidence or lackthereof""You have to do the right thing regardless of politics", etc)
> 
> Would like to see how Never Trumpers are going to resolve this one. Promote Stacey Abrams to the top of the ticket?



They'll resolve it how they always have, by pretending it never happened and dying a little inside.


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> They'll resolve it how they always have, by pretending it never happened and dying a little inside.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm in agreement, I guess I just wanted to point out that the Pelosi offer of tax credits is/was unforgivable, and the 'adults in the room' establishment wing that have officially seized the identity of the party for the next 4 to 5 years, and this was their first gesture of how they help Americans in their time of need. Not a good look.
> 
> Democrats should be able to make their appeal for leadership independent of Donald Trump. When they come out SHORT of what he's doing (regardless of his intentions), that's an unsettling situation. I'm either in fear of their ability to defeat him due to 'out-of-touchness', or worried about their capability to lead if they're handed the near certain win.
> 
> Considering the last two primaries were the battle between progressives and moderates, and the ability to appeal to both, this was like... the absolute worst look possible.


I think this is a more complex question than you're giving it credit for. 

Let's start by agknowledging the 800 pound gorilla in the room - A $1200 check isn't nothing, especially if you and your partner both meet income levels and you have a kid or two to boot... But, for most americans, that buys them, what, maybe the better part of a month of food, rent/mortgage, car payments, utilities, etc? Maybe a couple weeks? This is a bandaid. A very showy band-aid, at that, and one that - at the cost of a couple extra days's delays and some political wrangling because Trump isn't actually an authorized Signer at the Treasury - came emblazoned with Trump's name on the memo line. I was an advocate of helicopter money in response to this early on too, but this is far too little to egt most Americans through what's coming. Trump chose political theater, plain and simple. 

Right or wrong, the Democrats were less focused on showy largesse so much as a two-pronged approach: 

1) provide buisiness loans that offered the possibility of debt forgiveness down the road to firms who didn't lay off employees, to keep as many Americans employed as possible, and 
2) boosted unemployment benefits by an extra $600 a week to ensure that Americans who DID get laid off were better able to make ends meet while the economy remains shut down. 

Two interesting things I'd note about this approach. One, I fully concede the irony of the Democrats trying to use corporations as a conduit to drive money to working Americans while the GOP went for stimulus checks, but in the log run keeping Americans getting their regular paychecks during a shutdown would put a LOT more money into working Americans' pockets as this drags on than a single $1200/taxpayer check. And two, despite staunch GOP opposition to the second approach to the second item because it meant workers would often be better off receiving unemployment than they had been working and conservatives in Congress thought this would create a disincentive to find a job if you were laid off, the opposite actually happened - it appears that companies were faster to lay people off than expected, because they felt less guilty about doing it knowing their employees would likely be taking home more money receiving unemployment than they had previously made. Not sure which party comes out looking better on that one, but it's a bizarre unintended consequence, and those are always worth thinking about. 

But, if we're going to say the Democrats came out of this looking stupid because the Trump administration was the first to suggest $1200 direct payments, we should at least pause and note that it was the Democrats who were trying to stop people from getting laid off in the first place, and who ensured that anyone collecting unemployment would receive more government stimulus benefits after anything more than two weeks, and _would continue to do so on an ongoing basis_, than Trump's lump sum publicity stunt. 

You could argue that Trump won the political battle, by going for the showy-but-ultimately-not-that-helpful solution while the Democrats were burning political capital to get something done that would have a far bigger longer-term benefit to working Americans, and I'd say you probably wouldn't be wrong to do so... But, ultimately, if what we're talking about here is who's doing the most to _help people_, then is winning the political inside baseball game really what matters here?


----------



## SpaceDock

Now that we know Biden will get the nomination, who do you think will be the VP choice? I am thinking Warren would be very hard to beat but I don’t know if she would take it. Cuomo would be hilarious! 

I’ve heard that if Biden chooses a female running mate that Trump is going to swap out Pence for Nikki Hailey but who knows...


----------



## bostjan

Some friends of mine are currently unable to access any of the small business grants, even though they had applied right away. Probably in much of the USA, $600 isn't going to be make or break for anyone. For example, $600 in NE Vermont is like a week and a half rent for an average apartment, or maybe a couple weeks of groceries for a family of four.

Biden needs to think long and hard about his strategy at this point, especially his running mate, if he wants to put up any sort of a fight at all.


----------



## SpaceDock

All the business loans went straight to very profitable companies that weren’t the people who need it. Shake Shack is the poster boy for now but I bet it will be the most repugnant companies that sucked up the money meant for Mom and Pop shops.


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> All the business loans went straight to very profitable companies that weren’t the people who need it. Shake Shack is the poster boy for now but I bet it will be the most repugnant companies that sucked up the money meant for Mom and Pop shops.



Our local university took a $3M bailout grant and then announced they were closing because they were too deep in debt from refunding students for room and board for half a semester. There were 1200 students there. So... I guess $2500 per student wasn't enough to refund each student $1600? Erg?

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we will see a lot more of this sort of thing. Business need to have some incentive to spend the money on something useful.


----------



## Vyn

bostjan said:


> Our local university took a $3M bailout grant and then announced they were closing because they were too deep in debt from refunding students for room and board for half a semester. There were 1200 students there. So... I guess $2500 per student wasn't enough to refund each student $1600? Erg?
> 
> Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we will see a lot more of this sort of thing. Business need to have some incentive to spend the money on something useful.



I vaguely remember a quote a long way back saying that "America is a land of opportunity." The reality is much closer to "America is a land of screwing the other guy to get yourself as far ahead as possible."


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Stuff



I don't think the $600 unemployment boost and the $1200 are an 'either or' though. Keep in mind the $1200 is labeled as a 'stimulus' check and was a direct reaction to the stock market volatility. I mean, it's chicken and egg because the market was reacting to layoffs and shutdowns (or the projection of) but the stimulus was meant to signal people being incentivized to 'go out and buy shit', as opposed to the unemployment, which is supposed to go toward living expenses. That's the reason why the $1200 goes to "everybody" (sans upper class), regardless of job status and geography.

I think the $600/wk. thing was definitely the finer moment among Democrats. The right thing, the right way, at the right time. Ish. Still hasn't filtered down to contractors, gig workers and self employed yet, who are the most vulnerable in this. But that seems to be red tape moreso than failure by design, so we'll see how patience pays off there. Either way, I'll note that as a Democrat win where they deserve one.

But ooph, please tell me you're not gonna put PPP on the Dems. If they were even sitting at the table when that was negotiated, they're just as swampy as the guys on the other side of the table.

One of the worst trespasses of the PPP was exactly what you're notching as a win. Using employment incentives as the motive and fulcrum of the loans was a DISASTER. More about this below, but the fact is, the businesses that needed the loans the most were industries and geographically located places where they were closed, and the employees were all laid off for weeks to a month before the bill even passed. By design, businesses that were NOT impacted by this directly were better positioned to apply for and "win" these funds. Places like hair salons or diners were THE most hard hit by this, and they can't show the type of employment numbers or capital the SBA or lenders wanted to see to prioritize their apps.

I hope the Dems were like, totally not involved with this at all or I might have to quit this party, jesus christ. I think it's owed to the people in this country to answer why the PPP ended up the way it did, especially things like the "500 employee or less" cap being changed to "500 employees or less PER LOCATION" cap. Whoever changed that and whoever was complicit in that or let it sneak by should never work in public office again. 



bostjan said:


> Some friends of mine are currently unable to access any of the small business grants, even though they had applied right away. Probably in much of the USA, $600 isn't going to be make or break for anyone. For example, $600 in NE Vermont is like a week and a half rent for an average apartment, or maybe a couple weeks of groceries for a family of four.



I wouldn't minimize the $600/wk thing. That's SUPPOSED to be ontop of normal unemployment benefits. Most people I know who are getting this are making more than they were when they were working by a large margin. I know a guy averaging $800 per pay period (2 weeks) averaging $2200 for the same period. That's very generous.



SpaceDock said:


> All the business loans went straight to very profitable companies that weren’t the people who need it. Shake Shack is the poster boy for now but I bet it will be the most repugnant companies that sucked up the money meant for Mom and Pop shops.





bostjan said:


> Our local university took a $3M bailout grant and then announced they were closing because they were too deep in debt from refunding students for room and board for half a semester. There were 1200 students there. So... I guess $2500 per student wasn't enough to refund each student $1600? Erg?
> 
> Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we will see a lot more of this sort of thing. Business need to have some incentive to spend the money on something useful.



That's the issue with the PPP in a nutshell. The employment and capital numbers I mentioned above, along with the fact they were still operating; so they had things like loan/grant writers, accountants, HR, etc. that were still working and available to provide all of that.

Also, by design, "bigger" companies are better outfitted to apply and "win". The SBA figured they were doing a good thing by having banks process the applications because, perceivably, the bank "knows" their companies better, are better scaled to serve and make sure the money is dispersed within the community.

The problem being, who do you think has a better relationship with the bank? A nail salon a woman runs off the side of her house or a mom and pop who run a luncheonette, a small family owned electronics repair shop, or a residential property developer that's takes out millions of dollars in loans at a clip, has millions of dollars in payroll and tens of millions of dollars in property and capital? Likewise, assuming the SBA is paying the banks for their participation, that will likely be proportional to the amount of money they give out; and thus, the bank more inclined to prioritize higher volume borrowers.

And even if you think the role of the government and the loans is not entirely altruistic, and it's meant to prioritize saving jobs by volume, the PPP still misses the mark. You have two basic scenarios:

1- Shake Shack scenario, where they don't need the money anyway. In their case, they were in minimal danger in the first place but besides that, they gave back the $10 million when they secured $75 million on their own. So if the money doesn't go to save jobs, and it's not meant to help the most endangered, then it's what, a pat on the back?

Or

2- The scenario bostjan described, where the money goes to an institution so large that they gobble up a few million dollars of grant money, and that still doesn't fill their budget, and they close and fire everyone anyway? With the kinds of expenses some of these places have, a PPP loan helps them to offset their employees healthcare for a month, and then they're back to zero and they close anyway. 

I read an article yesterday about a husband and wife restaurant, decent sized that had I think 8 employees. With the shutdowns, they laid off all but one person. Applied to the PPP, got approved for I think $200,000. Mostly for expenses and to retain the one guy, then Mnuchin altered the criteria for forgiveness toward 75% compensation requirement after the loan was already approved. As of the time the article, they were weighing closing for good or having to pay most of the loan back with interest since the criteria changed so much they barely qualified for forgiveness.

Who do any of those three scenarios benefit?


----------



## possumkiller

Trump should probably swap pence out with his wife or daughter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Trump should probably swap out his wife for daughter.



This is how I read that.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is how I read that.


Yeah it was a toss up between that and he should make his wife VP and his daughter first lady.


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> Yeah it was a toss up between that and he should make his wife VP and his daughter first lady.


...then make Pence his daughter... brilliant!


Randy said:


> I don't think the $600 unemployment boost and the $1200 are an 'either or' though. Keep in mind the $1200 is labeled as a 'stimulus' check and was a direct reaction to the stock market volatility. I mean, it's chicken and egg because the market was reacting to layoffs and shutdowns (or the projection of) but the stimulus was meant to signal people being incentivized to 'go out and buy shit', as opposed to the unemployment, which is supposed to go toward living expenses. That's the reason why the $1200 goes to "everybody" (sans upper class), regardless of job status and geography.
> 
> I think the $600/wk. thing was definitely the finer moment among Democrats. The right thing, the right way, at the right time. Ish. Still hasn't filtered down to contractors, gig workers and self employed yet, who are the most vulnerable in this. But that seems to be red tape moreso than failure by design, so we'll see how patience pays off there. Either way, I'll note that as a Democrat win where they deserve one.
> 
> But ooph, please tell me you're not gonna put PPP on the Dems. If they were even sitting at the table when that was negotiated, they're just as swampy as the guys on the other side of the table.
> 
> One of the worst trespasses of the PPP was exactly what you're notching as a win. Using employment incentives as the motive and fulcrum of the loans was a DISASTER. More about this below, but the fact is, the businesses that needed the loans the most were industries and geographically located places where they were closed, and the employees were all laid off for weeks to a month before the bill even passed. By design, businesses that were NOT impacted by this directly were better positioned to apply for and "win" these funds. Places like hair salons or diners were THE most hard hit by this, and they can't show the type of employment numbers or capital the SBA or lenders wanted to see to prioritize their apps.
> 
> I hope the Dems were like, totally not involved with this at all or I might have to quit this party, jesus christ. I think it's owed to the people in this country to answer why the PPP ended up the way it did, especially things like the "500 employee or less" cap being changed to "500 employees or less PER LOCATION" cap. Whoever changed that and whoever was complicit in that or let it sneak by should never work in public office again.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't minimize the $600/wk thing. That's SUPPOSED to be ontop of normal unemployment benefits. Most people I know who are getting this are making more than they were when they were working by a large margin. I know a guy averaging $800 per pay period (2 weeks) averaging $2200 for the same period. That's very generous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the issue with the PPP in a nutshell. The employment and capital numbers I mentioned above, along with the fact they were still operating; so they had things like loan/grant writers, accountants, HR, etc. that were still working and available to provide all of that.
> 
> Also, by design, "bigger" companies are better outfitted to apply and "win". The SBA figured they were doing a good thing by having banks process the applications because, perceivably, the bank "knows" their companies better, are better scaled to serve and make sure the money is dispersed within the community.
> 
> The problem being, who do you think has a better relationship with the bank? A nail salon a woman runs off the side of her house or a mom and pop who run a luncheonette, a small family owned electronics repair shop, or a residential property developer that's takes out millions of dollars in loans at a clip, has millions of dollars in payroll and tens of millions of dollars in property and capital? Likewise, assuming the SBA is paying the banks for their participation, that will likely be proportional to the amount of money they give out; and thus, the bank more inclined to prioritize higher volume borrowers.
> 
> And even if you think the role of the government and the loans is not entirely altruistic, and it's meant to prioritize saving jobs by volume, the PPP still misses the mark. You have two basic scenarios:
> 
> 1- Shake Shack scenario, where they don't need the money anyway. In their case, they were in minimal danger in the first place but besides that, they gave back the $10 million when they secured $75 million on their own. So if the money doesn't go to save jobs, and it's not meant to help the most endangered, then it's what, a pat on the back?
> 
> Or
> 
> 2- The scenario bostjan described, where the money goes to an institution so large that they gobble up a few million dollars of grant money, and that still doesn't fill their budget, and they close and fire everyone anyway? With the kinds of expenses some of these places have, a PPP loan helps them to offset their employees healthcare for a month, and then they're back to zero and they close anyway.
> 
> I read an article yesterday about a husband and wife restaurant, decent sized that had I think 8 employees. With the shutdowns, they laid off all but one person. Applied to the PPP, got approved for I think $200,000. Mostly for expenses and to retain the one guy, then Mnuchin altered the criteria for forgiveness toward 75% compensation requirement after the loan was already approved. As of the time the article, they were weighing closing for good or having to pay most of the loan back with interest since the criteria changed so much they barely qualified for forgiveness.
> 
> Who do any of those three scenarios benefit?


To put into perspective, maybe I should have mentioned that the university that is closing is the 7th largest employer in our region. Perhaps, though, they have employed more people than they should have to maintain operations. They were the largest employer in their town, after the biggest manufacturer there went through restructuring and downsizing a couple years ago, and is now 1/4 of the size it was ten years ago. The campus closing will bolster the 3rd largest employer in the region, which is the unemployment office (!).

The region where I live has only a few confirmed cases of coronavirus; however, as the economy here has been teetering on the edge of a major meltdown for seven or eight years, there is no doubt in my mind that we will see a lot of businesses shutter permanently because of this. Our largest employers when I moved here were manufacturing plants, and we had a booming retail economy. Since then, though, the chamber of commerce ran a Walmart out of town, trying to bring in more retail jobs, manufacturers have mostly closed or moved where the taxes are better, the young people mostly left the area, and the retail stores have had to close due to lack of business. Now our ten biggest employers are almost all either ski resorts, schools, or hospitals. The virus already decimated the end of ski season and closed the schools, and the hospitals are falling apart at the seams right now, by closing themselves off to all non-emergency patients (which is how they made most of their income). The future here looks bleak for the next ten years, but maybe something will spark a comeback.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I don't think the $600 unemployment boost and the $1200 are an 'either or' though. Keep in mind the $1200 is labeled as a 'stimulus' check and was a direct reaction to the stock market volatility. I mean, it's chicken and egg because the market was reacting to layoffs and shutdowns (or the projection of) but the stimulus was meant to signal people being incentivized to 'go out and buy shit', as opposed to the unemployment, which is supposed to go toward living expenses. That's the reason why the $1200 goes to "everybody" (sans upper class), regardless of job status and geography.
> 
> I think the $600/wk. thing was definitely the finer moment among Democrats. The right thing, the right way, at the right time. Ish. Still hasn't filtered down to contractors, gig workers and self employed yet, who are the most vulnerable in this. But that seems to be red tape moreso than failure by design, so we'll see how patience pays off there. Either way, I'll note that as a Democrat win where they deserve one.


Well, my point here was, if were going to fault rthe Democrats for not leading the charge on direct stimulus checks, let's at least note that we're not talking large sums of money - cerntainly not enough for "ten weeks" as Mnuchen has claimed - and that they were far more focused on expanding unemployment access and raising the maximum, and were expending their political captial on that. 

Fair points on PPP - I'll confess I've been FAR more focused on the Fed response and the impact on caital markets, for professional reasons, than on what Congress has done. I just think that from even what II HAVE been able to follow, though, the Dems deserve a lot more credit than uyou're giving here, for the fights they chose to pick (and won). 

Their digging in their heels to ensure proper oversight didn't buy us much, unfortunately, since Trump just went and fired the guy who had been named to oversee the stimulus loans.


----------



## jaxadam

Here is the democratic party's nominee:

https://twitter.com/ChrisNYCyankee/status/1251112140708208640


----------



## Randy

At this point, the debates will just be a battle of who doesn't slip in their own drool puddle.


----------



## Randy

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/joe-biden-progessives-2020.html



> Here is the mindset of a political organizer: No one candidate will ever be a perfect leader in any movement’s eyes. Activists accept they’ll have to put political pressure on—and occasionally argue with—_whoever_ wins the election. The question, for them, is which elected official they’d rather be up against, considering the respective communities the candidates are beholden to and their respective abilities to be swayed. Would Ocasio-Cortez rather push Trump to halt deportations, or Biden? Would #MeToo activists rather mobilize for sexual harassment legislation under a Trump administration, or a Biden one? It’s not about accepting a lesser of two evils. It’s about choosing an opponent.


----------



## Ralyks

So we cancelled our democratic primary in NY. And boy are the Bernie supporters pissed. But like... He dropped out. What's getting delegates going to do? At that point it's a dick waving contest, and I honestly don't think Bernie would have done so hot here anyway.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> So we cancelled our democratic primary in NY. And boy are the Bernie supporters pissed. But like... He dropped out. What's getting delegates going to do? At that point it's a dick waving contest, and I honestly don't think Bernie would have done so hot here anyway.



It's still not a good look. Cuomo endorsed Biden from the beginning. They rescheduled the Democratic primary once and maybe twice, then Bernie was fighting to stay on the ballot in NYS last week, and Cuomo unceremoniously cancelled the primary in the state. This is the same NYS that made you register 14 months in advance the last time Bernie was on the ballot here.

Sets a bad precedent. Okay, Bernie's going to lose the primary and maybe lose NYS. So what's our threshold for cutting off primaries when we decide a candidate no longer looks viable? Is NYS going to be so quick to cancel the general election when we're still neck deep in COVID-19 cases in November? Give the votes to the presumptive winner? It's unnecessarily messy.


----------



## Randy

Andrew Yang sues over New York’s shutdown of presidential primary:
The former Democratic candidate argues that axing the primary would deny voters due process and hurt down-ballot candidates.


----------



## sleewell

if he was still in the race there might be a better point but it seems dumb to hold a primary in the middle of pandemic with only one candidate to vote for. WI was also voting for a state supreme court seat and it was still a really bad look forcing people to go out and vote.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> if he was still in the race there might be a better point but it seems dumb to hold a primary in the middle of pandemic with only one candidate to vote for. WI was also voting for a state supreme court seat and it was still a really bad look forcing people to go out and vote.



It's a great opportunity to set an example and do mail-in.


----------



## sleewell

fair point, i would agree i guess.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Andrew Yang sues over New York’s shutdown of presidential primary:
> The former Democratic candidate argues that axing the primary would deny voters due process and hurt down-ballot candidates.



If he's no longer on the ballot, does he even have standing to sue?


----------



## bostjan

Since the parties are not a part of the government, are not regulated by the government, and are basically like an open private club, I am not sure anybody would have any special standing in a court of law whether they were on the ballot or not.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Since the parties are not a part of the government, are not regulated by the government, and are basically like an open private club, I am not sure anybody would have any special standing in a court of law whether they were on the ballot or not.


I think, if the primary happened to correspond with a state election (this was the case in... Wisconsin, I think it was, that the courts ordered they had to go ahead since the governor didn't have authority to cancel or delay the election without an act of congress...?) then a down-ballot candidate might have standing here. I'm not sure it's really clear how Yang would, though.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I think, if the primary happened to correspond with a state election (this was the case in... Wisconsin, I think it was, that the courts ordered they had to go ahead since the governor didn't have authority to cancel or delay the election without an act of congress...?) then a down-ballot candidate might have standing here. I'm not sure it's really clear how Yang would, though.


Well, the rules for primaries are different in every state, essentially. A person would only have grounds for a lawsuit if they can claim physical, emotional, or economic injury due to the negligence or malice of another individual, company, or group. So, in the case of NY's primary, what are the grounds? Who was injured, and in what way? I'm sure there are some ways to stretch things one direction or another to find grounds, but I don't see how it's clear whether it's Yang or Sanders bringing the suit. It seems like the party is actually deciding things in a way that does the least amount of damage with other court decisions in mind. I'm not saying it's right, just that, with written law in mind, it seems paper-thin.

Sidebar topic, did anyone read Biden's letter regarding Reade's allegations? I read it. Not sure how to comment on it without starting a potential shitstorm, though.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Sidebar topic, did anyone read Biden's letter regarding Reade's allegations? I read it. Not sure how to comment on it without starting a potential shitstorm, though.


I haven't... but Daily Kos, of all places, having always been fairly pro-Bernie, was running a story earlier today that Reade's allegations _very_ closely mirror a sexual assault depicted in a novel her now-deceased father wrote in the mid-late 90s. I have no idea how credible this is, but I guess I also have no idea how credible her allegations are either.


----------



## vilk

Rapey dudes everywhere will seek out the daughters of authors who published fictional sexual assaults so that even if they get taken to court they can just hold up the book and say "What are the chances that the defendant sexually assaulted Ms. Soandso in the _exact _manner as was written in her father's novel? I rest my case, Your Honor."


----------



## iamaom

I'm curious as to why she's coming out just now, the dude was VP for 8 years and then not in office for 4, plenty of time to come out to stop him becoming VP due to being a "rapist" or to come out when he's not in office to not "politicize" it. I'm sorry if she was sexually assaulted, but coming forth with almost no evidence other than a vague complaint from decades ago is pointless from a legal or justice perspective; Kavanaugh's allegations held more water and that didn't stop him from becoming a scotus judge, dude didn't even stand formal trial just a heated job interview. If Reade's not doing this for political purposes then she chose the absolute worst time possible to do so.


----------



## Ralyks

Plus Reade was Pro Bernie and spoke favorable about Putin as recent as 2017.

Anyway, Biden asked for the compliant Reade made to be made public, so we'll see where that goes.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Rapey dudes everywhere will seek out the daughters of authors who published fictional sexual assaults so that even if they get taken to court they can just hold up the book and say "What are the chances that the defendant sexually assaulted Ms. Soandso in the _exact _manner as was written in her father's novel? I rest my case, Your Honor."


On a more serious note, though, this is the problem with this sort of crime. In a physical assault, there is the evidence of the victim having a scar or a black eye or whatever. With this sort of crime, physical evidence is often impossible to obtain, particularly after a significant amount of time has elapsed. Without physical evidence, it's two people's word against each other.

Whether gender is involved or not, it doesn't matter. It's a tough spot to be in as a jury member or judge or even as a responsible member of the public. Believing one person means disbelieving the other, right? In a criminal case, the default position is innocent unless proven guilty, so without physical evidence or someone contradicting their own statements, you cannot convict. But from the viewpoint of society, it doesn't work that way. You have people each coming to their own conclusion and then you see where the bulk of public opinion falls.

Biden has the "Creepy Uncle Joe" meme stuck to him by the right, and now this. Honestly, all of the defense of "there is no complaint on record" doesn't matter if she says she complained and her superiors in Washington brushed her off. In that case, her story is consistent with the facts, so it proves nothing. If she's pro-Bernie, maybe it looks bad, but maybe not as bad as it could look. Honestly, if she's telling the truth about this, I feel horrible for her, as the amount of scrutiny into everything she's ever said or done is going to blow up in the media- so much for a private life, but then I guess that's part of waiting until someone runs for president to go public with allegations. If it's just a smear tactic and nothing else, as horrible as it sounds, it still points out a lot of flaws.

So if the claims are substantiated, then what? Do we get a do-over for the primary or no?


----------



## Ralyks

bostjan said:


> So if the claims are substantiated, then what? Do we get a do-over for the primary or no?



My guess is either Bernie swoops in, or they beg Cuomo to reconsider running.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> Biden has the "Creepy Uncle Joe" meme stuck to him by the right



I'm not saying anything with regards to the allegations, but do you really think that nickname is unfounded?

Do you often smell an acquaintance's hair? Like shove your whole fucking schnoz in it?

The way the guy behaves physically towards women who are practically strangers to him is unusual to say the least.


----------



## SpaceDock

This is still a binary choice between Trump and Biden. Anyone who is considering Trump or doesn’t like Joe because of these allegations should head on over to the full wiki page on Trump allegations. There are around thirty ladies accusing Trump of stuff he has bragged about on record, “I just start kissing them and they let me do it” and “I was in charge of the pageants so I could walk into the dressing rooms like it’s an inspection, it’s very official.” Who knows if Biden actually fingered this lady and why she waits until 6 months before such an important election, I don’t think any of that matters. Do you like guy who might have fingered assistant or guy who has groped 30 ladies like a drunk coed? 

btw, the absolute ridiculousness of this coverage on Fox is just brain melting!


----------



## Ralyks

Ok, am I wrong that Bidens, let's say behavior, with women wasn't brought up much when he was VP? Or was I just really not paying attention?


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I'm not saying anything with regards to the allegations, but do you really think that nickname is unfounded?
> 
> Do you often smell an acquaintance's hair? Like shove your whole fucking schnoz in it?
> 
> The way the guy behaves physically towards women who are practically strangers to him is unusual to say the least.



Biden is the guy that I didn't know much about when Obama announced his running mate. I was just like, oh, okay, some old Senator. I guess whatever, cool. But, the more I learned about him, the more he makes me feel, IDK, "uncomfortable."

Like, GW Bush. I didn't particularly like the guy, but I honestly never had him pinned as a creep, then, years later, I hear that he's a creep. Trump, on the other hand, always seemed like a creep, and, well, we've seen how that turned out. Biden falls closer to the "always seemed a little on the creepy side" to me. Now, that's far from an endictment, and I wouldn't dare personally accuse him of doing stuff, but as the stories are coming out, my gut reaction is more "oh no" than "oh come on," you know what I mean? I guess I'm not good at subtlety, so maybe I shouldn't say anything.



Ralyks said:


> Ok, am I wrong that Bidens, let's say behavior, with women wasn't brought up much when he was VP? Or was I just really not paying attention?



Here's a list: https://www.businessinsider.com/joe...ear-old-girl-to-keep-the-guys-away-from-her-9 Everything I can see, whether it happened in the 90's 00's or 10's, wasn't reported in the media until 2019 or 2020. Metoo started four or five years ago, so where were the accusers then? I guess only the accusers can address that question. Is this all some sort of GOP/Trump master plan chess gambit of some sort? Maybe. But a lot of the "he made me feel uncomfortable" stuff has been documented in photos, but TBH, I think those are clearly not criminal acts. But they do help move public opinion that could have serious consequences when someone like Reade comes along.

Like I'm saying, IDK. If there's no evidence, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just doesn't mean that we know it did, either. And no one likes not knowing anything these days, aparently.


----------



## jaxadam

Of course he doesn’t remember!


----------



## Randy

Double standards abound!



Ralyks said:


> My guess is either Bernie swoops in, or they beg Cuomo to reconsider running.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> View attachment 80175



Oh, oh god no.


----------



## SpaceDock

Yeah right, Republicans wet dream


----------



## Necris

A Biden/Hillary ticket would be well-oiled machine purpose-built to lose to Trump.


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> well-oiled



Just the way Joe likes 'em!


----------



## possumkiller

Are they not planning to lose to Trump anyway? Was that not the plan in the first place?


----------



## Randy

More than anything, the Democratic Party is ruled by hubris. Didn't have to be Biden, didn't even have to be Bernie.

2016 all over again, where they push the "people will vote for us, no matter what" angle. I think the most maddening part of it is that Trump is beatable. Easily even.

Dems outnumber Republicans. Left leaning independents outnumber right. The numbers are there even before you get into crossover appeal or disenfranchised Republicans.

Literally all you need to do is run and NOT turn off 10% of your voters. And whether it's stupidity, arrogance or corruption, they can't go into a race without deliberately putting themselves at a disadvantage.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AWi-rD4G4TPKarhAfPPNdxA

So the complaint against Biden... Is being by the Senate? Doesn't exist? This is an odd one.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AWi-rD4G4TPKarhAfPPNdxA
> 
> So the complaint against Biden... Is being by the Senate? Doesn't exist? This is an odd one.



That wasn't my takeaway. The Secretary does not have the discretion to disclose. So the file(s) probably exist, but are guarded under Senate confidentiality rules.


----------



## Ralyks

So basically they can't get proof if Biden did what he's accused of or not?


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> So basically they can't get proof if Biden did what he's accused of or not?



If the proof exists, the secretary isn't releasing it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> So basically they can't get proof if Biden did what he's accused of or not?



She's full of shit. By her own admission, the story she put in the record was that he said she had nice legs and he stopped there. Nothing in victim psychology says someone would be brave enough to go the officials with something like this, then minimize it but tell her friends and neighbors the "truth" that he literally raped her. That's on top of the very fishy timing of this release and her very loaded history.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> She's full of shit. By her own admission, the story she put in the record was that he said she had nice legs and he stopped there. Nothing in victim psychology says someone would be brave enough to go the officials with something like this, then minimize it but tell her friends and neighbors the "truth" that he literally raped her. That's on top of the very fishy timing of this release and her very loaded history.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/



I don't know that, but I'm no psychologist. Why would she report him saying that she had nice legs? It seems like, in the culture of the mid 1990's, that'd either be a euphemism for something or it'd be very petty through the lens of the social norms of the time. I'd love to hear a convincing argument that she's lying, though, if that's truly the case.


----------



## Randy

I think he probably told her she has nice legs because, you know, *that's what she said* before she had 30 years of political capitol to spend. And I'm sure it was a come on, and I'm sure he was the same creepy guy with no idea of personal space. That's still a very big jump from being a creepy boss to jamming his fingers in her puss.

Also, this:



> During 2017 when Reade was praising Biden, she was condemning Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s efforts to hijack American democracy in the 2016 election. This changed in November 2018, when Reade trashed the United States as a country of “hypocrisy and imperialism” and “not a democracy at all but a corporate autocracy.”
> 
> Reade’s distaste for America closely tracked her new infatuation with Russia and Putin. She referred to Putin as a “genius” with an athletic prowess that “is intoxicating to American women.” Then there’s this gem: “President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity.”
> 
> In March 2019, Reade essentially dismissed the idea of Russian interference in the 2016 American presidential election as hype. She said she loved Russia and her Russian relatives — and "like most women across the world, I like President Putin … a lot, his shirt on or shirt off.”
> 
> Pivoting again this month, *Reade said that she “did not support Putin, and that her comments were pulled out of context from a novel she was writing,”* according to The Times. *The quotations above, however, are from political opinion pieces she published*, and she did not offer any other "context" to The Times.



Bolded for emphasis. Does this sound like a sane, credible person that's never lied about anything and wouldn't lie about this?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I think he probably told her she has nice legs because, you know, *that's what she said* before she had 30 years of political capitol to spend. And I'm sure it was a come on, and I'm sure he was the same creepy guy with no idea of personal space. That's still a very big jump from being a creepy boss to jamming his fingers in her puss.
> 
> Also, this:
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded for emphasis. Does this sound like a sane, credible person that's never lied about anything and wouldn't lie about this?



Getchya a girl who looks at you like Tara Reade looks at Putin.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, something that I might be reaching conspiracy theory levels with, but remember it came out that Russia was trying to help Bernies campaign? And she was a die hard Bernie supporter, and said those things about Russia?


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I think he probably told her she has nice legs because, you know, *that's what she said* before she had 30 years of political capitol to spend. And I'm sure it was a come on, and I'm sure he was the same creepy guy with no idea of personal space. That's still a very big jump from being a creepy boss to jamming his fingers in her puss.
> 
> Does this sound like a sane, credible person that's never lied about anything and wouldn't lie about this?



Maybe I was bad at communicating my point.

I don't think telling a coworker "you have nice legs" is appropriate, but I don't think it's a crime. I also don't think that telling a coworker that they have nice legs means that you are any less likely to behave even more inappropriately. I could see a plausible scenario where Ms. Reade went to report something and got frightened or embarrassed at the last minute and pulled her punches. Or maybe she's just really uncomfortable with being told that she has nice legs, who knows? I don't think that there's enough there to draw even the weakest conclusions.

If it happened to be that she was told by Biden that she had nice legs, and it made her uncomfortable, and then something else happened, and she went to report the something else, but got cold feet and instead reported the lesser incident, I don't think that really affects her credibility one way or the other either, but, if Biden was making inappropriate comments to his staff such as this, it could affect his credibility.

Or... maybe she is being paid off by Putin to throw another wrench into another US election, because we now know that's completely plausible as well. But without proof, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

As citizens/voters, I guess all we can do is wait and see and vote accordingly. If we get a choice between two creeps, then that's on these horrible political parties to answer why they keep nominating these sort of people to be in charge. It should say a lot about the parties themselves.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Honestly, I'm amazed at how different dems/liberals are responding to these accusations in comparison to the ones Kavanaugh got a couple years ago. Those had just a much or as little evidence depending on your pov as Reade's and she's not receiving the same benefit of the doubt.


----------



## jaxadam

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Honestly, I'm amazed at how different dems/liberals are responding to these accusations in comparison to the ones Kavanaugh got a couple years ago. Those had just a much or as little evidence depending on your pov as Reade's and she's not receiving the same benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Ralyks

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Honestly, I'm amazed at how different dems/liberals are responding to these accusations in comparison to the ones Kavanaugh got a couple years ago. Those had just a much or as little evidence depending on your pov as Reade's and she's not receiving the same benefit of the doubt.



Accusations against Kavanaugh were consistent. Reade has changed her stories and alliances numerous times, as documented earlier.

And if we're talking far left liberals, no, I know plenty who are calling for Bidens head at this point.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

For those not following very closely, I think this is a good read (no pun), and well nuanced: 

https://arcdigital.media/a-tale-of-two-scandals-a24504d6228a?gi=8f42d5c7b598


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Ralyks said:


> Accusations against Kavanaugh were consistent. Reade has changed her stories and alliances numerous times, as documented earlier.
> 
> And if we're talking far left liberals, no, I know plenty who are calling for Bidens head at this point.


I mean, all of Kav's accusations take place at high school and college parties where both the accused and the victims are presumably intoxicated and none of whom filed reports or even made a stink about it until Kav was up for SCOTUS. One of the alleged victim's friends doesn't even remember the incident happening even though she was at the location where took place. If the timing for this whole Biden thing is too much of a coincidence then it'd have to be in the former's case as well.

At least Reade has some kind of relevant "time stamp" with the Larry King phone call from her mother.

I'll agree with you that leftists are staying consistent but the "vote blue no matter who" and MeToo crowd is showing some blatant hypocrisy.


----------



## Ralyks

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> At least Reade has some kind of relevant "time stamp" with the Larry King phone call from her mother.



The vaugest phone call hint ever?
I mean, if Kavanugh can have a goddamn planner, I guess....

As for "vote blue no matter who", tell that to the progressive crowd. I'll wait.


----------



## Ralyks

oh, I just want to add very quickly since we're talking double standards:

Fuck Kirsten Gillibrand.

Ok, carry on.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Ralyks said:


> The vaugest phone call hint ever?
> I mean, if Kavanugh can have a goddamn planner, I guess....
> 
> As for "vote blue no matter who", tell that to the progressive crowd. I'll wait.


Vague call vs 3 vague stories out of a teen comedy, take your pick. 



Ralyks said:


> oh, I just want to add very quickly since we're talking double standards:
> 
> Fuck Kirsten Gillibrand.


Agreed


----------



## Randy

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Honestly, I'm amazed at how different dems/liberals are responding to these accusations in comparison to the ones Kavanaugh got a couple years ago. Those had just a much or as little evidence depending on your pov as Reade's and she's not receiving the same benefit of the doubt.



The reason why I frequently don't get along with my party: because party politics mean "my guy is flawless and your guy is unelectable".

Joe Biden is a creep, and maybe gropey. In fact, Reade's story may be entirely true. Donald Trump has at least a dozen sexual assault cases pending and on hold because of his position, and he's on tape literally saying he grabs women by the vagina like Biden is accused of.

I don't need to say "Biden is pure as fresh snow" to say, if we're using sexual assault as a litmus test, his accusations and the evidence to go along with them are less substantiated than the other guy. If he and Trump are both rapists and it's a choice between one rapist or the other, I'll take *not* the "good people on both sides" of a white supremacist rally guy.

Democratic Party and most voters can't bring themselves to admit that's the compromise they're making but I will.

All that baggage out of the way, I still think Reade has zero credibility.

And Kavanaugh accusations were 'too little, too late'. My bigger objection to Kavanaugh handling was the number of times a vote was being pushed before the accusations could be thoroughly investigated. The more facts the better regardless of who and what way they skew perceptions afterward.


----------



## gunch

Randy said:


> The reason why I frequently don't get along with my party: because party politics mean "my guy is flawless and your guy is unelectable".
> 
> Joe Biden is a creep, and maybe gropey. In fact, Reade's story may be entirely true. Donald Trump has at least a dozen sexual assault cases pending and on hold because of his position, and he's on tape literally saying he grabs women by the vagina like Biden is accused of.
> 
> I don't need to say "Biden is pure as fresh snow" to say, if we're using sexual assault as a litmus test, his accusations and the evidence to go along with them are less substantiated than the other guy. If he and Trump are both rapists and it's a choice between one rapist or the other, I'll take *not* the "good people on both sides" of a white supremacist rally guy.
> 
> Democratic Party and most voters can't bring themselves to admit that's the compromise they're making but I will.
> 
> All that baggage out of the way, I still think Reade has zero credibility.
> 
> And Kavanaugh accusations were 'too little, too late'. My bigger objection to Kavanaugh handling was the number of times a vote was being pushed before the accusations could be thoroughly investigated. The more facts the better regardless of who and what way they skew perceptions afterward.



You can thank our pal Mitch for that


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AmbP-R8LbSNCuv8xnyv3URQ

Looks like the NY primary is back on


----------



## Randy

Based on Yang's case, no less. Anyone here volunteering to eat crow about that? 

In more serious, less victory lap-y news, it's true this would've fucked up down ballot races mightily. NY should be working overtime on mail-in.


----------



## jaxadam

If you rearrange the letters in Tara Reade 1993 you get Trump 2020. You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 80373



Spelled "Donald Trump" wrong


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Based on Yang's case, no less. Anyone here volunteering to eat crow about that?
> 
> In more serious, less victory lap-y news, it's true this would've fucked up down ballot races mightily. NY should be working overtime on mail-in.



I would eat the crow, but I don't want to get corvid 19.

Only bird people will find that funny.

Hopefully this is a turnaround. 

You gotta wonder, though, how the hell we've ended up with the last two sets of candidates. No one likes them! Is this democracy? If we get Biden, the battle is far from over...


----------



## Ralyks

bostjan said:


> You gotta wonder, though, how the hell we've ended up with the last two sets of candidates. No one likes them! Is this democracy? If we get Biden, the battle is far from over...



The parties assume we want familiarity. Hilary was a former first lady, Biden was a former VP, Trump still is a B-list reality show asshole, etc.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The reason why I frequently don't get along with my party: because party politics mean "my guy is flawless and your guy is unelectable".
> 
> Joe Biden is a creep, and maybe gropey. In fact, Reade's story may be entirely true. Donald Trump has at least a dozen sexual assault cases pending and on hold because of his position, and he's on tape literally saying he grabs women by the vagina like Biden is accused of.
> 
> I don't need to say "Biden is pure as fresh snow" to say, if we're using sexual assault as a litmus test, his accusations and the evidence to go along with them are less substantiated than the other guy. If he and Trump are both rapists and it's a choice between one rapist or the other, I'll take *not* the "good people on both sides" of a white supremacist rally guy.
> 
> Democratic Party and most voters can't bring themselves to admit that's the compromise they're making but I will.
> 
> All that baggage out of the way, I still think Reade has zero credibility.
> 
> And Kavanaugh accusations were 'too little, too late'. My bigger objection to Kavanaugh handling was the number of times a vote was being pushed before the accusations could be thoroughly investigated. The more facts the better regardless of who and what way they skew perceptions afterward.


Eh, token Establishment Democrat checking in here, while I definitely see elements of that (with ANY candidate, from Trump on the right, to Biden and Sanders on the left), I think there's also a pretty open-eyed attitude on the part of most of the party. 

Let's be honest - Biden was a compromise candidate. He wasn't most of the party's first choice. Most of the party wanted a woman, wanted a minority candidate, wanted a younger candidate, or wanted a more progressive candidate. Biden eventually won because the two candidates with the most support were himself, and an old white Democratic socialist with as much vitriol for the DNC as for the GOP, and the majority of the party figured Biden was the better of the two choices. It's not like this is a party of true believers right now; Biden was simply the least worst option that would appeal to a majority of Democrats, who was still running. 

Again, Warren voter here. 

Biden's old. That's a concern. Biden has some clear issues with personal space, in a world that's become less tolerant of that. That's a concern, as well. 

What I have a much harder time believing, is Biden is a rapist. We have plenty of evidence of Biden doing stuff like smelling women's hair, or squeezing their shoulders, or touching them forehead to forehead, or patting them on the back or on the leg or something. We also have lots of evidence of him doing that to _men_. It's a clear pattern of behavior, and if someone said "he smelled my hair and it made me uncomfortable," I'd believe them. 

What we don't have is any evidence of him behaving in a sexually aggressive manner to someone, aside from this one accusation. Some of the above behaviors may have been interpreted as threatening, and Biden has to own that - one of the clear takeaways of MeToo is while intent matters, it also pales compared to reception, and you own actions that weren't intended to be threatening but were interpreted as such. But Reade's allegations aren't that he hugged her or squeezed her shoulder or smelled her hair, they're that he forced himself on her and, let's not split hairs, raped her. I think one of the most compelling points of the article Max shared above is the sort of people who feel permission to behave like that, never do it in a single isolated instance, and there aren't a LONG line of women coming forward with similar stories, like there were for Weinstein, or Trump. Add to that the fact she'd recently been involved in the Sanders campaign, the fact there seems to be no record of the complaint she claims she filed, the fact the Daily Kos reported her story mirrors perfectly the account of a rape in a novel her dad wrote several years before the allewged assault, and details like the Larry King recording she believes is her mother talking about her story, her mother claims she's motivated out of _respect_ for the Senator, which would be a weird reaction to being raped... 

So, yeah, I think we need to take any allegations seriously... But there's a number of reasons to suggest these allegations aren't terribly credible, so I also don't think we need to start freaking out about Biden's viability just yet. If over time the allegations become more and more credible, then yeah, we might want to consider drafting a better compromise candidate - "less rapey than the other guy" is a tough platform to get behind. I just don't think were anywhere near there yet.


----------



## GoldDragon

His goose is cooked.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tara-reade-ex-husband-biden-sexual-harassment-office-court-document

I'm sure DNC is exploring options for other candidates.


----------



## SpaceDock

I would think repubtards would try to come up with a scandal that makes Biden seem worse than Trump, instead of a novice by comparison.


----------



## Ralyks

Sigh, Megyn Kelly? Really? I'm not against an investigation, but this is just too inconsistent.


----------



## GoldDragon

Ralyks said:


> Sigh, Megyn Kelly? Really? I'm not against an investigation, but this is just too inconsistent.



She was just the interview.

There is a court record from 1996 where her husband referred to the harassment incident in Bidens office, how she was fired from work, traumatized, and had to find a new job.

This is the smoking gun. She told alot of people, and there is a court record from three years after the incident that says she was still traumatized.

The only potential alternate explanation of this is that someone else in the office harassed her, but that doesn't make sense because she wouldn't be forced to leave if it was a peer harassing her.

Also there is another individual referenced, the staff officer for Biden who was aware of the harassment. They will certainly pull at these threads until it unravels.

This puts his chance of not being the nominee at greater than 50%, imo.


----------



## Ralyks

"The court document, however, did not directly accuse the former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate of sexual harassment or refer to a sexual assault."

Smoking gun? Try again.


----------



## GoldDragon

Ralyks said:


> "The court document, however, did not directly accuse the former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate of sexual harassment or refer to a sexual assault."
> 
> Smoking gun? Try again.


There was harassment in bidens office.

The staff manager was aware of the harassment and forced Reid to leave.

They will discover who was the manager and will ask who was the harasser.

If manager says it wasn't Biden, they will ask who was it then? There is enough information here to unravel this.


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> I would think repubtards would try to come up with a scandal that makes Biden seem worse than Trump, instead of a novice by comparison.



This just in: accusers claim Biden established for-profit community college which failed miserably. One other person has come forward to claim that Biden has slightly smaller than average hands.


----------



## vilk

Do you prefer your leader be an open rapist or closeted?


----------



## Ralyks

GoldDragon said:


> There was harassment in bidens office.
> 
> The staff manager was aware of the harassment and forced Reid to leave.
> 
> They will discover who was the manager and will ask who was the harasser.
> 
> If manager says it wasn't Biden, they will ask who was it then? There is enough information here to unravel this.



Like it did for Trump?


----------



## SpaceDock

GoldDragon said:


> There was harassment in bidens office.
> 
> The staff manager was aware of the harassment and forced Reid to leave.
> 
> They will discover who was the manager and will ask who was the harasser.
> 
> If manager says it wasn't Biden, they will ask who was it then? There is enough information here to unravel this.




This is like saying any sex assault allegation that has occurred at a Trump property must have been done by Trump. 

I personally feel this lady was sent to do a hit job on Biden and doubt the allegations, but it really doesn’t matter it’s one rapey dotard or the other. Republicans decided that it didn’t matter how bad Trump was, he was their bad guy. It will be no different with Biden and I think Fox News and Republicans jumping on this allegation demanding Biden step down is just absurd.


----------



## GoldDragon

narad said:


> This just in: accusers claim Biden established for-profit community college which failed miserably. One other person has come forward to claim that Biden has slightly smaller than average hands.





SpaceDock said:


> This is like saying any sex assault allegation that has occurred at a Trump property must have been done by Trump.
> 
> I personally feel this lady was sent to do a hit job on Biden and doubt the allegations, but it really doesn’t matter it’s one rapey dotard or the other. Republicans decided that it didn’t matter how bad Trump was, he was their bad guy. It will be no different with Biden and I think Fox News and Republicans jumping on this allegation demanding Biden step down is just absurd.



Huh? 

There are court documents from 25 years ago that coincide with witness accounts. Along with all the Creepy Uncle Joe child caress and flirtation videos, DNC has to seriously be considering other options.

The difference with this allegation and the trump allegations, is that this one actually has a legal document from that time period supporting it. All trump allegations were 20-30 years later without any record from the time it happened.

Is the lesson here not to believe all women? Or that rich people live by different rules?

The hypocrisy is more damaging to liberals as #metoo was their invention.


----------



## Ralyks

GoldDragon said:


> Is the lesson here not to believe all women?



As someone who had accusations thrown at me that nearly cost me my son, my family, friend, livelihood, and legal fees just to prove my innocence and not only get 100% custody of my son but have my accuser (obviously my sons mother) only have supervised visitation (which in 3 years she’s done once), I’m going to say “yes” and a very strong “fuck you”


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> The hypocrisy is more damaging to liberals



That's probably true, as the liberal base tends to care more about holding their own accountable, not by much, but the bar is quite low.

While the left turns folks like Al Franken into a pariah, the right elevates people like Donald Trump.

But hypocrisy cuts both ways. Pretty much everyone who would not vote for Biden because of the allegations, would not vote for Trump given his own history of allegations (amongst many other things). It's fairly transparent how partisan the response from the right is, just as it is from the left in many cases.

The reckoning here is dealing with the open secret that the ruling class we’ve made is a reflection of some of the worst aspects of our society. These aren't our best, they're us, and they're ugly. A caricature. 

The right has already given in. There is no return. The left now has to decide if it's worth the same price.


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> Huh?
> 
> There are court documents from 25 years ago that coincide with witness accounts. Along with all the Creepy Uncle Joe child caress and flirtation videos, DNC has to seriously be considering other options.
> 
> The difference with this allegation and the trump allegations, is that this one actually has a legal document from that time period supporting it. All trump allegations were 20-30 years later without any record from the time it happened.
> 
> Is the lesson here not to believe all women? Or that rich people live by different rules?
> 
> The hypocrisy is more damaging to liberals as #metoo was their invention.



Yea, but you take those allegations against Trump + "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.", and I'm suddenly very prone to believe he's tried some shady things in the past.

Biden? I mean, the allegations should definitely be investigated. Last I heard (~last week) the documents she claimed to have filed could not be found. It was basically her story + her mom calling that show that are going towards substantiating it. I think that's more than enough to warrant investigation, but I have to say her story is very far-fetched. In the sense that it's not even a pressure-to-meet-in-a-hotel sort of thing, but a super blatant acts to a near-stranger that is more reminiscent of what Trump is talking about. Who knows...maybe Biden was a super horndog back in the 90s.


----------



## GoldDragon

Ralyks said:


> As someone who had accusations thrown at me that nearly cost me my son, my family, friend, livelihood, and legal fees just to prove my innocence and not only get 100% custody of my son but have my accuser (obviously my sons mother) only have supervised visitation (which in 3 years she’s done once), I’m going to say “yes” and a very strong “fuck you”



I agree with you that we shouldn't believe all women! I have a similar kind of experience although it was confined to work, not my personal life. But it did untold damage. No F bombs needed. Women make shit up. It happens when they are experiencing shame or caught in a lie.

My rhetorical question was for the typical liberal base and poundmetoo movement. The problems Biden creates for the liberal media who has been after Trump for similar, but lesser accusations.

Men should be given their day in court. Thankfully Devos and Trump adminstration removed Obama guidelines on how schools deal with harassment claims. Men are given their day in court. 

Conservatives have a better record on men's rights. Much better.


----------



## GoldDragon

narad said:


> Yea, but you take those allegations against Trump + "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.", and I'm suddenly very prone to believe he's tried some shady things in the past.
> 
> Biden? I mean, the allegations should definitely be investigated. Last I heard (~last week) the documents she claimed to have filed could not be found. It was basically her story + her mom calling that show that are going towards substantiating it. I think that's more than enough to warrant investigation, but I have to say her story is very far-fetched. In the sense that it's not even a pressure-to-meet-in-a-hotel sort of thing, but a super blatant acts to a near-stranger that is more reminiscent of what Trump is talking about. Who knows...maybe Biden was a super horndog back in the 90s.



If there was a credible allegation, it would have derailed his nomination and presidency. Not saying he did or didn't do those things, only that there was no proof.

I'm saying that the Biden allegation looks more credible because there were witnesses from that time period, and it is corroborated by a court document. It needs more investigation, but the threads are there.

In comparison, the Kavanaugh allegations were laughable. (And made against a 16yo boy.) Blaysey Ford was the moment poundmetoo jumped the shark.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> If there was a credible allegation, it would have derailed his nomination and presidency. Not saying he did or didn't do those things, only that there was no proof.
> 
> I'm saying that the Biden allegation looks more credible because there were witnesses from that time period, and it is corroborated by a court document. It needs more investigation, but the threads are there.
> 
> In comparison, the Kavanaugh allegations were laughable. (And made against a 16yo boy.)



Are you really saying that Trump did not have credible claims against him? Not to mention the things he had said himself?

NONE of these are credible? https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12


----------



## GoldDragon

JSanta said:


> Are you really saying that Trump did not have credible claims against him? Not to mention the things he had said himself?



I read the Trump allegation wiki and I did not see any that were backed with evidence from the time period that the event allegedly occured.

Furthermore, as poundmetoo is a liberal movement, there are likely many more liberal women (with political bias) moved to make claims against conservative politicians.

I hope you can see the difference. Don't have any more to say on this.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> I read the Trump allegation wiki and I did not see any that were backed with evidence from the time period that the event allegedly occured.
> 
> Furthermore, as poundmetoo is a liberal movement, there are likely many more liberal women (with political bias) moved to make claims against conservative politicians.
> 
> I hope you can see the difference. Don't have any more to say on this.



Interesting that you back out of discussions as soon as a valid counterpoint is offered, and use condescending language when doing so. Your obvious bias colors every thing you say, down to "Men's Rights", which isn't a thing in the same sense as underrepresented and minority populations. 

Wikipedia is also not a valid source of primary information. 

I hope that _you _can see the difference.


----------



## GoldDragon

JSanta said:


> Interesting that you back out of discussions as soon as a valid counterpoint is offered.



Not aware of any condescending language.

I try to present a counterpoint. I'm not going to hang out on SS.org all day talking politics. 

1) I have other things to do.
2) This is a 1 vs many "debate" and cannot be won.
3) Its not based on feeling that I am losing the debate, only that I recognize very few will be receptive.
4) I have self respect and realize this is just a waste of time for me. But you are surrounded by people with similar opinions and this discussion affirms your world view. IOW, there is payoff for you, only negatives for me.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> Not aware of any condescending language.
> 
> I try to present a counterpoint. I'm not going to hang out on SS.org all day talking politics.
> 
> 1) I have other things to do.
> 2) This is a 1 vs many "debate" and cannot be won.
> 3) Its not based on feeling that I am losing the debate, only that I recognize very few will be receptive.
> 4) I have self respect and realize this is just a waste of time for me. But you are surrounded by people with similar opinions and this discussion affirms your world view. IOW, there is payoff for you, only negatives for me.



I think counterpoint is appreciated. I just don't think your particular counterpoint is based on anything other than your personal feelings towards one side or the other. It's not a matter of debating as it is presenting factual points. You've dismissed claims as lacking credibility, while also making assumptions on personal viewpoints. Echo chambers are good for pats on the back, but don't do much else. The difference (at least in my opinion) is that you're dismissive with perspective because it doesn't align with your world view.


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> I'm saying that the Biden allegation looks more credible because there were witnesses from that time period, and it is corroborated by a court document. It needs more investigation, but the threads are there.



Gonna need to go back to the dictionary on that "witnesses" word AND on the corroborated by a court document.

Look, I mean, counterpoint is fine. But it has to be good counterpoint. There's some potentially shady stuff surrounding those allegations, true. But there are no witnesses. There are no court documents indicating Biden. There are no first-person court documents as of yet, even though they were claimed to be made. It's just a leap of faith, for you, and for anyone who doubts the accusations as well.

Debating whether he did it is dumb, since there will or won't be evidence, and it is otherwise speculative. Debating how different groups of people react to the allegations... at least that is factual and interesting.


----------



## bostjan

GoldDragon said:


> All trump allegations were 20-30 years later without any record from the time it happened.



Hate to be the bearer of bad fact-checking news, or to dogpile needlessly, but no.

For example, Jill Harth filed her complaint in 1997, five years after the start of the alleged wrongdoing, which had also been alleged to be ongoing and escalating in 1997.



GoldDragon said:


> I read the Trump allegation wiki and I did not see any that were backed with evidence from the time period that the event allegedly occured.



Also, no. I just checked the page and the example I stated is clearly outlined there in pretty good detail, and checking the edit history of the wiki entry, that information has been there for years.



GoldDragon said:


> But you are surrounded by people with similar opinions and this discussion affirms your world view..



I mean, @narad and I have had several disagreements in the past here, but I can't think of any that were based on someone presenting clearly false "facts." I think I've responded to you maybe half a dozen times and half of those have been to point out statements you've made that are easily verified to be false by a quick google search.

But honestly, if you hold strong political views based on false facts and you have no urge to apologize for that false information, by all means, feel free to keep those opinions to yourself, especially if you don't want a bunch of people responding to you with "dude, no" or whatever.  It's just that an opinion takes the form of "I don't like Biden," not "There were witnesses" or the like. There * is * a difference between opinion and fact.


----------



## StevenC

WTB: Better conservatives


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> His goose is cooked.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tara-reade-ex-husband-biden-sexual-harassment-office-court-document
> 
> I'm sure DNC is exploring options for other candidates.





GoldDragon said:


> Huh?
> 
> There are court documents from 25 years ago that coincide with witness accounts. Along with all the Creepy Uncle Joe child caress and flirtation videos, DNC has to seriously be considering other options.



I'm sorry, but there's a LOT of wishful thinking going on here.  

The court document makes Reade's allegations moderately more credible. No doubt. But, 

1) they don't name Biden as the perpetrator, 
2) they include no detail beyond she felt she was "having a problem at work regarding sexual harrassment" that fits the timing of her current allegations, and does NOT substantiate any of the detail in her account, and
2) So far the only witness account is Reade's own. 

This makes her allegations modestly more credible, especially if there's additional detail to support her claim that she was the victim of harassment. But, it falls short of a "smoking gun" because it doesn't even demonstrate she was the victim of said harassment, much less prove her claim Biden was harassing her. 

I'm not sure if you're a Republican or a Sanders voter, but to read this and conclude Biden's "goose is cooked" takes some real optimism.


----------



## bostjan

To expand on what @Drew said, any case like this, unfortunately for all parties involved, boils down to he-said-she-said. The chance of there ever being a smoking gun is basically insignificant. So, every little tip on the scales of credibility could potentially have significant consequences.

If, hypothetically, an old audio tape appeared with a recording of Biden stating that he made a habit out of non-consensual touching of private body parts, then it'd be a devastating hit against his credibility in the case.

Further along that analogy, if such a tape existed, and was released by the media, and Biden's response was to deflect and bring up similar scandals involving his opponent or their spouse, it'd also do horrible things to his credibility.

But, I mean, no viable presidential candidate would ever be able to have a tape like that surface, make a politicized deflection like that immediately after, and then still have his base vehemently defend him. I mean, people are not monsters.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> To expand on what @Drew said, any case like this, unfortunately for all parties involved, boils down to he-said-she-said. The chance of there ever being a smoking gun is basically insignificant. So, every little tip on the scales of credibility could potentially have significant consequences.
> 
> If, hypothetically, an old audio tape appeared with a recording of Biden stating that he made a habit out of non-consensual touching of private body parts, then it'd be a devastating hit against his credibility in the case.
> 
> Further along that analogy, if such a tape existed, and was released by the media, and Biden's response was to deflect and bring up similar scandals involving his opponent or their spouse, it'd also do horrible things to his credibility.
> 
> But, I mean, no viable presidential candidate would ever be able to have a tape like that surface, make a politicized deflection like that immediately after, and then still have his base vehemently defend him. I mean, people are not monsters.





...




To be fair, if either credible, concrete, solid evidence that substantiated Reade's allegations emerged, or if a recording of Biden bragging about forcing himself on women emerged, then yeah, I'd say that his campaign would probably be dead in the water. Right now, though, we're still _well_ shy of that, and unlike Trump, there isn't even a pattern of behavior to point to or a pattern of allegations that grant them some collective weight. It's a he-said she-said until some sort of concrete, substantial evidence emerges, and this really doesn't rise to that level. It DOES add a little more substance and context to her allegations, and points to a couple more avenues to explore to put it to rest one way or another. You yourself allude to that here:



GoldDragon said:


> There was harassment in bidens office.
> 
> The staff manager was aware of the harassment and forced Reid to leave.
> 
> They will discover who was the manager and will ask who was the harasser.
> 
> If manager says it wasn't Biden, they will ask who was it then? There is enough information here to unravel this.



...you're right, these are all things that we could - and should - do. But your implicit reasoning here is Biden IS guilty, so when this happens, he's dead. But, to further your line of thought, if the manager says it wasn't Biden, and they ask who, and there WAS someone else harassing her? Or if she was the one harassing someone? Or, what if the manager questions the whole story and says she must have been lying to her now-ex, and can document the reasons for her leaving, either voluntarily or against her will? There's a lot of other possibilities here and nothing in the filing really supports one over the others; you're just taking it on faith that he's guilty.


----------



## SpaceDock

@GoldDragon sorry for the SSO pile on, I think we can all agree that in the modern political world it doesn’t matter what our team does but we will carry water for our guy till we die. I’m gonna vote for anyone not Trump.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> @GoldDragon sorry for the SSO pile on, I think we can all agree that in the modern political world it doesn’t matter what our team does but we will carry water for our guy till we die. I’m gonna vote for anyone not Trump.



"Is your refrigerator running? It is? Can I vote for it?"


----------



## SpaceDock

spudmunkey said:


> "Is your refrigerator running? It is? Can I vote for it?"



I think the two party system has completely failed us all but our only other option is voting for Amash. I think a ham sandwich with a plastic mustache would get my vote over Trump. I used to think he was just a repugnant human being but now I am worried he is burning it down. Just let it wash across the country he said.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> "Is your refrigerator running? It is? Can I vote for it?"



That’s kind of where we’re at. 

Honestly, I blame two decades of absolutely dismal Democratic Party strategy. Obama was a fluke. It seemed they almost learned their lesson after 2000, but nope. 

Not like the other side is blameless. They've had candidates so awful that it makes the terrible Dem candidates seem viable by comparison.


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> That’s kind of where we’re at.
> 
> Honestly, I blame two decades of absolutely dismal Democratic Party strategy. Obama was a fluke. It seemed they almost learned their lesson after 2000, but nope.
> 
> Not like the other side is blameless. They've had candidates so awful that it makes the terrible Dem candidates seem viable by comparison.




The fact is that blacks decide election results. If democrats field a black candidate, they will win, because blacks vote in record numbers. They didn't turn out for Hillary. If they had she would have won.

I wonder why they haven't figured this out yet?

A Kamala Harris / Oprah ticket would be a lock.


----------



## jaxadam

https://imgur.com/VIkm0V4


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> The fact is that blacks decide election results. If democrats field a black candidate, they will win, because blacks vote in record numbers. They didn't turn out for Hillary. If they had she would have won.



Yes. Candidates "that people turn out for" will win these elections, every time. When will they figure this out? The trick to winning is running a candidate people will get out and vote for. That way, you get more votes, then you win!


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AaRjqOJwwRhCkd5Zd_Dp_mA

So now even former accusers of Biden are saying "fuck it, I'd still rather have him over Trump"


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> The fact is that blacks decide election results. If democrats field a black candidate, they will win, because blacks vote in record numbers. They didn't turn out for Hillary. If they had she would have won.
> 
> I wonder why they haven't figured this out yet?
> 
> A Kamala Harris / Oprah ticket would be a lock.


You're basing this off a sample size of one, and Obama was also a once-in-a-generation oratorial talent. 

I think after Trump, running a candidate with no prior government experience3 is madness. I do like Harris, though, and i wouldn't mind seeing her or Warren as Biden's VP. 

Also, since we're taking about the black vote, I'm guessing you were a Sanders voter or something and generally tuning out anything coming out of the Biden camp. They argued from early on he was the candidate to support because he could turn out the black vote, which he went and delivered on in the primary - South Carolina was the point when Sanders' campaign really ended, after Biden carried 70% of the black vote in a state that was 60% black. Biden may not be black... but black voters really like Biden.


----------



## GoldDragon

Drew said:


> You're basing this off a sample size of one, and Obama was also a once-in-a-generation oratorial talent.
> 
> I think after Trump, running a candidate with no prior government experience3 is madness. I do like Harris, though, and i wouldn't mind seeing her or Warren as Biden's VP.
> 
> Also, since we're taking about the black vote, I'm guessing you were a Sanders voter or something and generally tuning out anything coming out of the Biden camp. They argued from early on he was the candidate to support because he could turn out the black vote, which he went and delivered on in the primary - South Carolina was the point when Sanders' campaign really ended, after Biden carried 70% of the black vote in a state that was 60% black. Biden may not be black... but black voters really like Biden.




Well youre right, KH with Oprah would be too much of a stunt, but I believe they would be wise to have a black candidate in every election if they want to win.

In this particular case, a black woman would be historic, so kamala will probably be the pick. He's not going to pick another white man.


----------



## narad

I he does that he's going to lose the racist demographic though.


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> In this particular case, a black woman would be historic, so kamala will probably be the pick. He's not going to pick another white man.


He's already committed to naming a woman. I'd say Warren or Harris are the top two contenders - trying to be cynically realpolitik about this, Warren is probably the savvier pick, however. The BernieBros _HATED_ Harris for her time as a prosecutor and see her as pretty centrist, Biden can pull the black vote without her and the Indian vote isn't really material here, and Warren is both a women and a way to throw a bone to the progressive wing, and additionally has a pretty robust platform already built. 

That doesn't mean he WILL pick her, but Warren seems to shore up his weaknesses better than Harris, and for some reason everyone seems to forget she's on the older end of a candidate, as well, so that doesn't seem likely to be used against her.


----------



## Ralyks

I was going to say, I’m all for Warren as VP (she was my candidate of choice too), but I kept thinking her age would come up. But it hasn’t. Well, yet.


----------



## GoldDragon

Ralyks said:


> I was going to say, I’m all for Warren as VP (she was my candidate of choice too), but I kept thinking her age would come up. But it hasn’t. Well, yet.



She is too seriously damaged to be considered.

https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/465968-pavlich-elizabeth-warrens-fake-victimhood


----------



## spudmunkey

GoldDragon said:


> She is too seriously damaged to be considered.
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/465968-pavlich-elizabeth-warrens-fake-victimhood



While seemingly a non-negotiable sticking point for a number of people, I can only speak for my oen experiences and say it's not as big of a deal to a lot of other folks.


----------



## GoldDragon

spudmunkey said:


> While seemingly a non-negotiable sticking point for a number of people, I can only speak for my oen experiences and say it's not as big of a deal to a lot of other folks.



She has zero appeal to working class people. She throws off a harvard professor vibe.

She is a losing candidate. Much in the way Hillary was. People just don't like them.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> She is too seriously damaged to be considered.
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/465968-pavlich-elizabeth-warrens-fake-victimhood


I've legitimately never seen a non-Republican bring this up.


----------



## GoldDragon

StevenC said:


> I've legitimately never seen a non-Republican bring this up.



Its important to know what the other side thinks when evaluating a candidate.

DNC rigged primary for Hillary against Bernie, believed the polls, and never once considered that people just don't like her.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> Its important to know what the other side thinks when evaluating a candidate.
> 
> DNC rigged primary for Hillary against Bernie, believed the polls, and never once considered that people just don't like her.


The polls that said more people would vote for her than Trump?


----------



## GoldDragon

StevenC said:


> The polls that said more people would vote for her than Trump?



They obviously weren't to be believed. Hillary is a fundamentally unlikeable person. Gut check, you just don't run unlikeable people.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> They obviously weren't to be believed. Hillary is a fundamentally unlikeable person. Gut check, you just don't run unlikeable people.


So you're telling me fewer people voted for Clinton than Trump?


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> They obviously weren't to be believed. Hillary is a fundamentally unlikeable person. Gut check, you just don't run unlikeable people.



Although Trump, SUPER likeable. I especially like that time he made fun of the woman at his rally with the crying baby and kicked them out. Nice guy.


----------



## spudmunkey

GoldDragon said:


> She has zero appeal to working class people. She throws off a harvard professor vibe.



My mom, who voted for trump the first time, is definitely NOT this time around, no matter who it is, and even publically posted that she was really dissapointed with Warren dropped out. My parents live in the rural-ish midwest, a family of farmers. So it's entirely possible that in theory that could still round to "zero" appeal, it's not actually "zero". Please realize that there are people who despise trump and his administration/policies as much as some people despise Hillary, and they aren't all perpetual student hipster millenials.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> She has zero appeal to working class people. She throws off a harvard professor vibe.
> 
> She is a losing candidate. Much in the way Hillary was. People just don't like them.



I work in an old factory in the Rust Belt. 

Folks don't not like someone because they come off as educated.


----------



## Randy

I think a lot of these dudes are just projecting. I'm sure Dragon or Jax have some uppity liberal neighbors or family members that stick in their craw.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> I think a lot of these dudes are just projecting. I'm sure Dragon or Jax have some uppity liberal neighbors or family members that stick in their craw.



https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-electable-1494580

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/21162527/what-happened-to-elizabeth-warren

Just repeating what was reported in multiple sources.

Google "warren blue collar" and you will get pages of articles like this. I just linked the first article that is not behind a pay wall.

Its weird. In some ways I know more about the democrat party than Democrats.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I work in an old factory in the Rust Belt.
> 
> Folks don't not like someone because they come off as educated.



I would say that they do here in the rural Northeast, though.



StevenC said:


> So you're telling me fewer people voted for Clinton than Trump?



Significantly more people voted for Clinton than for Trump, but our weird electoral system goes by state.

Regarding Warren and her Native heritage or lack thereof, I do believe that people did care about that, but most have moved on, I think. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal if she legitimately believed that she was Native American and was just wrong. It's not like she tried to hide the DNA tests. If Trump had made a claim about his ethnic heritage, and a DNA test contradicted him, how much do you want to bet that he'd either a) hide the test results from the public or b) cross out the part he didn't like with a sharpie?

Trump is a horrible person. Everyone knew he was a horrible person before he ran for president. I guess they thought he'd make a good leader or something, but now that it's been proven that he's also a horrible leader, most people don't want him to be president anymore. But that matters very little. As I told StevenC, the people don't pick the president- the political parties pick two candidates, based on whatever, and then delegates from the states elect one of them. 2016 was a mess, because the parties chose two of the most unlikable people on planet Earth, the people chose one option, but the states chose another, and then a bunch of delegates refused to vote the way they were instructed. The end result was a huge cluster. 2020, so far, is looking like it could potentially be a repeat of that. Biden has more popular support, by a significant margin, but Trump doesn't play fair.

Biden wants to win, apparently by the rules, which are stacked against him, and Trump wants to win, no matter how many of the rules he needs to break to make it happen. I have no expectation that Biden will be our next president. IDK, maybe Trump is sick of being president, but I bet he's too worried about being arrested now if he leaves office alive...

Also, on a lighter note, this satire article is amusing: https://politics.theonion.com/biden-campaign-considering-using-the-internet-to-attrac-1843291116


----------



## Ralyks

GoldDragon said:


> Its weird. In some ways I know more about the democrat party than Democrats.



Statements like this and that “You know in your heart of hearts, you’re wrong” bullshit you pulled a few pages back is why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I think a lot of these dudes are just projecting. I'm sure Dragon or Jax have some uppity liberal neighbors or family members that stick in their craw.



Stick in my what? Honestly, I’m just surrounded by a bunch of Republican assholes!

Edit: Actually, my next door neighbor is one of the Jags coaches and he never gives me tickets so he might be a Democrat.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Stick in my what? Honestly, I’m just surrounded by a bunch of Republican assholes!
> 
> Edit: Actually, my next door neighbor is one of the Jags coaches and he never gives me tickets so he might be a Democrat.



"stick in one's *craw*, to cause considerable or abiding resentment; rankle: She said I was pompous, and that really *stuck in my craw*."


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> "stick in one's *craw*, to cause considerable or abiding resentment; rankle: She said I was pompous, and that really *stuck in my craw*."



Huh. I thought it was going to have something to do with crab meat. But the only time I ever really hear about politics is in the Coronavirus thread!


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Edit: Actually, my next door neighbor is one of the Jags coaches and he never gives me tickets so he might be a Democrat.



You sure he isn’t doing you a favor?
- Signed, a Giants fan who’s team has sucked for most of the last decade.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Huh. I thought it was going to have something to do with crab meat. But the only time I ever really hear about politics is in the Coronavirus thread!


You a fan of _Get Smart_?


----------



## SpaceDock

GoldDragon said:


> They obviously weren't to be believed. Hillary is a fundamentally unlikeable person. Gut check, you just don't run unlikeable people.



then why are republicans letting Trump run again, literally most unliked politician ever


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> You a fan of _Get Smart_?



Never heard of it.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-electable-1494580
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/21162527/what-happened-to-elizabeth-warren
> 
> Just repeating what was reported in multiple sources.
> 
> Google "warren blue collar" and you will get pages of articles like this. I just linked the first article that is not behind a pay wall.
> 
> Its weird. In some ways I know more about the democrat party than Democrats.


Weren't you just saying Democrats should disregard polls?


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Actually, my next door neighbor is one of the Jags coaches and he never gives me tickets so he might be a Democrat.



Too bad it wasn't Bortles. He would've took you muddin' or frog giggin'.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Never heard of it.


Would you believe that it was the greatest show ever on television? Don't tell me you don't like Mel Brooks!


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> Its important to know what the other side thinks when evaluating a candidate.
> 
> DNC rigged primary for Hillary against Bernie, believed the polls, and never once considered that people just don't like her.


Boom, called it, BernieBro. This also explains the weird hatred for Warrn, for not being "pure" enough of a perogressive, or whatever.



GoldDragon said:


> Its weird. In some ways I know more about the democrat party than Democrats.


And here, folks, we reach peak delusion. I'm sorry, but statements like this make it REALLY hard to take you seriously in a discussion. One of the preeminent experts on Democratic party internal politics is famed SS.Org Regular and Delaware resident GoldDragon? I'll look forward to your next interview on CNN.


----------



## Randy

"DNC rigged primary against Bernie" is a popular conservative troupe, FYI.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Would you believe that it was the greatest show ever on television? Don't tell me you don't like Mel Brooks!


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> "DNC rigged primary against Bernie" is a popular conservative troupe, FYI.


https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

In fact, this may be the reason Hillary lost and was the impetus for the three year Russia collusion witch hunt.

Russian hackers dealt a serious blow to the DNC and Hillary. Oth, if dnc hadn't done anything wrong, the leak wouldn't have had such impact.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Would you believe that it was the greatest show ever on television? Don't tell me you don't like Mel Brooks!



I thought the greatest show ever on TV was Saved by the Bell?


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> I thought the greatest show ever on TV was Saved by the Bell?


Would you believe it was in the top 1000?


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Would you believe it was in the top 1000?



I know what was 999, and that was Beverly Hills 90210.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
> 
> In fact, this may be the reason Hillary lost and was the impetus for the three year Russia collusion witch hunt.
> 
> Russian hackers dealt a serious blow to the DNC and Hillary. Oth, if dnc hadn't done anything wrong, the leak wouldn't have had such impact.



Oh, *I* fully believe 2016 was rigged against Bernie. I was pointing out to Drew that just because you said that doesn't make you a Bernie bro. *I'm* a Bernie Bro


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Oh, *I* fully believe 2016 was rigged against Bernie. I was pointing out to Drew that just because you said that doesn't make you a Bernie bro. *I'm* a Bernie Bro



Whew. I thought it was possible that you guys didn't know about the DNC hack. Between the DNC hack and Hillary's private email server (and Comeys "no reasonable prosecutor" decision) this is what lost her the election. She was already unliked, now she was shady, dishonest, and unlikeable.

FWIW, any normal citizen that broke the rules the way Hillary did, would have their clearances revoked and be banned from intelligence work and probably jailed.

The Russia collusion hoax was the hope that it could all be pinned on Trump. They are starting to unravel those threads. Obama's and Comeys willful use of the intelligence apparatus to spy on his political rival, the use of the fake, DNC funded "Steele Dossier" to get a warrant for wire taps (and yes, they were spying on trump tower), without any evidence of collusion... is documented. And that was all followed by Susan Rice admission that they were trying desperately to hide their actions from the incoming adminstration for fear of being found out. (They thought Hillary was a lock, so they weren't afraid of this possibility.)

Whether DOJ intends to prosecute, or if they are just using it for points in the election cycle tbd.

IMO, Obama, or at the very least Comey, should be in jail. This was worse than watergate. DNC, Obama, Comey, Rice, Hillary, all involved in the biggest abuse of power in american history.


----------



## Randy

Look, I'm going to vote for whatever abomination the Democratic Party runs this year but the establishment lane can't deny the last 3 months lays bear how inadequate our social safetynets are in this country (it took 3 or 4 separate rushed and bandaided bills to get anybody help, and a lot of it fell short) and what a disservice for-profit healthcare is doing us. I was on a conference call with a nursing home yesterday saying NYS regulations now that workers need COVID-19 tests twice a week, except the state doesn't have enough labs to keep up with that number and it's unclear who's going to pay for it, because SOME of the workers are uninsured and it's further up in the air what happens if they need the tests and can't afford them; because missing a test is grounds for immediate dismissal.

Likewise, the stock market hovering around just 19% below it's all time high when unemployment is between 19.5% to 25% (as claims are bottlenecked) indicates we're floating on a bubble that's likely to burst at some point.

The Sanders agenda/concerns are coming through like fucking Nostradamus.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> Whew. I thought it was possible that you guys didn't know about the DNC hack. Between the DNC hack and Hillary's private email server (and Comeys "no reasonable prosecutor" decision) this is what lost her the election. She was already unliked, now she was shady, dishonest, and unlikeable.
> 
> FWIW, any normal citizen that broke the rules the way Hillary did, would have their clearances revoked and be banned from intelligence work and probably jailed.
> 
> The Russia collusion hoax was the hope that it could all be pinned on Trump. They are starting to unravel those threads. Obama's and Comeys willful use of the intelligence apparatus to spy on his political rival, the use of the fake, DNC funded "Steele Dossier" to get a warrant for wire taps (and yes, they were spying on trump tower), without any evidence of collusion... is documented. And that was all followed by Susan Rice admission that they were trying desperately to hide their actions from the incoming adminstration for fear of being found out. (They thought Hillary was a lock, so they weren't afraid of this possibility.)
> 
> Whether DOJ intends to prosecute, or if they are just using it for points in the election cycle tbd.
> 
> IMO, Obama, or at the very least Comey, should be in jail. This was worse than watergate. DNC, Obama, Comey, Rice, Hillary, all involved in the biggest abuse of power in american history.


You just live in your own little world, don't you?


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Look, I'm going to vote for whatever abomination the Democratic Party runs this year but the establishment lane can't deny the last 3 months lays bear how inadequate our social safetynets are in this country (it took 3 or 4 separate rushed and bandaided bills to get anybody help, and a lot of it fell short) and what a disservice for-profit healthcare is doing us. I was on a conference call with a nursing home yesterday saying NYS regulations now that workers need COVID-19 tests twice a week, except the state doesn't have enough labs to keep up with that number and it's unclear who's going to pay for it, because SOME of the workers are uninsured and it's further up in the air what happens if they need the tests and can't afford them; because missing a test is grounds for immediate dismissal.
> 
> Likewise, the stock market hovering around just 19% below it's all time high when unemployment is between 19.5% to 25% (as claims are bottlenecked) indicates we're floating on a bubble that's likely to burst at some point.
> 
> The Sanders agenda/concerns are coming through like fucking Nostradamus.



We are living in a post Obamacare world. While most of it was deemed illegal (the individual mandate that forced individuals to pay for it, even if they didn't want it) and is being rolled back, the damage to the healthcare system was done. You can't blame the lack of social safety net on Trump Administration. People still have Obamacare, the problem is that the premiums for most people are too high, so many people dropped their policies.

Regarding the response to CV, I am an independent contractor who was suspended from working. I (will be) collecting unemployment plus ten weeks of +600 PUA. Besides the state level IT problems they are having with the administration of those benefits, I think the response to this was good. People are being taken care of.

Regarding testing, Trump just approved an 11 billion grant to states for testing expenses. This was announced in daily presser on the 9th i believe.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...llion-tests-states-get-11-billion/3111814001/

I do think Fauci and the aministration have been disingenuous regarding the predicted number of fatalities, but I realize they are trying to prevent panic and riots. Yes, a million people are going to die from this over the next couple years. Nothing they can do about it.

The stock market is based on futures. It is hovering where it is because it believes this is temporary, that once restrictions are lifted, business will resume as normal. They may be wrong, but people are voting with their dollars.


----------



## GoldDragon

StevenC said:


> You just live in your own little world, don't you?



Its a pretty big world actually. Republicans are in power. MSM just doesn't report accurately on most of it, so I'm not exactly sure what you know or believe.


----------



## StevenC

Man, you didn't have to type the same post twice.


----------



## GoldDragon

StevenC said:


> Man, you didn't have to type the same post twice.



Lol. No wonder you think I wrote the same thing. You skim over it and all you see is:

Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA! Hate! Lie. Obfuscation. MAGA!


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> (will be)



Quoted for relevance. I just finally got my first check from UI after I was shut down 3/15.

That post wasn't a critique of Trump (I've got a number of those we can revisit another time ), it's the fact that these are foreseeable scenarios that *some* people have been warning about for some time and it took a pandemic to act on them.

The contractor thing is a good example. The fact that it took 25% of people getting laid off to realize independent contractors need to pay their rent too when industry gets shut down makes the case, IMO. It's been 3 months of emergency rollout of socialist programs because the idea we might need them was scoffed at.

And no, I don't think the current spending is sustainable or that these programs should go on indefinitely. But you put the structure in place so that it's not a total diaster when you move to implement them when people need them. The PPP and EIDL programs have been rebooted five or six times for this exact reason.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Quoted for relevance. I just finally got my first check from UI after I was shut down 3/15.
> 
> That post wasn't a critique of Trump (I've got a number of those we can revisit another time ), it's the fact that these are foreseeable scenarios that *some* people have been warning about for some time and it took a pandemic to act on them.
> 
> The contractor thing is a good example. The fact that it took 25% of people getting laid off to realize independent contractors need to pay their rent too when industry gets shut down makes the case, IMO. It's been 3 months of emergency rollout of socialist programs because the idea we might need them was scoffed at.
> 
> And no, I don't think the current spending is sustainable or that these programs should go on indefinitely. But you put the structure in place so that it's not a total diaster when you move to implement them when people need them. The PPP and EIDL programs have been rebooted five or six times for this exact reason.



I wont deny that there are problem with ICs, taxing, benefits, etc.

If you step back and look at it, the system was working well before the pandemic, and the emergency legislation picked up the slack in our time of need.

Keep in mind that America will weather the storm better than most. The reason? We are a fucking rich capitalist nation.  That doesn't happen with socialist policies.


----------



## MFB

GoldDragon said:


> Keep in mind that America will weather the storm better than most. The reason? We are a fucking rich capitalist nation. That doesn't happen with socialist policies.



Or they just told the corporations to go fuck themselves because they were freezing mortgages because they knew no one could pay them and would then be forced out of their homes; except courts were also closed, so they'd get to live in their homes without paying anyways, so why not just keep it legal because they also couldn't be kicked out of them if courts weren't in order. And what do we see in America? Every corporation coming out of the woodworking letting us know that "we're here for you in these trying times," as if we've got money to spend on new cars when we may very well lose our homes because we _aren't _freezing mortgages - it's business as usual in the US of A baby!


----------



## narad

_


GoldDragon said:



Keep in mind that America will weather the storm better than most. The reason? We are a fucking rich capitalist nation. That doesn't happen with socialist policies.

Click to expand...



Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
_

_China_
_Denmark_
_Finland_
_Netherlands_
_Canada_
_Sweden_
_Norway_
_Ireland_
_New Zealand_
_Belgium_

Oh yea...they're all doing just awful...
And maybe you should ask the average American if they feel fucking rich...


----------



## Randy

MFB said:


> "we're here for you in these trying times,"



My favorite is the "so we're continuing to do what we always do" follow-up to that line. So if I bring my car in to get fixed and pay you, you're going to fix it for me? How magnanimous of you!

One my favorite ones was Visionworks. "In these trying times, your vision is more important than ever!". What? Why? So you can see who's sneezing around you?


----------



## GoldDragon

narad said:


> _
> 
> Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
> _
> 
> _China_
> _Denmark_
> _Finland_
> _Netherlands_
> _Canada_
> _Sweden_
> _Norway_
> _Ireland_
> _New Zealand_
> _Belgium_
> 
> Oh yea...they're all doing just awful...
> And maybe you should ask the average American if they feel fucking rich...



Most of those are tiny EU states with virtually zero defense budget. They are the countries that benefit the most from the union and the most geographically distant from poor immigrant nations. (Just like how Canada doesnt have problems with illegal immigration because they are geographically protected.) Take a look at Spain, Italy, France to see how its not working out so well.

The pandemic could cause the EU to fracture.
https://newrepublic.com/article/157579/can-european-union-survive-coronavirus-pandemic

China had advance warning and was able to stop pandemic within their borders. Quality of life, combined with human rights violations, and communist govt, and you think they compare to the USA in any way? What about russia? Notice they weren't on your list.

Canada, lol. Without the USA, they would have been invaded and annexed by Russia many years ago.


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> Most of those are tiny EU states with virtually zero defense budget. They are the countries that benefit the most from the union and the most geographically distant from poor immigrant nations. (Just like how Canada doesnt have problems with illegal immigration because they are geographically protected.) Take a look at Spain, Italy, France to see how its not working out so well.
> 
> The pandemic could cause the EU to fracture.
> https://newrepublic.com/article/157579/can-european-union-survive-coronavirus-pandemic
> 
> China had advance warning and was able to stop pandemic within their borders. Quality of life, combined with human rights violations, and communist govt, and you think they compare to the USA in any way? What about russia? Notice they weren't on your list.
> 
> Canada, lol. Without the USA, they would have been invaded and annexed by Russia many years ago.



Sorry, I thought you when you said "Keep in mind that America will weather the storm better than most", that "the storm" was the coronavirus, and not some sort of global war or immigration crisis.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> I wont deny that there are problem with ICs, taxing, benefits, etc.
> 
> If you step back and look at it, the system was working well before the pandemic, and the emergency legislation picked up the slack in our time of need.
> 
> Keep in mind that America will weather the storm better than most. The reason? We are a fucking rich capitalist nation. That doesn't happen with socialist policies.



I wouldn't go as far as saying America's economy makes us uniquely qualified to fight this. Keep in mind, there are more infections and deaths in the US both by volume and potentially per capita (not sure where Italy ended up for deaths vs. population) than the rest of the world. 

To say there were no missteps or we weathered this exceptionally well is delusional.

BUT, I'll concede that strong industry and this economy, which is capitalistic, is funding the recovery and how it would've been done in a different (ie: socialist) economy is pure speculation.

My point was that the roll-out was already rife with mistakes at best and pure corruption at worst, and that means wasted money and less people getting the help when they need. The old saying is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". A structure in place for disaster economies and hardships (which happen not just in national pandemics but think of regional disasters like tornados, floods, wildfires) would've made a transition like this a lot smoother. Fully expect at least $1T of this recovery to go to fraud, waste and abuse.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> I wouldn't go as far as saying America's economy makes us uniquely qualified to fight this. Keep in mind, there are more infections and deaths in the US both by volume and potentially per capita (not sure where Italy ended up for deaths vs. population) than the rest of the world.
> 
> To say there were no missteps or we weathered this exceptionally well is delusional.
> 
> BUT, I'll concede that strong industry and this economy, which is capitalistic, is funding the recovery and how it would've been done in a different (ie: socialist) economy is pure speculation.
> 
> My point was that the roll-out was already rife with mistakes at best and pure corruption at worst, and that means wasted money and less people getting the help when they need. The old saying is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". A structure in place for disaster economies and hardships (which happen not just in national pandemics but think of regional disasters like tornados, floods, wildfires) would've made a transition like this a lot smoother. Fully expect at least $1T of this recovery to go to fraud, waste and abuse.



Yes there is corruption. I think that illustrates how problematic handouts and welfare is, not the opposite. Your argument is essentially that if we were better at welfare, there would be less corruption and wasted money.

My argument is that if we were "good" at welfare, we wouldn't be as successful a country. This is supported by looking at the success and quality of life of socialist nations. (You have to look at EU as a whole, not cherrypick small examples of success.)

A structure in place doesn't need a Bernie in the WH to accomplish. I suspect we have learned much from this and will be better prepared in the future. For instance, require every person to have deposit information on file, even those who do not file taxes.

Trump did say he wanted to handle the disbursements of the PUA at the federal level, but individual states wanted to do it. (Dont know the veracity or correctness of this, but he said it in response to media reports of problems in the states.) I don't see why the federal govt shouldn't develop a configurable Uemp benefit IT systems and let the states administer them. I suspect it will go in that direction. (Edit: Actually, the govt will probably define standards for interfacing with their systems, and private industry will provide the software. In my state a contractor spun up the new PUA system in less than a month; it is private industry that rose to the challenge, not the state's decrepit IT department.)

The EIDL and PPP loans were administered by banks, some large, some regional, some small. Do you think in a socialist nation there would be such an active and distributed banking structure? In this case, federally backed loans administered through private lenders enabled this to happen. THe entire infrastructure of applying for and being approved for loans was handled by private industry. Do you think we should keep a half million government bankers idling away on staff for the day when there is the next pandemic?? Hopefully you can see that is unrealistic. Private industry stepped up to make EIDL and PPP a reality.

I didn't say we "weathered this exceptionally well". I said that when this is all over, we will have fared better than most.

The only real issue I see in our response is in the delay of PUA benefits. (They spun up testing and mask stockpiles as quickly as possible.) This was handled at the state level. I doubt if we were living in Bernie world post 2016 we would have a federal UE benefit system. That would require massive legislation and redefinition of the relationship between states and federal govt. Just wouldn't happen.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> (You have to look at EU as a whole, not cherrypick small examples of success.)


Why?


----------



## Choop

GoldDragon said:


> Yes there is corruption. I think that illustrates how problematic handouts and welfare is, not the opposite. Your argument is essentially that if we were better at welfare, there would be less corruption and wasted money.



If there were better welfare systems in place, how would there not be less corruption and wasted money? The way that relief was rolled out so haphazardly is precisely because there were no systems in place for such an event.


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> Whew. I thought it was possible that you guys didn't know about the DNC hack. Between the DNC hack and Hillary's private email server (and Comeys "no reasonable prosecutor" decision) this is what lost her the election. She was already unliked, now she was shady, dishonest, and unlikeable.
> 
> FWIW, any normal citizen that broke the rules the way Hillary did, would have their clearances revoked and be banned from intelligence work and probably jailed.
> 
> The Russia collusion hoax was the hope that it could all be pinned on Trump. They are starting to unravel those threads. Obama's and Comeys willful use of the intelligence apparatus to spy on his political rival, the use of the fake, DNC funded "Steele Dossier" to get a warrant for wire taps (and yes, they were spying on trump tower), without any evidence of collusion... is documented. And that was all followed by Susan Rice admission that they were trying desperately to hide their actions from the incoming adminstration for fear of being found out. (They thought Hillary was a lock, so they weren't afraid of this possibility.)
> 
> Whether DOJ intends to prosecute, or if they are just using it for points in the election cycle tbd.
> 
> IMO, Obama, or at the very least Comey, should be in jail. This was worse than watergate. DNC, Obama, Comey, Rice, Hillary, all involved in the biggest abuse of power in american history.


Ok, you're jumping the shark again. The "Obamagate" thing is straight out of RedState et al, and if the Bernie crowd is falling in line with them, then it's gonna be a shitty few months here. 

I'm not even gonna get into the DNC hack because that's small potatoes to everything that came after in your post. 

"The Russia collusion hoax." Is it possible you didn't know about the Mueller report, and his subsequent testimony? Mueller found ample evidence of both sides helping the other, fell short of a conclusive "smoking gun" that it was _knowing_ tit-for-tat help, but also noted one of the major reasons for that was the extensive obstruction of justice case he laid out separately. Is it possible maybe you weren't aware of this? 

There too was the email that Trump Jr himself released over Twitter where he replied to someone claiming they were a Russian agent with dirt on the Clintons, with a "If this is what you say it is, we love it, especially later this summer," and immediately set up a meeting. That's pretty clear _intent_ to take information from a foreign power, even if we still don't know what exactly went down at that meeting. 

"Fake, DNC funded Steele dossier?" Everything in the Dossier that has been able to be concretely vetted one way or the other checked out as true, Steele had a very good reputation in British intelligence - his previous project was bringing down the FIFA scandal - and Steele was paid by Republicans doing oppo research on Trump as a primary candidate before he was by Democrats, something the GOP has conveniently forgotten. 

Trump claims that Trump Tower was wiretapped. There is zero evidence to support that. What Trump _later_ pointed to for vindication was someone the FBI was wiretapping placed a few calls to the Trump Tower, which is both not nearly the same thing, and also is an awfully curious way of defending yourself. 

You're also surely aware that Ivanka and Jared are _also_ running their own private email server that the GOP weirdly seems to have no interest in investigating, right? Surely you weren't somehow unaware of that? 

I don't know what conspiracy hole you crawled out of, but please go back. You're making a fool out of yourself.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> "DNC rigged primary against Bernie" is a popular conservative troupe, FYI.


Based on subsequent follow-up posts, I'm starting to think you my be right. He sounds like the one conservative idiot I still have on facebook mostly because he's been posting so much about Pizzagate 2.0 excuse me Obamagate that I'm mostly just waiting it out until this one falls apart on him too, to see if he's at all sheepish or just moves on to the next crazy conspiracy theory. 

Have we talked about Flynn's judge opening a due-diligence investigation to ensure there were no conflicts of interest in the DOJ's decision to drop charges before he decides if he should continue prosecuting, by the way, or did we get distracted by this guy? IIRC the whole impetus of "Obamagate" was Flynn's charges being dropped somehow exonerated the whole thing and proved a massive Obama administration deep state scandal and coverup, and that certainly muddies the waters a bit...


----------



## GoldDragon

Drew said:


> I don't know what conspiracy hole you crawled out of, but please go back. You're making a fool out of yourself.



I'm not going to respond to your individual points because your post is flame baiting.

If anyone who did not know the issues, compared our posts, I think they would see I am the more composed and rational. If you want meaningful debate, please stop with the flame baiting.


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> I'm not going to respond to your individual points because your post is flame baiting.
> 
> If anyone who did not know the issues, compared our posts, I think they would see I am the more composed and rational. If you want meaningful debate, please stop with the flame baiting.


If you want meaningful debate, please stop making up your own "facts." If my calling out the various falsehoods and inaccuracies point-by-point is "flame baiting," then so be it.


----------



## GoldDragon

Drew said:


> If you want meaningful debate, please stop making up your own "facts." If my calling out the various falsehoods and inaccuracies point-by-point is "flame baiting," then so be it.



Falsified information used to obtain FISA warrant for wiretap of Carter Page, Trump campaign advisor. Trump tower was wiretapped in an abstract sense. This article covers what I mentioned in my prior post.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fi...arter-page-probe-from-seeking-wiretaps-report

More information on the fallout from this.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fi...arter-page-probe-from-seeking-wiretaps-report

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence to support a slew of Steele dossier claims, including that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague as part of a conspiracy with Russian hackers, that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of a Russian oil giant, that Russia was running a disinformation campaign through a nonexistent consulate in Miami, or that Russians possessed lurid blackmail material on the president.

"Omissions of material fact were the most prevalent and among the most serious problems with the Page applications," Boasberg wrote. *The judge pointed out that the inspector general had found that the FBI did not disclose to the court that it knew Page had a prior relationship with another intelligence agency from 2008 to 2013 -- a period in which Page had voluntarily told the agency that he had contacts with Russians." (IOW, the application was falsified through ommision.)*

The Steele Dossier was used as the primary justification to open FISA warrant against Trump team. It was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC as opposition research against their political opponent.

Lets put this in easily digestible terms.

*Hillary and DNC paid for opposition research on Trump. This was the Steele Dossier. It was written by Chrisopher Steele who had questionable (not credible) reputation in the intelligence community.

*Steele Dossier charges trump operatives with treasonous crimes. It is used as the basis for the FISA warrant. When FISA warrant was obtained, they did not disclose the source of the report. FISA court rubber stamped it. FISA warrant was obtained illegally. 

*Mueller report found that the claims in the Steele Dossier were fabricated. They had illegally surveiled trump campaign without any factual evidence, based on opposition research Hillary had paid for and leaked to the FBI.

Summary: This was a political hit put out by Hillary to undermine Trump. It resulted in a three year investigation and news cycle dominated by "impeachment", yet Mueller investigation did not uncover any truth in the allegations.

It is chilling what the political establishment can do to an outsider.


----------



## Randy

Look, I'm trying to have a civilized discussion with you and not just attack you because your perspective skews conservative, but this "every reply is a jumping off point for another Fox News segment" thing is taxing and it's become almost impossible to have a dialogue.

It's literally like a Fox News RSS feed being fed search terms based on whatever someone says to you. Sometimes it's barely related, if at all.


----------



## JSanta

If you're going to post skewed opinion pieces (i.e. foxnews), you're not asking for meaningful dialogue because the source itself is tainted. It's really no better if someone posted "news" from Occupy Democrats, as Fox is as right as Occupy Democrats is left, and the same level of very low reliability. 

It's fine to frame them as opinions, but the talking points there are just that.

Post news (not opinion pieces) from the AP, BBC, WSJ, or NPR if you want to have a serious discussion.


----------



## Ralyks

GoldDragon said:


> I'm not going to respond to your individual points because your post is flame baiting.
> 
> If anyone who did not know the issues, compared our posts, I think they would see I am the more composed and rational. If you want meaningful debate, please stop with the flame baiting.



Nope, you're still dillusional.
Also, you keep saying you're leaving the conversation. Still waiting.


----------



## Randy

Katie Hill seat flipped to Republican. In California. In a majority mail in ballot (that was supposed to favor Democrats). In a district Trump lost in 2016.

Dems hanging their 2020 hat on how unlikeable Trump is, forgetting how unlikeable they also are.

Somebody pitch me Joe Biden without saying the words Donald Trump. Somebody legitimately tell me they like Joe Biden and why without using the word electability.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Also, you keep saying you're leaving the conversation. Still waiting.



That was also fake news.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Somebody legitimately tell me they like Joe Biden and why without using the word electability.



An actual political background, part of the administration that left behind the pandemic playbook and team that we should still have, the evening was recovering before another adminstration claimed it as their own and proceeded to fuck that up.


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> An actual political background, part of the administration that left behind the pandemic playbook and team that we should still have, the evening was recovering before another adminstration claimed it as their own and proceeded to fuck that up.


That's basically the same as saying "Donald Trump".


----------



## Ralyks

I'm confused, what's Trumps political background prior to getting elected, and what national health issues did he deal with in the past?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I'm confused, what's Trumps political background prior to getting elected, and what national health issues did he deal with in the past?



Because that reasoning would fall apart of anyone else but Trump was the opposition.

That's the point @Randy was making.

Sell us Biden without mentioning the other side at all.


----------



## Ralyks

Isn't creating nuisance like Bernie Bros?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Isn't creating nuisance like Bernie Bros?



Again, can we get a reason that isn't "someone else is worse/has a worse trait"? 

This has been the Dems problem for years now. Running a "not as bad" candidate vs. someone who can stand on thier own.


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Sell us Biden without mentioning the other side at all.



He had an eight year internship in the White House.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, can we get a reason that isn't "someone else is worse/has a worse trait"?
> 
> This has been the Dems problem for years now. Running a "not as bad" candidate vs. someone who can stand on thier own.



Ok. Let's say Bernie got the nod and by some miracle won. Between the house and the Senate, how much of his platform do you think would actually pass?

Also, lest we forget, Bernie isn't a Democrat.


----------



## Randy

And to repeat myself, I'm voting for Biden. I haven't voted for a Republican in a Presidential election and I don't plan on starting with this asshole.

But I'm not the person the Democratic Party needs to win over. The lesson last night is that assuming all Democrats are interchangeable or desire to keep the Republicans out of power is reason enough to win anything in 2020 is patently false. I think this party and people who gave Biden the nomination have those questions to answer for, before we make it to the Convention.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Ok. Let's say Bernie got the nod and by some miracle won. Between the house and the Senate, how much of his platform do you think would actually pass?
> 
> Also, lest we forget, Bernie isn't a Democrat.



You're jumping way way way ahead of things. I never said Bernie was the magic candidate, but his appeal is different than Biden's appeal. It's a "you break it, you buy it" policy. I'd expect to have to answer these same questions if Bernie were the nominee but he's not, so the onus is on Biden and his supporters.


----------



## bostjan

GoldDragon said:


> Trump tower was wiretapped in an abstract sense.



Hmm... so, if you define the words you are claiming, you get to say that your claim is true. Otherwise... not.



GoldDragon said:


> "Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence to support a slew of Steele dossier claims, including that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague as part of a conspiracy with Russian hackers, that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of a Russian oil giant, that Russia was running a disinformation campaign through a nonexistent consulate in Miami, or that Russians possessed lurid blackmail material on the president.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election.pdf

There's the Mueller report. It'd be a thousand times better to quote the actual source rather than a questionable outlet that claims to have read and digested the source properly, when they have made blunders doing such with the same source in the past, especially when the source is publicly available for free.



GoldDragon said:


> The Steele Dossier was used as the primary justification to open FISA warrant against Trump team. It was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC as opposition research against their political opponent.
> 
> Lets put this in easily digestible terms.
> 
> *Hillary and DNC paid for opposition research on Trump. This was the Steele Dossier. It was written by Chrisopher Steele who had questionable (not credible) reputation in the intelligence community.
> 
> *Steele Dossier charges trump operatives with treasonous crimes. It is used as the basis for the FISA warrant. When FISA warrant was obtained, they did not disclose the source of the report. FISA court rubber stamped it. FISA warrant was obtained illegally.
> 
> *Mueller report found that the claims in the Steele Dossier were fabricated. They had illegally surveiled trump campaign without any factual evidence, based on opposition research Hillary had paid for and leaked to the FBI.
> 
> Summary: This was a political hit put out by Hillary to undermine Trump. It resulted in a three year investigation and news cycle dominated by "impeachment", yet Mueller investigation did not uncover any truth in the allegations.
> 
> It is chilling what the political establishment can do to an outsider.



Again, refer to the actual report. Mueller did not say that the claims in the Steele Dossier were fabricated. He said some of them were unsubstantiated. For the purpose of your argument, those two are vastly different things.

Also, the reason impeachment was in the news for so long was because Trump kept being naughty. The mess with Ukraine was not directly related to the Mueller Report. If Trump keeps pulling different ploys, and keeps getting caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar, then it makes perfect sense for him to be in a negative light in the news media perpetually. I'm not sure why that's an argument, even.


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, can we get a reason that isn't "someone else is worse/has a worse trait"?
> 
> This has been the Dems problem for years now. Running a "not as bad" candidate vs. someone who can stand on thier own.



I think this is an unrealistic thing to ask for. The only reason why any candidates get nominated is because they weren’t as bad as the others. The only reason those candidates win is because they aren’t as bad the other candidates. I don’t know of any politician that people actually love and follow, even Trump was a cringe candidate for most republicans. Yeah I know that Bernie says he is the candidate that could motivate and drive turn out, but that never happens for him. It is just a talking point he has. 

Politicians are not guitars we would love to have, they are cable companies that we are forced to choose from.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I think this is an unrealistic thing to ask for. The only reason why any candidates get nominated is because they weren’t as bad as the others. The only reason those candidates win is because they aren’t as bad the other candidates. I don’t know of any politician that people actually love and follow, even Trump was a cringe candidate for most republicans. Yeah I know that Bernie says he is the candidate that could motivate and drive turn out, but that never happens for him. It is just a talking point he has.
> 
> Politicians are not guitars we would love to have, they are cable companies that we are forced to choose from.



I'm not looking for a Rockstar, but would settle for someone with an actual platform.

This shouldn't be an impossible bar. 

Obama had a platform ("Change") and he won. Gore had a platform (environment), he lost the electoral but won the popular. 

You can get votes outside of being the best of a shitty choice.


----------



## StevenC

SpaceDock said:


> I think this is an unrealistic thing to ask for. The only reason why any candidates get nominated is because they weren’t as bad as the others. The only reason those candidates win is because they aren’t as bad the other candidates. I don’t know of any politician that people actually love and follow, even Trump was a cringe candidate for most republicans. Yeah I know that Bernie says he is the candidate that could motivate and drive turn out, but that never happens for him. It is just a talking point he has.
> 
> Politicians are not guitars we would love to have, they are cable companies that we are forced to choose from.


You're sort of missing the point.

Most politicians run on a platform of doing something, whereas Biden's platform seems to largely consist of "let's keep this going". Which would have been a great platform for him to run on in 2016, but a really terrible one when going against an incumbent.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> You're sort of missing the point.
> 
> Most politicians run on a platform of doing something, whereas Biden's platform seems to largely consist of "let's keep this going". Which would have been a great platform for him to run on in 2016, but a really terrible one when going against an incumbent.



Bingo. 

Biden not running in 2016 was a misstep and an unfortunate one, but him running now on what would be an identical, outdated "platform" if you can call it that, isn't going to make up for that.


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> Falsified information used to obtain FISA warrant for wiretap of Carter Page, Trump campaign advisor. Trump tower was wiretapped in an abstract sense. This article covers what I mentioned in my prior post.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fi...arter-page-probe-from-seeking-wiretaps-report
> 
> More information on the fallout from this.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fi...arter-page-probe-from-seeking-wiretaps-report
> 
> "Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence to support a slew of Steele dossier claims, including that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague as part of a conspiracy with Russian hackers, that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of a Russian oil giant, that Russia was running a disinformation campaign through a nonexistent consulate in Miami, or that Russians possessed lurid blackmail material on the president.
> 
> "Omissions of material fact were the most prevalent and among the most serious problems with the Page applications," Boasberg wrote. *The judge pointed out that the inspector general had found that the FBI did not disclose to the court that it knew Page had a prior relationship with another intelligence agency from 2008 to 2013 -- a period in which Page had voluntarily told the agency that he had contacts with Russians." (IOW, the application was falsified through ommision.)*
> 
> The Steele Dossier was used as the primary justification to open FISA warrant against Trump team. It was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC as opposition research against their political opponent.
> 
> Lets put this in easily digestible terms.
> 
> *Hillary and DNC paid for opposition research on Trump. This was the Steele Dossier. It was written by Chrisopher Steele who had questionable (not credible) reputation in the intelligence community.
> 
> *Steele Dossier charges trump operatives with treasonous crimes. It is used as the basis for the FISA warrant. When FISA warrant was obtained, they did not disclose the source of the report. FISA court rubber stamped it. FISA warrant was obtained illegally.
> 
> *Mueller report found that the claims in the Steele Dossier were fabricated. They had illegally surveiled trump campaign without any factual evidence, based on opposition research Hillary had paid for and leaked to the FBI.
> 
> Summary: This was a political hit put out by Hillary to undermine Trump. It resulted in a three year investigation and news cycle dominated by "impeachment", yet Mueller investigation did not uncover any truth in the allegations.
> 
> It is chilling what the political establishment can do to an outsider.


Except, no, your conclusions are NOT supported by any of that. 

*Review found errors and inaccuraies in the Carter Page surveillance approval, but did not conclude intentional falsification had occured and ultimately found the basis for issuing the wiretap authorization was still sound. The Steele dossier was NOT central to the application. The DOJ has concluded the last couple renewals were questionable, but the original wiretap and the first few renewals were justified. 

*Mueller found and I quote, "no evidence to support a slew of Steele dossier claims." He also found no evidence to disprove them. There are a lot of things in the dossier that we can't prove one way or another. There are also, however, a lot of things in the dossier we CAN prove one way or another, and a lot of Steele's dossier does check out: 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

Are there some things in there we can't prove? Yes. Does that mean the entire dossier is "fabricated"? Not at all. 

*Steele's firm was also originally hired by conservative media in 2015 to research Trump. The person paying for research doesn't automatically render the research itself false... But the funding sources were bipartisan. Calling this a "Clinton political hit" both ignores the fact that some of the dossier turned out to be accurate, and that a conservative media outlet had hired Fusion GPS _months_ before the Clinton campaign approached them. 

Some of the other stuff you're alleging as false - "russia running a disinformation campaign from an imaginary consulate in Miami" for example - no clue on the consulate, but it's pretty well established that Russian Intelligence WAS running a disinformation campaign on US social media, that Russian Intelligence WAS behind the DNC hack, and that Manaford DID have contact with "Guccifer 2.0" about the leak being posted to Wikileaks. I'm sorry if this is all inconvenient to your worldview, but it's established fact that Russia hacked the DNC and was behind an extensive social media campaign to try to influence the presidential election. 

And, again, you're simply repeating claims from your prior post that I've already disputed, at length. You're not actually defending any of your - highly questionable - assertions, you're just repeating yourself. Again, you're coming across like you _don't actually understand what you're talking about_, and you're just parroting conservative media.


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> "Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence to support a slew of Steele dossier claims...
> 
> Mueller report found that the claims in the Steele Dossier were fabricated.


I mean, here's the thing you're getting hung up on. I'll lay this out in the simplest terms I can - you're making two logical falacies.

1) If there is no evidence something is _true_, that's not the same as evidence something is _false_. Yet, you're concluding Mueller concluded "a slew of Steele dossier claims" were false, rather than unproven.

2) if there are a number of independent claims made by a source, and one of them is determined to be false - again, see #1, but let's go with it - that does NOT prove the rest of the claims are also false. You can argue one should subjectively weigh the others as less likely to be true, and that's probably fair... But we also know a number of Steele dossier claims WERE proven, which is a mitigating factor and grounds to take them slightly more seriously.

Again, you're making some awfully big, and indefensible, logical leaps here.

***

And the Steele dossier is only a SMALL part of this - the DOJ did find the decision to open surveillance on Page was sound, for one, which you're straight up getting wrong - the DOJ found flaws with only two of the four applications, the final two.

As a great example on how Fox is lying to you - they carefully note that "at least two of the four," and don't go into further detail in their coverage:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ca...d-probable-cause-declassified-doj-order-finds

...before concluding that "essentially" the wiretaps shouldn't have been authorized in the first place. But, when you go to the source they link, that's not really what it's saying:

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC Declassifed Order 16-1182 17-52 17-375 17-679 200123.pdf

The source document notes that there were four authorizations:

2016-1182
2017-0052
2017-0375
2017-0679

...and goes on to conclude that if you pull out "material misstatements and omissions" then applications 2017-0375 and 2017-0679 don't rise to the level of probable cause, but no opinion on the _first two_ were issued, which means that both applications were still valid. This is a distinction Fox doesn't make.

Was the process flawed? At the end, sure. Was the original application valid? At a minimum, the DOJ hasn't challenged it, so at present it appears the answer is yes. The decision to _open_ surveillance was justified by the evidence presented, and was not colored by "material misstatements and omissions."


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> I think this is an unrealistic thing to ask for. The only reason why any candidates get nominated is because they weren’t as bad as the others. The only reason those candidates win is because they aren’t as bad the other candidates. I don’t know of any politician that people actually love and follow, even Trump was a cringe candidate for most republicans. Yeah I know that Bernie says he is the candidate that could motivate and drive turn out, but that never happens for him. It is just a talking point he has.
> 
> Politicians are not guitars we would love to have, they are cable companies that we are forced to choose from.



This is a pretty cynical view. Do you really think people vote and support Trump because he is "better than the other guy"? Maybe career politicians cringe at him, but his base views him as a successful white businessman that doesn't give a **** what the establishment wants him to do.

Just my 2 cents, a large reason people have the turd sandwich vs giant douche mentality is because people don't actually learn what candidates are about or take time to read past "abortion" or "taxes". Couple with negative attack ads, it's no wonder people don't know the positive impact of candidates is.



StevenC said:


> You're sort of missing the point.
> 
> Most politicians run on a platform of doing something, whereas Biden's platform seems to largely consist of "let's keep this going". Which would have been a great platform for him to run on in 2016, but a really terrible one when going against an incumbent.



Honestly, he could run on "let's get back to normal" and probably pull it off.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> This is a pretty cynical view. Do you really think people vote and support Trump because he is "better than the other guy"? Maybe career politicians cringe at him, but his base views him as a successful white businessman that doesn't give a **** what the establishment wants him to do.
> 
> Just my 2 cents, a large reason people have the turd sandwich vs giant douche mentality is because people don't actually learn what candidates are about or take time to read past "abortion" or "taxes". Couple with negative attack ads, it's no wonder people don't know the positive impact of candidates is.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, he could run on "let's get back to normal" and probably pull it off.


I've always liked the Henry Rollins approach to voting - that it's the highest form of protest, that you're never going to feel about the president the same way you feel about Ozzy Osbourne ("fuck yeah! the president rules!"), and that when you go into that voting booth, you do it with your middle finger raised. Nothing wrong with voting to vote _against_ a candidate, and if you happen to feel strongly about voting _for_ a candidate, that's a luxury and enjoy it, but voting is a way of saying what you DON'T want your government to look like, as much as it is saying what you DO.


----------



## SpaceDock

I can understand a lot of the perspectives that people have on here in wanting to really believe in a candidate. For me I have never been inspired by any candidate I have ever voted for. Maybe I am cynical but it really is giant douse or turd sandwich to me.

edit: my view is not based on not being informed on their policies or beliefs. I have not had any candidate that appeals to my interests or beliefs that has ever been in a position where I could vote for them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I can understand a lot of the perspectives that people have on here in wanting to really believe in a candidate. For me I have never been inspired by any candidate I have ever voted for. Maybe I am cynical but it really is giant douse or turd sandwich to me.
> 
> edit: my view is not based on not being informed on their policies or beliefs. I have not had any candidate that appeals to my interests or beliefs that has ever been in a position where I could vote for them.



I get it. Trust me. Like @Randy, I'm voting for Biden no problem. It's not even a question. 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for more. It does a disservice to our own goals for the Dems to throw out only politicians that only "never-other-siders" vote for while holding their nose.


----------



## SpaceDock

I had so much hope from the giant pool of candidates early on, then slow death of anyone new and left alone with Biden. 

Waiting for someone to turn that into a funny meme......


----------



## bostjan

If the election were tomorrow, I'd be placing my vote for Biden as well. Although I really worry about his future leadership abilities, there's no doubt in my mind that he's better than the guy who will probably win. So, I will vote for the guy who will probably win Vermont by at least a 30% margin, and probably win the popular vote, but also probably lose the electoral vote. Back in December, according to polls by Politico, CNN, and even Fox News, a majority of Americans supported removal of the President from office. What has he done since then to improve anything for any of those people? Maybe some forgot...

Anyway, Biden 100% would not have my vote if he were running against some unknown candidate, but the truth of the matter is that people vote based on a binary decision. As much as I am principled to vote third party, I don't expect to do so this time around unless something significant happens between now and November.


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> I can understand a lot of the perspectives that people have on here in wanting to really believe in a candidate. For me I have never been inspired by any candidate I have ever voted for. Maybe I am cynical but it really is giant douse or turd sandwich to me.
> 
> edit: my view is not based on not being informed on their policies or beliefs. I have not had any candidate that appeals to my interests or beliefs that has ever been in a position where I could vote for them.



This isn't aimed directly at you, more to the general stereotype of American voters.

There will never be a politician that appeals directly to all of your core values. It is a bit immature and fantasizing to think it works that way. You need to research candidates and change your mindset to get behind how they view the world and if that view is something you think is good for society. If you want someone with exactly your own convictions, you need to run yourself and hope other people take the time to listen and have a dialog with you.

This is what Trump was able to do. Bernie was less successful at it.


----------



## GoldDragon

Drew said:


> I mean, here's the thing you're getting hung up on. I'll lay this out in the simplest terms I can - you're making two logical falacies.
> 
> 1) If there is no evidence something is _true_, that's not the same as evidence something is _false_. Yet, you're concluding Mueller concluded "a slew of Steele dossier claims" were false, rather than unproven.
> 
> 2) if there are a number of independent claims made by a source, and one of them is determined to be false - again, see #1, but let's go with it - that does NOT prove the rest of the claims are also false. You can argue one should subjectively weigh the others as less likely to be true, and that's probably fair... But we also know a number of Steele dossier claims WERE proven, which is a mitigating factor and grounds to take them slightly more seriously.
> 
> Again, you're making some awfully big, and indefensible, logical leaps here.
> 
> ***
> 
> And the Steele dossier is only a SMALL part of this - the DOJ did find the decision to open surveillance on Page was sound, for one, which you're straight up getting wrong - the DOJ found flaws with only two of the four applications, the final two.
> 
> As a great example on how Fox is lying to you - they carefully note that "at least two of the four," and don't go into further detail in their coverage:
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ca...d-probable-cause-declassified-doj-order-finds
> 
> ...before concluding that "essentially" the wiretaps shouldn't have been authorized in the first place. But, when you go to the source they link, that's not really what it's saying:
> 
> https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC Declassifed Order 16-1182 17-52 17-375 17-679 200123.pdf
> 
> The source document notes that there were four authorizations:
> 
> 2016-1182
> 2017-0052
> 2017-0375
> 2017-0679
> 
> ...and goes on to conclude that if you pull out "material misstatements and omissions" then applications 2017-0375 and 2017-0679 don't rise to the level of probable cause, but no opinion on the _first two_ were issued, which means that both applications were still valid. This is a distinction Fox doesn't make.
> 
> Was the process flawed? At the end, sure. Was the original application valid? At a minimum, the DOJ hasn't challenged it, so at present it appears the answer is yes. The decision to _open_ surveillance was justified by the evidence presented, and was not colored by "material misstatements and omissions."



FBI spreadsheet evaluated truth of the steele dossier.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier

The Hill is regarded as centrist.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media-bias

Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. If the FBI with all their resources, an open FISA warrant, and 3 years couldn't corroborate the intelligence one man gathered over several weeks, then there is nothing to it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> This isn't aimed directly at you, more to the general stereotype of American voters.
> 
> There will never be a politician that appeals directly to all of your core values. It is a bit immature and fantasizing to think it works that way. You need to research candidates and change your mindset to get behind how they view the world and if that view is something you think is good for society. If you want someone with exactly your own convictions, you need to run yourself and hope other people take the time to listen and have a dialog with you.
> 
> This is what Trump was able to do. Bernie was less successful at it.



I think there's a difference between wanting the perfect candidate and wanting a candidate that is not marginally better than someone objectively awful. 

Besides, this is more or less rhetorical, as I'm definitely voting for Biden. I just wish we had a better candidate from a party who'd think they'd win by running a ham sandwich because "the other guy is so bad". 

I want them to fight for my vote as if they had to, not just depend on it because they know I really rather not let the other guy win. 

That's one of the reasons engagement is so awful.


----------



## SpaceDock

fantom said:


> This isn't aimed directly at you, more to the general stereotype of American voters.
> 
> There will never be a politician that appeals directly to all of your core values. It is a bit immature and fantasizing to think it works that way. You need to research candidates and change your mindset to get behind how they view the world and if that view is something you think is good for society. If you want someone with exactly your own convictions, you need to run yourself and hope other people take the time to listen and have a dialog with you.
> 
> This is what Trump was able to do. Bernie was less successful at it.




But isn’t this why it is always turd sandwich vs giant douse? I vote for the candidate that is more aligned with what I believe but it doesn’t mean I am enthusiastic about or going to donate to them. I vote Democrat because I do support the larger vision they have because I believe that is better for society. Joe will get my vote but he was not my first choice. Would I like a more progressive candidate, yes, do I still think this is a choice of lesser evils, yes, there is no amount of research into Joe that will make me enthusiastic about him. 

Concerning Trump, he is just a terrible human and I think Satan in the flesh running on a pro life platform would get Republicans votes. There is a small minority that really like and support Trump. There are tons of Republicans who support him and say they like him but that is just because he won the RNC nomination. 

No one stops being a Raiders fan because they lose a lot of games or becomes a fan of the team that beat the Raiders even though that team was obviously better. We are all just stuck in these teams/tribes without any real progress because we will follow along with our team we were indoctrinated into even when they are losing or doing the wrong things.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> The Hill is regarded as centrist.



But an opinion piece written by a Fox News, and historically very conservative, political commentator John Solomon isn't.

If a piece needs this stipulation:



Then it's probably worth taking with a grain of salt, vs. rebuttal with direct sources.


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> But an opinion piece written by a Fox News, and historically very conservative, political commentator John Soloman isn't.
> 
> If a piece needs this stipulation:
> View attachment 80669
> 
> 
> Then it's probably worth taking with a grain of salt, vs. rebuttal with direct sources.



Here's the thing. Did you see Chuck Todd's blunder a couple days ago where they edited a Barr interview to make it look like Barr didn't care about rule of law? They absolutely twisted Barr's words 180*. People are asking for Chuck to resign.

Chuck apologized this time, but if you ever watch Meet the Press, its clear they are all raging liberals, with an occasional (brave) republican senator to provide counterpoint. Nowhere on the NBC site is there an asterisk or disclaimer. That doesn't mean its any more credible than the articles I linked.

While you may feel that this piece is inaccurate, the same might be said for MSM interpretation of events. The article I linked is based off the FBIs evaluation of the truth of the report. I did not read the FBI spreadsheet.

IMO, Fox is about as far right as MSM (NBC, MSNBC, etc) is left. If you want really far left or right, you look at CNN/HuffPost/PBS and/or Breitbart.


----------



## SpaceDock

GoldDragon said:


> Here's the thing. Did you see Chuck Todd's blunder a couple days ago where they edited a Barr interview to make it look like Barr didn't care about rule of law?



I don’t think it takes an edited interview for it to look like Barr doesn’t care about the rule of law.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think there's a difference between wanting the perfect candidate and wanting a candidate that is not marginally better than someone objectively awful.
> 
> Besides, this is more or less rhetorical, as I'm definitely voting for Biden. I just wish we had a better candidate from a party who'd think they'd win by running a ham sandwich because "the other guy is so bad".
> 
> I want them to fight for my vote as if they had to, not just depend on it because they know I really rather not let the other guy win.
> 
> That's one of the reasons engagement is so awful.



Fair enough. But I wonder if a candidate is so "awful", why such a large portion of people would support him to his grave. I personally thought Trump was awful 4 years ago and is more awful now. But he appeals to people that want to see someone work against the system. He literally campaigned on that with "drain the swamp".

And fight for your vote? These people literally spend almost a year traveling the country and even military bases around the world to *maybe* make it to the election. They are putting in a ton of effort. Do you want them to get you a limo and penthouse for the night to have a 5 star meal with them too? Ya, I'm being a bit facetious here... But what do you want someone to do to prove to you that they are fighting for you?

I'll be honest, Bernie fought like a madman, but he also did it in such a way that he alienated both Republicans and moderate liberals. He was no where near fighting for what I thought would make a good leader in the current situation of this country. To me, he was exactly like Trump but on the opposite side of the fence. We don't need that again.

Edit: my point is, the more you "fight", the more you alienate potential voters that think you are going too far on a particular issue. There are too many issues to fight on all of them and keep a base. This is how Trump changing his mind every 2 seconds actually works in his favor.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> Here's the thing. Did you see Chuck Todd's blunder a couple days ago where they edited a Barr interview to make it look like Barr didn't care about rule of law? They absolutely twisted Barr's words 180*. People are asking for Chuck to resign.
> 
> Chuck apologized this time, but if you ever watch Meet the Press, its clear they are all raging liberals, with an occasional (brave) republican senator to provide counterpoint. Nowhere on the NBC site is there an asterisk or disclaimer. That doesn't mean its any more credible than the articles I linked.
> 
> While you may feel that this piece is inaccurate, the same might be said for MSM interpretation of events. The article I linked is based off the FBIs evaluation of the truth of the report. I did not read the FBI spreadsheet.
> 
> IMO, Fox is about as far right as MSM (NBC, MSNBC, etc) is left. If you want really far left or right, you look at CNN/HuffPost and/or Breitbart.



No, because I don't watch news that's grounded in ratings. 

I tend to stick to AP and Reuters, occasionally Guardian and BBC, and I don't really follow editorials. I'll read them from time to time, but they're opinion pieces. 

Choosing your own biased source because other sources are biased doesn't seem to be the best way to gather the most accurate information.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Fair enough. But I wonder if a candidate is so "awful", why such a large portion of people would support him to his grave. I personally thought Trump was awful 4 years ago and is more awful now. But he appeals to people that want to see someone work against the system. He literally campaigned on that with "drain the swamp".
> 
> And fight for your vote? These people literally spend almost a year traveling the country and even military bases around the world to *maybe* make it to the election. They are putting in a ton of effort. Do you want them to get you a limo and penthouse for the night to have a 5 star meal with them too? Ya, I'm being a bit facetious here... But what do you want someone to do to prove to you that they are fighting for you?
> 
> I'll be honest, Bernie fought like a madman, but he also did it in such a way that he alienated both Republicans and moderate liberals. He was no where near fighting for what I thought would make a good leader in the current situation of this country. To me, he was exactly like Trump but on the opposite side of the fence. We don't need that again.
> 
> Edit: my point is, the more you "fight", the more you alienate potential voters that think you are going too far on a particular issue. There are too many issues to fight on all of them and keep a base. This is how Trump changing his mind every 2 seconds actually works in his favor.



Why so defensive over shitty candidates?


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> Why so defensive over shitty candidates?



It will always be shitty candidates. It was true my entire life. As I got older and worked a stable job, it became more and more clear to me that coordinating people and having a plan that others got behind is far more difficult than anything I will likely achieve in my lifetime. The fact that these people have millions of faithful supporters blows my mind. I cannot fathom how difficult it is to be in their shoes. So maybe, as I've gotten older, I see their position is harder than any individual can comprehend and maybe they are not as shitty as I personally thought in the past. They just work in a really broken system.

Edit: a music analogy. If Nickelback is such a shitty band, why are they so popular? They achieved something I will never be able to do. So they must know something I don't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> It will always be shitty candidates. It was true my entire life. As I got older and worked a stable job, it became more and more clear to me that coordinating people and having a plan that others got behind is far more difficult than anything I will likely achieve in my lifetime. The fact that these people have millions of faithful supporters blows my mind. I cannot fathom how difficult it is to be in their shoes. So maybe, ad I've gotten older, I see their position is harder than any individual can comprehend and maybe they are as shitty as I personally thought in the past. They just work in a really broken system.



When you stop caring who you're voting for does it really matter anymore? 

Listen, I get it, and I'm definitely not saying to not vote for the best of the worst. I fully intend to do so this November. 

But there's nothing wrong with asking for better. Just having Bernie and Warren in the race pushed the centrist candidates further progressive. There can be little victories.


----------



## Randy

My original point still stands. Anecdotally, I know four CLOSE friends of mine that were apolitical previously, went full Bernie-or-bust in 2016 and they've voted in every local and primary election since then. Trump had the same 'getting people off the sidelines' effect, even if it WAS via dog whistling racists, etc.

I've never heard or seen any indication Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton before him inspired anyone outside the party or outside the political landscape to get involved. Give me one story like that. Even if you have to make it up, tell me.

My concern after last night's special election is that "turd sandwich vs douche banana" or whatever comparison we're using is NOT as transformational cause or calling as necessary to get the people on the sidelines. Much respect to everyone all around but I'm reading like 20 hours of "Trump sucks, you gotta grow up!" shoot the messenger bullshit or combing over polls rather than substance. 

The fact this is such a difficult question to answer directly is HORRIFYING.


----------



## SpaceDock

^ I don’t know that getting people off the sidelines or firing people up so much that they vote in every election is the right answer. We don’t want racists voting because they love Trump or Bernie Bro’s who are the wokest of them all. I think average people not being so absorbed in politics would help us all. Local politics are great, but I think part of our problem is the obsession with national level politics.


----------



## Randy

So you're saying you'd hang your hat on 100% of 'our people' showing up and 100% of 'their people' showing up, and we win? If we need even 1 vote from a person that's not a 'I vote for every Democrat, ever time' voter, how do we get them? Or we don't need them? Why do we lose elections then? Honestly.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> ^ I don’t know that getting people off the sidelines or firing people up so much that they vote in every election is the right answer. We don’t want racists voting because they love Trump or Bernie Bro’s who are the wokest of them all. I think average people not being so absorbed in politics would help us all. Local politics are great, but I think part of our problem is the obsession with national level politics.



Hard disagree.

Folks should care about all levels of politics because it shapes every aspect of our lives, whether we realize it or not, big picture.



Randy said:


> So you're saying you'd hang your hat on 100% of 'our people' showing up and 100% of 'their people' showing up, and we win? If we need even 1 vote from a person that's not a 'I vote for every Democrat, ever time' voter, how do we get them? Or we don't need them? Why do we lose elections then? Honestly.



I'm sure everything is fine, which is why eligible voter turnout has been around 50% the last five decades.


----------



## jaxadam

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1261021660318179328

I think Joe should visit the coronavirus thread do he can get his facts a little more in order.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AWNsZHqCxQ_C3bh4VhevTAg

Apparently 74 Biden Senate staffers don't think he's THAT creepy.


----------



## Randy

Yeah but how many of them had nice legs?


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> FBI spreadsheet evaluated truth of the steele dossier.
> https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier
> 
> The Hill is regarded as centrist.
> https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media-bias
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. If the FBI with all their resources, an open FISA warrant, and 3 years couldn't corroborate the intelligence one man gathered over several weeks, then there is nothing to it.


Another editorial piece being treated as hard fact = check. 

"Innocent until proven guilty." That is, in fact, the law of the land... And is the reason Trump is still president. But, "Presumed innocent because guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" and "definitely proven innocent" are two RADICALLY different standards of proof. Mueller was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign had knowingly worked with Russia. He was able to prove plenty of instances where both sides took actions that primarily benefitted the other, but could not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were the product of some agreement between the two sides. And the, what was it, 13 counts of obstruction of justice that Mueller identified and pointedly stated he could not exonerate Trump of these charges, may have had a little bit to do with that. 

And again - I'm going to state this in bold, because this is the third time I've had to say this. _*You're not actually participating in a debate here, when your views are questioned you're either just repeating conservative media talking points that got questioned in the first place, or posting links to opinion articles that hold the same views as yours, for the same mistaken reasons. *_

I mean, I hope at a minimum now you understand and are willing to admit that the _initial_ approval of the Carter Page wiretap was valid, and that Trump Tower was never wire-tapped, Trump is just claiming validation because a line that _had_ been tapped called Trump Tower.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> I can understand a lot of the perspectives that people have on here in wanting to really believe in a candidate. For me I have never been inspired by any candidate I have ever voted for. Maybe I am cynical but it really is giant douse or turd sandwich to me.
> 
> edit: my view is not based on not being informed on their policies or beliefs. I have not had any candidate that appeals to my interests or beliefs that has ever been in a position where I could vote for them.


To be fair, I think we got spoiled with Obama. He wasn't my first choice in 2008, but I got on board pretty quickly because he WAS an exceptional candidate, a hell of a speaker, and he seemed - still does - to have deep convictions that he was true to. He was imperfect, sure, but I was never embarrassed of him.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Yeah but how many of them had nice legs?



At least 60 of them according to the article. It also looks like a few of Reades supervisors said she was fired because basically, she sucked at her job.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> At least 60 of them according to the article. It also looks like a few of Reades supervisors said she was fired because basically, she sucked at her job.



I once had a woman, whom I fired, come back in and confront *my* boss, saying she "was fired by a racist." We're both caucasian. She was just super shitty at her job. Like...on the day the company CEO was visiting our store to see the improvements *I* had made to the place and the team, she shows up late, and out of uniform. Uniform is either a company t-shirt, or a button-up shirt, non-jeans slacks, and closed-toe shoes one-step up from sneakers. She came in wearing light grey sweat pants, socks/sandals, and a white-tailed deer graphic t-shirt.

About a month later she called me to ask for a reference. So clearly she was also fired because she had terrible judgement.


----------



## GoldDragon

Drew said:


> Another editorial piece being treated as hard fact = check.
> 
> "Innocent until proven guilty." That is, in fact, the law of the land... And is the reason Trump is still president. But, "Presumed innocent because guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" and "definitely proven innocent" are two RADICALLY different standards of proof. Mueller was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign had knowingly worked with Russia. He was able to prove plenty of instances where both sides took actions that primarily benefitted the other, but could not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were the product of some agreement between the two sides. And the, what was it, 13 counts of obstruction of justice that Mueller identified and pointedly stated he could not exonerate Trump of these charges, may have had a little bit to do with that.
> 
> And again - I'm going to state this in bold, because this is the third time I've had to say this. _*You're not actually participating in a debate here, when your views are questioned you're either just repeating conservative media talking points that got questioned in the first place, or posting links to opinion articles that hold the same views as yours, for the same mistaken reasons. *_
> 
> I mean, I hope at a minimum now you understand and are willing to admit that the _initial_ approval of the Carter Page wiretap was valid, and that Trump Tower was never wire-tapped, Trump is just claiming validation because a line that _had_ been tapped called Trump Tower.


Let me repeat:
*
If the FBI with all their resources, an open FISA warrant, and 3 years couldn't corroborate the intelligence one man gathered over several weeks, then there is nothing to it.
*
By your own words, you don't know if there was collusion or anything illegal. None was found, yet you are acting like he's guilty.

You are treating this like the OJ verdict. In the OJ case, there was a dead body. There was an obvious murder. In the Trump collusion and impeachment, there was no "dead body" other than trump winning the election. Some of us call that democracy.

If we can't get past this point, there can't be a debate. Acting like trump is guilty is the height of delusion.

If you respond to this post again, I will either cut/past previous answer or just ignore it.


----------



## Ralyks

GoldDragon said:


> Let me repeat:
> *
> If the FBI with all their resources, an open FISA warrant, and 3 years couldn't corroborate the intelligence one man gathered over several weeks, then there is nothing to it.
> *
> By your own words, you don't know if there was collusion or anything illegal. None was found, yet you are acting like he's guilty.
> 
> You are treating this like the OJ verdict. In the OJ case, there was a dead body. There was an obvious murder. In the Trump collusion and impeachment, there was no "dead body" other than trump winning the election. Some of us call that democracy.
> 
> If we can't get past this point, there can't be a debate. Acting like trump is guilty is the height of delusion.
> 
> If you respond to this post again, I will either cut/past previous answer or just ignore it.



I have a feeling most of us are going to ignore you first. I haven't yet because it's entertaining to see how idiotic your statements are.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> I have a feeling most of us are going to ignore you first. I haven't yet because it's entertaining to see how idiotic your statements are.



Brutal dawg!!

I feel like the resident Republicans should probably just make a “Trump is rad” thread instead of walking into lions den here.


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> Brutal dawg!!
> 
> I feel like the resident Republicans should probably just make a “Trump is rad” thread instead of walking into lions den here.



At least Drew has explained his need to understand what's going on because of his career. GoldDragon just posting opinion pieces and trying to present it as fact.

Also, I can't help it if Trump supporters walk in here like it's Hulk Hogan heel of the month to conquer. Or MetalHex.


----------



## GoldDragon

So cool! I didn't know there was an ignore button. This problem has been solved.


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> Let me repeat:
> *
> If the FBI with all their resources, an open FISA warrant, and 3 years couldn't corroborate the intelligence one man gathered over several weeks, then there is nothing to it.
> *
> By your own words, you don't know if there was collusion or anything illegal. None was found, yet you are acting like he's guilty.
> 
> You are treating this like the OJ verdict. In the OJ case, there was a dead body. There was an obvious murder. In the Trump collusion and impeachment, there was no "dead body" other than trump winning the election. Some of us call that democracy.
> 
> If we can't get past this point, there can't be a debate. Acting like trump is guilty is the height of delusion.
> 
> If you respond to this post again, I will either cut/past previous answer or just ignore it.


Ok, but you're moving the goalposts. The Carter Page wiretap was legally authorized and upon review the original application and first renewal still stood up, so since you still can't bring yourself to admit that, you're going back to the Steele dossier. 

Newsflash: _*The Russia Investigation did NOT begin with the Steele dossier. *_It began with George Papadoupolous confiding to an Austrailian diplomat in Russia that the Trump campaign knew the Russians were behind the DNC server hack, and his escalating that to US intelligence because he was so concerned. This was before the Steele dossier was even completed, much less became public knowledge. That Russia was behind the hack, incidentally, was a claim in the dossier as well, and that HAD been substantiated. 

And again... You're interpreting "was not able to prove true beyond a reasonable doubt" as "definitively proved false." That's absolutely not the case. It's enough to shield Trump from prosecution, but it doesn't prove that nothing occured. Being perfectly honest, when the Russian investigation first opened I had extremely low expectations... Right up until Donald Trump Jr. himself tweeted out an email chain confirming that someone claiming to represent Russia reached out to him offering dirt obn the Clintons, and he eagerly accepted. The Trump campaign, at a minimum, _tried_ to solicit foreign help. Mueller merely failed to prove they succeeded. 

Meanwhile, the obstruction of justice case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller admitted obliquely in his testimony was DOJ policy that only Congress, and not investigators, could recommend charges against a sitting president was the reason he held back from formally stating that Trump had obstructed justice and instead only laid out the facts that substantiated that belief, and Barr, brought in to replace a Jeff Sessions that Trump fired for not doing enough to "protect" him, simply decided to conclude on his own there was no obstruction. 

Trump may have colluded with Russia, but beyond a reasonable doubt obstructed justice. The Steele dossier is only a tiny part of the former case, and not at all part of the latter. Mueller found plenty. Your fixation on the Steele dossier is bizarre.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AnsLQ5Y0qS8a7rp93Rlm8UA

Seems like Tara Reades story keeps unraveling.


----------



## jaxadam

GoldDragon said:


> So cool! I didn't know there was an ignore button. This problem has been solved.



Well, if you end up ignoring everyone in here that you should, you're gonna be stuck with just me!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Wow didn't realize goal post moving was an essential service. And have we confirmed Gold Dragon knows what an editorial is yet?? 

Jesus my brain hurts from all this. Sucks Andrew Yang couldnt break through the mob of candidates


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> Sucks Andrew Yang couldnt break through the mob of candidates



Didn't stop both parties from stealing his platform.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Didn't stop both parties from stealing his platform.


Ironic, isn't it? Of course the GOP is backpedaling hard now, and I'm not sure how hard Mnuchin would press to get a second stimulus check out there. He's certainly going to fall short of the AOC/Sanders proposal to keep $2k/mo checks coming for as long as the pandemic lasts. Either way - UBI is one of those "conceptually interesting, but god only knows how it'd work in real life" ideas that between Yang making it a centerpiece of his platform followed in short order by 15-20+% of the country (tl;dr - the official 14.7% unemployment rate is hard to square with new unemployment claims data and BLS was pretty open about the fact they were struggling to capture data here and job losses from companies that just failed rather than laying people off were not getting captured - I don't think Trump's fudging the numbers, at least not yet, but I think there are some real measurement issues we'll be struggling with for a while and that number probably will get revised down) losing their job in short order, I think it's gone a lot more mainstream.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> IMO, Fox is about as far right as MSM (NBC, MSNBC, etc) is left. If you want really far left or right, you look at CNN/HuffPost/PBS and/or Breitbart.



I think it's time to post this again (or maybe it was posted in the other thread):

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba


----------



## MFB

tedtan said:


> I think it's time to post this again (or maybe it was posted in the other thread):
> 
> https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba



Yeah, but, like, who made THAT chart? _Think about it man!_


----------



## Ralyks

Apparently Biden asked Klobuchar to get better. So theres a hint at where VP is going. The thought process is she can help him with the Mid West.

Not exactly my first choice...


----------



## Randy

Lotta folks staying home for that ticket.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Who is excited to vote for Biden/Klob?


----------



## jaxadam

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Who is excited to vote for Biden/Klob?



No one is as exited as this lady.







Or his granddaughter.






Or his wife's finger.






Or this lady.






Or this lady.


----------



## Randy

That 'shake hand and kiss' move is pretty bold but a true alpha like Trump would've honked a tittie.


----------



## Ralyks

So it looks like Klobuchar isn't the only one being vetted, she's just the one that's gonna get more clicks on articles.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That 'shake hand and kiss' move is pretty bold but a true alpha like Trump would've honked a tittie.


Please. We know exactly where he'd grab them, and it ain't a tittie.


----------



## wankerness

Klobuchar wouldn't increase his midwest appeal, no one that would vote for her wasn't already going to vote Biden and there's definitely some that would change their mind on Biden thanks to her being generally unpleasant and having those widely publicized stories about how she acts towards her subordinates like she thinks she's Meryl Streep in Devil Wears Prada.


----------



## jaxadam

Biden: “You ain’t black if you support Trump”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...aint-black-if-you-support-trump/#2d5481312544
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...aint-black-if-you-support-trump/#2d5481312544

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nt-decide-between-trump-and-biden/5242706002/


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Biden: “You ain’t black if you support Trump”
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...aint-black-if-you-support-trump/#2d5481312544
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nt-decide-between-trump-and-biden/5242706002/


Let me guess. Lots of good people on both sides?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

The inevitable HBO documentary on Biden's 2020 POTUS campaign is going to be incredible.


----------



## jaxadam

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> The inevitable HBO documentary on Biden's 2020 POTUS campaign is going to be incredible.



Here's the preview.


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Biden: “You ain’t black if you support Trump”
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...aint-black-if-you-support-trump/#2d5481312544
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nt-decide-between-trump-and-biden/5242706002/



Yeaaahhhh not a good look.


----------



## vilk

We can get caught up in the stupidly poor choice of phrasing, but the fact is the ultimate message is something that everyone already knows and recognizes: Trump is a racist and so is the vast majority of his support base.


----------



## Ralyks

vilk said:


> We can get caught up in the stupidly poor choice of phrasing, but the fact is the ultimate message is something that everyone already knows and recognizes: Trump is a racist and so is the vast majority of his support base.



I know that's ultimately what he was trying to say but.... Poor choice of words?


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AMweQZns9Rq2zDVzTby4cwg

Meanwhile, Reade could potentially be incriminating herself for lying under oath.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> I know that's ultimately what he was trying to say but.... Poor choice of words?



I watched the actual interview which I know most will not take the time to do. Joe was joking around when he said it and Charlemain even laughs/nods because anyone watching or involved in that conversation would not take it as what the spin is running. People outraged by this are just people looking for something to tear into Joe about because they are already against him. This is just modern politics and Joe is good at delivering his opposition good sound bytes.


----------



## axxessdenied

The amount of hypocrisy in american politics is so fascinating!!


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> I watched the actual interview which I know most will not take the time to do. Joe was joking around when he said it and Charlemain even laughs/nods because anyone watching or involved in that conversation would not take it as what the spin is running. People outraged by this are just people looking for something to tear into Joe about because they are already against him. This is just modern politics and Joe is good at delivering his opposition good sound bytes.



I mean, on one hand, if disasterous soundbytes were enough to end someone's political career, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. But I feel like the expectation for democratic candidates is a higher bar, unfortunately.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> But I feel like the expectation for democratic candidates is a higher bar, unfortunately.



They do when they brand themselves as the party of attacking gaffes and "no women ever lie" for four years, yeah.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> They do when they brand themselves as the party of attacking gaffes and "no women ever lie" for four years, yeah.



This seems like a tangent? I can be light on verbal blunders and still give serious consideration to women who raise claims of abuse. Though I still prefer an Obama-era candidate where these are non-issues.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> This seems like a tangent? I can be light on verbal blunders and still give serious consideration to women who raise claims of abuse. Though I still prefer an Obama-era candidate where these are non-issues.



People in glass houses, etc.

Minus the 'once in two hundred years' asshole nature of Trump himself, the mainstream of both parties in US politics are exactly 1 degree from eachother. Lest we forget candidate Joe Biden floating a GOP VP option, as well as defending his relationship with a pro-segregation Republican a few month back.

"Democrats" chose the grounds by which they wanted to engage Trump. Fine if it's true. Fine if your eventual nominee is guilty or accused of the same. But you lose being able to use that tool against your enemy if you, too, are guilty of it.

Maybe I'm alone in this thinking but Trump being a tapioca pudding brained pussy grabber was a pretty nice offense we had, up until we watered down what that means and floated a guy just a few shades of either, doubly based on these looser defintions.

I also said "Democrats" because I've long held that MeToo and identity based politics were a conservative trap, and that appears to be increasingly clear.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/tara-reade-believe-all-women.html



> The double-standard purity test operates in one direction only. Conservatives are unfazed by their own brazen hypocrisies; that’s not the game they’re playing. Kellyanne Conway claiming it’s “pro-woman” to “believe all women,” before walking back into _that _White House?
> 
> 
> Conservatives have been oddly immunized by their shamelessness. How do you fight, to quote W.B. Yeats, “with one/Who, were it proved he lies,/Were neither shamed in his own/Nor in his neighbours’ eyes”? The right, being averse to principle, has long known how to turn the left’s expressions of principle into Achilles’ heels. Even when it has to make up the expression.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> I also said "Democrats" because I've long held that MeToo and identity based politics were a conservative trap, and that appears to be increasingly clear.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/tara-reade-believe-all-women.html



In the extreme, but really what portion of Democrats have some sort of "women are always right" belief? That's the conservative strawman. If MeToo wants to push the needle closer to "let's hear this person out", I think that's probably a push that's going to align closer to justice than where it is now.

But ya, as I plow through Season 10 of Curb Your Enthusiasm, the ironies not lost on me.


----------



## Randy

That's fair. I think there are people to the left that fall for that trap, though. You can't tell me the way Al Franken was pushed out of his seat was due process, and that Republicans didn't have the most to gain from sacrificing him to the God of Purity.


----------



## Randy

And they're still doing it, tbh. Biden last week or the week before saying "if you believe Tara Reade, don't vote for me". Against the guy that openly admitted he rapes women!


----------



## Ralyks

Edit: Nevermind, read the post wrong.

Also, Franken did get a raw deal, and I still hold a grudge against Gillibrand for that, among other things.


----------



## Randy

Klobucher flexing her Progressive bonafides by offer a $4,000 second stimulus that's contingent on spending it on job retraining. The leaders in this party are a goddamn joke.


----------



## Ralyks

By the way @Randy , if Franken hadn't been pushed out, where do you think we are with him today? I know people who thought he had a legit shot at the 2020 bid right up until everything happened. From all accounts, he was a damn good senator (and yes, I loved him on SNL)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> By the way @Randy , if Franken hadn't been pushed out, where do you think we are with him today? I know people who thought he had a legit shot at the 2020 bid right up until everything happened. From all accounts, he was a damn good senator (and yes, I loved him on SNL)



He never had a shot with the DNC.


----------



## Randy

The same things that made him a great writer and comedian were what made him a great senator. Fantastic observations and very quick. He singlehandedly was the reason Sessions had to recuse himself (based on this questioning during confirmation), despite the fact the Democrats didn't do much with that they were subsequently given (Mueller Report, impeachment findings, etc).

We'd be in a lot better shape with him at the top of the ticket, absolutely.

Biden benefits from the fact we whitewash what he says as "gaffes" but they're more like self inflicted wounds. Biden didn't say he had Cheerios for lunch when he meant to say breakfast, he told black people they're not black if they don't vote for him. Donald Trump doesn't count on those people to win, but Democrats do and they even shape their platform around it, but they potentially throw that effort in the trash with a single moment of brain rot.

I actually like Biden as a person and I think he's a principled guy, but this is the basic shit you can't do. A guy like Franken would probably be very similar to Joe in platform but much sharper wit, and less ammunition of substance (ie: Burisma) against him.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> He never had a shot with the DNC.



I think Franken was in good with the leadership in the party. He was very very active in Kerry's campaign and he endorsed Hillary over Bernie in 2016. He was a moderate that was compassionate and focused on blue collar and midwest.

He was literally just a sacrifice to the Purity Gods. The Democrats wanted to sink Trump's picks (like Kavanaugh) and flex to see if they could get the Trump civil cases heard while he was in office. Gillibrand was a rising star and the face of MeToo in Congress, and showed her aspersion to run for POTUS, so they opted to give her a chance and she fizzled anyway. It's a damn shame.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> I think Franken was in good with the leadership in the party. He was very very active in Kerry's campaign and he endorsed Hillary over Bernie in 2016. He was a moderate that was compassionate and focused on blue collar and midwest.
> 
> He was literally just a sacrifice to the Purity Gods. The Democrats wanted to sink Trump's picks (like Kavanaugh) and flex to see if they could get the Trump civil cases heard while he was in office. Gillibrand was a rising star and the face of MeToo in Congress, and showed her aspersion to run for POTUS, so they opted to give her a chance and she fizzled anyway. It's a damn shame.



I have come to believe that anyone who reaches that level of "power" has at least one copy of the sociopath gene; they never pause to consider the affect their actions will have on other people.

Even people like Franken, who have a charming demeanor, are ruthless self operators. If there is an opportunity, grab it. If there is competition, destroy them (covertly if possible to preserve image.)

The claims against Franken were credible. (at least some of them.) Due to the timing of it relative to metoo, he couldn't escape. Ten years prior, he could have gone on Oprah, cried it out and be granted forgiveness.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> I have come to believe that anyone who reaches that level of "power" has at least one copy of the sociopath gene; they never pause to consider the affect their actions will have on other people.
> 
> Even people like Franken, who have a charming demeanor, are ruthless self operators. If there is an opportunity, grab it. If there is competition, destroy them (covertly if possible to preserve image.)
> 
> The claims against Franken were credible. (at least some of them.) Due to the timing of it relative to metoo, he couldn't escape. Ten years prior, he could have gone on Oprah, cried it out and be granted forgiveness.



The claims he kissed a woman in a sketch and touched two women's butts when they took a picture with him? Excuse me for all the fucks I don't give about that.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> The claims he kissed a woman in a sketch and touched two women's butts when they took a picture with him? Excuse me for all the fucks I don't give about that.



He folded really quick. I think it was the photo of him touching the woman's breasts while asleep. Thats a smoking gun if ever there was one.


----------



## jaxadam

*Joe Biden is Demented Racist Shark Food*


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> *Joe Biden is Demented Racist Shark Food*



But which demented racist shark food will win in 2020?


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> He folded really quick. I think it was the photo of him touching the woman's breasts while asleep. Thats a smoking gun if ever there was one.



Do you not have Google on your computer or do you have no memory? He was hover handing her boobs while she was wearing a fucking bulletproof vest, and that was one of the first things to come out. I listened to his radio show back when he was doing the Uso shows, and she was on several times after that and always acted chummy.

He agreed to an ethics investigation, and after the second person said he touched her during a photo, the Gillibrand man hater brigade was in full swing. This was at the same time she was doing the circuit saying Bill Clinton also should have resigned his presidency over Paula Jones and Monica. It was a goddamn joke.


----------



## Ralyks

Listen, I’m here for Franken 2024. Shame it isn’t going to happen, even if I think he should try to at least get back into the fold at this point.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Do you not have Google on your computer or do you have no memory? He was hover handing her boobs while she was wearing a fucking bulletproof vest, and that was one of the first things to come out. I listened to his radio show back when he was doing the Uso shows, and she was on several times after that and always acted chummy.
> 
> He agreed to an ethics investigation, and after the second person said he touched her during a photo, the Gillibrand man hater brigade was in full swing. This was at the same time she was doing the circuit saying Bill Clinton also should have resigned his presidency over Paula Jones and Monica. It was a goddamn joke.



It was a joke but it was harassment. Imagine that pic passed around, and on the internet. It is demeaning to her.

Dems created #metoo, they have to play by it's rules.


----------



## Randy

How incredibly disingenuous.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> How incredibly disingenuous.


Why? I wouldn't do that to a woman, especially not to one I worked with.

Beyond it just being incredibly immature.


----------



## Randy

It was a joke in the model of the relationship between the two of them (as documented at the time) that she reimagined several years later after she became a conservative radio show host.

It's disingenuous because you're a Trump apologist and his attitude and behavior toward women is worse, yet you've taken no opportunity to get on your soapbox about it. It's disingenuous because the whole point I've been making the last two days is that it's stupid that Democrats hung their hat on an unrealistic standard of what constitutes a MeToo moment, and you concluded your bullshit by saying exactly that when that was the point of the Franken story. It's disingenuous because you got the story fucking wrong and then you moved the goal post somewhere else when I reminded you what actually happened. It's disingenuous because you don't give a fuck about LeeAnn Tweeden, you're just using it as another jumping off point for a "those dang Democrats" double standard bullshit to cock up the Democratic candidate thread when you have no interest in who the candidate is because you're so soaked in partisanship. The Democratic candidate could be Donald Trump's reflection in a fuckin mirror and you'd still have some excuse why he's no good to you. You know it but you keep on arguing item, pivot, different item, pivot, another items with no consistency and no cohesion, which is the definition of disingenuousness.


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> Dems created #metoo, they have to play by it's rules.



Dems didn't create #metoo. It is a worldwide social movement. There is a world outside of American politics. Even within American politics, metoo amounts to very little in terms of actual policy.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> It was a joke in the model of the relationship between the two of them (as documented at the time) that she reimagined several years later after she became a conservative radio show host.
> 
> It's disingenuous because you're a Trump apologist and ...



Full stop. Didn't read the rest.

A conservative is not necessarily a Trump apologist.


----------



## Randy

But you are


----------



## thraxil

GoldDragon said:


> Full stop. Didn't read the rest.
> 
> A conservative is not necessarily a Trump apologist.



Perhaps not, but *you* certainly talk like a Trump apologist:



GoldDragon said:


> Let me repeat:
> *
> If the FBI with all their resources, an open FISA warrant, and 3 years couldn't corroborate the intelligence one man gathered over several weeks, then there is nothing to it.
> *
> By your own words, you don't know if there was collusion or anything illegal. None was found, yet you are acting like he's guilty.
> 
> You are treating this like the OJ verdict. In the OJ case, there was a dead body. There was an obvious murder. In the Trump collusion and impeachment, there was no "dead body" other than trump winning the election. Some of us call that democracy.
> 
> If we can't get past this point, there can't be a debate. Acting like trump is guilty is the height of delusion.
> 
> If you respond to this post again, I will either cut/past previous answer or just ignore it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> Didn't read the rest.



1) Yeah you did. 
2) 
3) Bragging about not reading is modern American republican culture warrior 101.


----------



## jaxadam

Joe Biden is going to beat Joe Biden.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/05/23/trust-the-man-joe-biden-is-going-to-beat-joe-biden/


----------



## gunch

That website gave me aids


----------



## wankerness

Thanks for posting an incredibly badly written hyper-republican opinion piece loaded with faux-tough guy language and concern trolling. That really moved discourse forward in the democratic primary thread.


----------



## Randy

So I'm going to assume we can take Amy out of the veepstakes


----------



## BigViolin

My silly fantasy involves Kaep showing up at the DNC with a four foot tall Fro and taking over.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> So I'm going to assume we can take Amy out of the veepstakes



She shouldn't have been an option, but yes, I think we can safely put that to rest.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I think Franken was in good with the leadership in the party. He was very very active in Kerry's campaign and he endorsed Hillary over Bernie in 2016. He was a moderate that was compassionate and focused on blue collar and midwest.
> 
> He was literally just a sacrifice to the Purity Gods. The Democrats wanted to sink Trump's picks (like Kavanaugh) and flex to see if they could get the Trump civil cases heard while he was in office. Gillibrand was a rising star and the face of MeToo in Congress, and showed her aspersion to run for POTUS, so they opted to give her a chance and she fizzled anyway. It's a damn shame.


You and I were both fans of Franken, and you and I discussed this at _length_ when the accusations came forward. We didn't agree - I thought the right thing for him to do was, at a minimum, step down pending an investigation. 

Today, I'm still not sure I was right. I'm not sure I was _wrong_ either, but he was a damned good senator, thoughtful, intelligence, and articulute, and was a passionate advocate for his constituents. He made a few badly-off-color jokes that came to public, and - being coldly cynical here - there's value to both cutting him loose and holding onto the moral high ground, and to not killing our own in the name of purity. Certainly nothing he was alleged to have done was even _remotely_ in the realm of what Trump or Kavanaugh had been accused of. Is it ok to accept a sincere apology for something that seemed harmless at the time but was probably both hurtful and (most likely) unknowlingly taking advantage of a power dynamic? Idunno. Maybe. 

The irony is GoldenDragon may be a blind partisan hack, but when he says the Dems "own the #metoo" movement, in some ways he's not wrong, and those ways are REALLY not a good look for the GOP. Democrats have a proven track record of taking accusations against their own a LOT more seriously than Republicans do, who have a proven track record of either brushing it under the rug or just straight-up not giving a shit. That's one of the _many_ reasons why the GOP consistently loses the female vote in virtually every single demographic breakdown you want to carve it up into.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Is it ok to accept a sincere apology for something that seemed harmless at the time but was probably both hurtful and (most likely) unknowlingly taking advantage of a power dynamic?



Yes, I accept your apology.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> there's value to both cutting him loose and holding onto the moral high ground



Nope, it's objectively stupid. Objectively _fucking_ stupid, actually.

Cannibalizing your own for anything that doesn't meet the threshold for a criminal complaint is a purity test, no more and no less.


----------



## SpaceDock

If Biden can’t beat Trump after Covid Crash Loot Fest Dumpster Fire then the next four years are going to be too much. Feels like the tightening swirl of the toilet right at the end of a flush.


----------



## Randy

Literally anyone would be an upgrade over Trump right now. Anyone. If you told me you can wait till November and take your chances, or you could take, like, Ted Cruz for the next 2 years and we'll try again after things calm down, I'd probably take Cruz. It's that bad.


----------



## gunch

Randy said:


> Literally anyone would be an upgrade over Trump right now. Anyone. If you told me you can wait till November and take your chances, or you could take, like, Ted Cruz for the next 2 years and we'll try again after things calm down, I'd probably take Cruz. It's that bad.



We'd be okay if we just gave him a free pornhub account and leave him to his own devices


----------



## Ralyks

gunch said:


> We'd be okay if we just gave him a free pornhub account and leave him to his own devices



At this point, pictures of AOC would suffice for Cruz.


----------



## Randy

Democrats discover a new team player: Bernie Sanders


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


>




What's that the end of that. No way would we elect a president in this day and age who has such poor command over the english language.


----------



## Ralyks

narad said:


> What's that the end of that. No way would we elect a president in this day and age who has such poor command over the english language.



He probably didn't have his covfefe yet.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> He probably didn't have his covfefe yet.



I know a guy who knows all the best words. Biden barely knows some words, but this guy knows the words that are the best. Or so they say. That's what they tell me, that he knows the best words.


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> You know, my 5 year old has a stutter so bad I can barely understand him most days. Luckily he has been in a program through the State since he has been 3 which has helped significantly and provided an enormous amount of support for us. Also, I have a 77 year old mother with severe progressive dementia where she doesn't even know what's going on most days, but we are also fortunate enough to be able to take care of all of her needs. So the stutter/dementia topic hits pretty close to home for me. I don't expect any sympathy here though, because although I've never once called anyone on here an asshole, fucking asshole, piece of shit, or said go fuck yourself, fuck you, etc., and as neutral as I may be on most all topics, I'm the one always walking the thin line due to preconceived notions.



Then why post the video? If the topic is that sensitive to you, why post that video? That's why there's no sympathy.

Also, some pleas explain why THE FUCK Trump is saying the 75 year old man pushed to the ground and bleeding in Buffalo was a set up?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...an-shoved-by-buffalo-police-could-be-part?amp


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> Then why post the video? If the topic is that sensitive to you, why post that video? That's why there's no sympathy.



Because there are no videos of him with significant speech and cognitive dissonance even just a few years prior. This seems to be recent development that is getting progressively worse. But the irony is lost on people that have been bitching for 3 1/2 years about one candidate that have now selected an old white guy with past racial issues, sexual indiscretion issues, and current mental decline. So to justify that, he is now considered a one-term figurehead and nothing more.


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Because there are no videos of him with significant speech and cognitive dissonance even just a few years prior. This seems to be recent development that is getting progressively worse. But the irony is lost on people that have been bitching for 3 1/2 years about one candidate that have now selected an old white guy with past racial issues, sexual indiscretion issues, and current mental decline. So to justify that, he is now considered a one-term figurehead and nothing more.



Sorry we went two terms with a president that had no personal or political scandals, only for your guy to come in and throw that all away.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> I know a guy who knows all the best words. Biden barely knows some words, but this guy knows the words that are the best. Or so they say. That's what they tell me, that he knows the best words.



Unfortunately he has yet to use them in a speech or interview, so I still don't know these best words.


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> Unfortunately he has yet to use them in a speech or interview, so I still don't know these best words.



He's going to pull them out in november so we all walk in the ballot box still reeling by how amazing they are.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yes, I accept your apology.


I'm not aware of anything I owe you an apology for, but in context here it's likely I _wouldn't_, so if you do feel I owe you an apology let me know and I'll be happy to discuss it. 



Randy said:


> Nope, it's objectively stupid. Objectively _fucking_ stupid, actually.
> 
> Cannibalizing your own for anything that doesn't meet the threshold for a criminal complaint is a purity test, no more and no less.


But, I mean, here we're getting into the level of cynicism you've also railed against the Democratic establishment for. Would you say the same about Hunter Biden taking a cushy board gig at an Ukrainian energy company because of who his dad was? This all feels an eternity ago but I feel like we also had some back and forth over that and you were one of the guys arguing we should ditch Biden because of his son's Burisma ties, which fell farther short of a criminal complaint than the allegations Franken faced. I could be dead wrong on that though, it feels forever ago.

Idunno. I don't think ethical problems ever have easy answers.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'm not aware of anything I owe you an apology for, but in context here it's likely I _wouldn't_, so if you do feel I owe you an apology let me know and I'll be happy to discuss it.
> 
> 
> But, I mean, here we're getting into the level of cynicism you've also railed against the Democratic establishment for. Would you say the same about Hunter Biden taking a cushy board gig at an Ukrainian energy company because of who his dad was? This all feels an eternity ago but I feel like we also had some back and forth over that and you were one of the guys arguing we should ditch Biden because of his son's Burisma ties, which fell farther short of a criminal complaint than the allegations Franken faced. I could be dead wrong on that though, it feels forever ago.
> 
> Idunno. I don't think ethical problems ever have easy answers.



If the complaint was that Franken honked someone's tit or whatever and the seat was vulnerable for re-election, I'd have said he should consider sitting it out. Maybe. That's different than giving up the seat prematurely when you're effective while you're there. Also it was muchado about nothing, barely substantiated and created no vulnerability for the party ultimately. He should've let the ethics investigation play out and we could discuss it afterward.

That's actually consistent with my position on Biden and Burisma. I don't think Joe Biden did anything wrong and Hunter Biden is a different person. My complaint was whether or not it was an electoral dilemma. My related and second question was if his handling of it was sufficent to shoo it away before it becomes a bigger problem. The ethics of it are a totally different issue I think you resolve in house


----------



## jaxadam

Post up your results!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Post up your results!
> 
> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll


Posting the text of the poll so no one else has to have the indignity of clicking on that link.  



> 1. Who would you rather see fix our Nation’s shattered immigration policies?
> 
> President Trump
> A MS-13 Loving Democrat
> 2. Who do you trust more to protect America from foreign and domestic threats?
> 
> President Trump
> A Corrupt Democrat
> 3. Who would you rather handle our Nation’s economy?
> 
> President Trump
> A Radical Socialist Democrat
> 4. Who do you believe is more transparent with the American People?
> 
> President Trump
> A Lying Democrat
> 5. Who do you trust to NOT raise your taxes?
> 
> President Trump
> A High Tax Democrat
> 6. Who do you believe will ALWAYS put America FIRST?
> 
> President Trump
> A Sleazy Democrat
> 7. Who do you believe will keep their promises?
> 
> President Trump
> A Lyin’ Democrat
> 8. Who do you believe will fight for you every day?
> 
> President Trump
> A Low Energy Democrat
> 9. Who do you believe is better for America?
> 
> President Trump
> A Low IQ Democrat
> 10. Who will you vote for in 2020?
> 
> President Trump
> A Radical Socialist Democrat


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> Post up your results!
> 
> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll



I cannot believe the complete lack of dignity from the person in charge of the most powerful country in the world. That is disgusting.


----------



## narad

JSanta said:


> I cannot believe the complete lack of dignity from the person in charge of the most powerful country in the world. That is disgusting.



That's not really official, is it?

_Who do you believe is better for America?
President Trump
A Low IQ Democrat_

Might as well make it a fair fight lol


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> That's not really official, is it?
> 
> _Who do you believe is better for America?
> President Trump
> A Low IQ Democrat_
> 
> Might as well make it a fair fight lol


 

Also, a google search for "donald trump official website" does return that domain as the first hit. So, yeah, I think that is official.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> Posting the text of the poll so no one else has to have the indignity of clicking on that link.


I read your posted text and thought you were humourously paraphrasing. But then I clicked the link. Is this officially from him, or is it a joke site?


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> I read your posted text and thought you were humourously paraphrasing. But then I clicked the link. Is this officially from him, or is it a joke site?


Again, a google search suggests donaldjtrump is, in fact, his official campaign domain.


----------



## SpaceDock

Sadly this crap is real. Last Thanksgiving I remember the Trump campaign was running a “How to Own YouR Family Libtard” tutorial page. A page that was actively encouraging people to start fights with their family members to push Trump propaganda. 

The downward spiral of the Trump supporters embrace of the most indignant culture is just abhorrent. Thanks for @jaxadam for continuing to show us just how classy he is and what he really believes.

I am hoping this is the trash rhetoric that Trump uses for this election, no point in being a phony. If you are running on the idiocracy platform you might as well embrace it.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> The downward spiral of the Trump supporters embrace of the most indignant culture is just abhorrent. Thanks for @jaxadam for continuing to show us just how classy he is and what he really believes.



If by "he" you mean "Adam," the irony is he actually is a rather decent guy. I'm not sure if he's just trolling us with the Trump stuff or not, but pretty much every other interaction with him I've ever had has left me with a really good impression, and I shudder to think how long I've known him now. Also, somehow, he's never once called me an asshole. Weirdest fucking thing.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Also, somehow, he's never once called me an asshole. Weirdest fucking thing.



It's masshole, get it right!


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> It's masshole, get it right!


THERE we go.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## jaxadam

SpaceDock said:


> Thanks for @jaxadam for continuing to show us just how classy he is and what he really believes.



You can do better than that. I've been called worse by my own mother!



Drew said:


> If by "he" you mean "Adam," the irony is he actually is a rather decent guy. I'm not sure if he's just trolling us with the Trump stuff or not, but pretty much every other interaction with him I've ever had has left me with a really good impression, and I shudder to think how long I've known him now. Also, somehow, he's never once called me an asshole. Weirdest fucking thing.



Drew, don't taint my already stellar reputation with compliments. It will render most of my upcoming material ineffective!


----------



## SpaceDock

Drew said:


> If by "he" you mean "Adam," the irony is he actually is a rather decent guy. I'm not sure if he's just trolling us with the Trump stuff or not, but pretty much every other interaction with him I've ever had has left me with a really good impression, and I shudder to think how long I've known him now. Also, somehow, he's never once called me an asshole. Weirdest fucking thing.



Im gonna say typical trolling Trump supporter.


----------



## Randy

Wins by young progressives start reshaping establishment


----------



## Randy

Ah, that purity though.

"The Nebraska Democratic Party on Tuesday asked its nominee for US Senate to withdraw from the race, citing a sexually inappropriate text message reported by a female former campaign staffer.

Chris Janicek, the party's nominee running against Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, told CNN that in late May he sent a text message to a group including himself, the female former staffer and four other campaign staffers. He characterized the message as "simply repeating what she had said earlier in the week, that she needed to get laid."

"I'm an openly gay man running for senate against Ben Sasse, so it was not sexual harassment, it was something that had been discussed between her and a girlfriend," Janicek said, later adding that he had overheard the staffer's phone conversation at campaign headquarters."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/poli...arty-janicek-withdraw-text-message/index.html


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Ah, that purity though.
> 
> "The Nebraska Democratic Party on Tuesday asked its nominee for US Senate to withdraw from the race, citing a sexually inappropriate text message reported by a female former campaign staffer.
> 
> Chris Janicek, the party's nominee running against Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, told CNN that in late May he sent a text message to a group including himself, the female former staffer and four other campaign staffers. He characterized the message as "simply repeating what she had said earlier in the week, that she needed to get laid."
> 
> "I'm an openly gay man running for senate against Ben Sasse, so it was not sexual harassment, it was something that had been discussed between her and a girlfriend," Janicek said, later adding that he had overheard the staffer's phone conversation at campaign headquarters."
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/poli...arty-janicek-withdraw-text-message/index.html


Maybe the Democrats are actually working for the Republicans?


----------



## Ralyks

Amy Klobuchar withdrew from consideration for VP and said it should be a woman of color.

I think it's going to be Harris or Demings.


----------



## Randy

Susan Rice IMO


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Susan Rice IMO



She's my number 1 choice. Granted, no one has asked me.


----------



## jaxadam

Impossible to beat this guy.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> She's my number 1 choice. Granted, no one has asked me.



Not so much speaking for myself (though I don't mind her) as much as the Biden statement from last week about being "simpatico" referring pretty specifically to someone he already has a working relationship with. She's got the best resume and she's one of the few choices he has that doesn't have a questionable history regarding law enforcement against minorities, which is still going to be a hot button issue at the time he needs to make the choice.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Not so much speaking for myself (though I don't mind her) as much as the Biden statement from last week about being "simpatico" referring pretty specifically to someone he already has a working relationship with. She's got the best resume and she's one of the few choices he has that doesn't have a questionable history regarding law enforcement against minorities, which is still going to be a hot button issue at the time he needs to make the choice.


I honestly don't know a thing about Susan Rice - google suggests she's got a pretty good resume, though, and could be a diplomatic/national security asset to Biden. Color me intrigued.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 82147



Expected. Progressives killed in their primary races though. Buh bye Eliot Engel!


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Expected. Progressives killed in their primary races though. Buh bye Eliot Engel!



Yeah, I was honestly happy Engel got the boot.


----------



## Drew

As one of the board moderate Democrats, I have zero problems with seeing the Democratic coalition include more progressives. I think it's an important voice for the future of the party - I don't always agree with them, but I think that disagreement and that conversation is an incredibly important one to have (in stark contrast to, say, "is it ok to kill black men over petty crimes" or "homosexuals; entitled to the same rights as straight folk" or other things which are NOT matters of opinion).


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> As one of the board moderate Democrats, I have zero problems with seeing the Democratic coalition include more progressives. I think it's an important voice for the future of the party - I don't always agree with them, but I think that disagreement and that conversation is an incredibly important one to have (in stark contrast to, say, "is it ok to kill black men over petty crimes" or "homosexuals; entitled to the same rights as straight folk" or other things which are NOT matters of opinion).



This basically applies to my thoughts as well. I consider myself a moderate that thinks there is something good to progressive ideas. Probably why I was about Warren like you were.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> As one of the board moderate Democrats, I have zero problems with seeing the Democratic coalition include more progressives. I think it's an important voice for the future of the party - I don't always agree with them, but I think that disagreement and that conversation is an incredibly important one to have (in stark contrast to, say, "is it ok to kill black men over petty crimes" or "homosexuals; entitled to the same rights as straight folk" or other things which are NOT matters of opinion).



I don't think Joe Biden or Democrats like Joe Biden are the worst ills of this party. He's a consensus builder, he has a few core principals but otherwise he's usually deferring to experts or the effected groups.

The worst of this party are Diane Feinsteins and on occasion, Nancy Pelosis. Those are people that talk progress, that talk wanting to help middle and lower class, then they get into office and in 30+ years of serving, don't move the meter one degree unless they're made to or unless they've have a trend setter that pushes them. Often times, they're vocally in opposition to things that would exactly bring about change and they even lean on conservative talking points to make those arguments.

I had a brief back and forth with a conservative guy in the post office the other day and he said look, take a city like Chicago that's disproportionately minorities and have elected Democrats reliably for 30 or 40 years. How much better are the people in that city for it? It's still a mess. Crime still pingpongs up and down etc. At what point do you say, okay fine these people are saying they're here specifically to address my needs but why aren't my needs being met?

And honestly, he's right in the general sense. At least Democrats fake like they care
in 2020, the lesson is that words are just words and the modern needs of this party require action and not lip service. And we can get into policies that are viable or not etc, but rank and file poop pooing policy changes that would effect change and then moving the meter exactly zero points is the reason why Progressives are making gains where they are.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy, I'm voting for you.


----------



## Randy

Sign my petition for village dog catcher?


----------



## jaxadam

I mean you gotta start somewhere. What about a moderator on a guitar forum?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> in 2020, the lesson is that words are just words and the modern needs of this party require action and not lip service. And we can get into policies that are viable or not etc, but rank and file poop pooing policy changes that would effect change and then moving the meter exactly zero points is the reason why Progressives are making gains where they are.


Excellent post, man. 

I'd be inclined to give Pelosi a little slack because she seems like shes just very well attuned to what CAN be done (her public approach to impeachment changed the moment she had enough votes in her party to move forward, though I suppose that could be either because she'd always wanted to but didn't have the votes, or because she knew that she could no longer stop it - either way it's a numbers game and she respected the numbers. Anbd her navigation of the shutdown was _masterful._). At the same time, that's not something likely to enamor her to porgressives. Feinstein is basically just middle-of-the-road dead weight, though.


----------



## Randy

Pelosi is better the last few years but she still needs to be dragged around by her nose to get her there. You look at a guy like Ted Kennedy for example, and while he was a man of his time (ie: some of his positions might not hold up these days), he didn't need anybody to coach him on where to take the party next.


----------



## fantom

Ralyks said:


> Amy Klobuchar withdrew from consideration for VP and said it should be a woman of color.
> 
> I think it's going to be Harris or Demings.



You know the stupid part... Do black people even care if it is a woman or not? Why isn't someone like Cory Booker even considered?

Edit: I'm not trying to be racist. But this whole "it has to be a person with trait <x>" sounds like trying to buy voters. I really don't think it is a good idea. It doesn't seem genuine.



possumkiller said:


> View attachment 82154



I don't want universal healthcare. Have you been to a hospital that caters to everyones problems? You wait for 6+ hrs if you aren't at risk, then pay a ridiculous amount of money for something like a xray and cast. We need to fix the healthcare system here, but not at the cost of overworking it or graduating underqualified doctors. I'll probably take some shit for this, but medical treatment is not a right. It is a service. I would rather someone doing good things in society gets priority healthcare over people who are broke and running around without a mask infecting half the country. If anything, this pandemic should be a great example of why universal healthcare is a terrible idea.

I don't want people to die, but people are not equal value in life. I don't mean this as race or gender or anything. I mean more like meritocracy. We have one, and money is the measurement of someone's value. Ya, inheritance kind of breaks it. But it is a better measurement than everyone is equal .So it makes sense that money should limit people from services... That being said, we also need to fix the broken system keeping people from improving their economic situations.



Randy said:


> I had a brief back and forth with a conservative guy in the post office the other day and he said look, take a city like Chicago that's disproportionately minorities and have elected Democrats reliably for 30 or 40 years. How much better are the people in that city for it? It's still a mess. Crime still pingpongs up and down etc. At what point do you say, okay fine these people are saying they're here specifically to address my needs but why aren't my needs being met?
> 
> And honestly, he's right in the general sense. At least Democrats fake like they care
> in 2020, the lesson is that words are just words and the modern needs of this party require action and not lip service. And we can get into policies that are viable or not etc, but rank and file poop pooing policy changes that would effect change and then moving the meter exactly zero points is the reason why Progressives are making gains where they are.



Pretty sure this is why underprivileged minorities don't vote. Ya, they don't like Trump. But at least he is isn't promising them change and doing nothing for them. I think Obama overpromised and underdelivered on "change" which is partially why people didn't vote for Clinton (by not voting at all). The democratic party seriously needs to consider their messaging. Building consensus is a waste of time if the next adminstration can just come in and burn it all to the ground.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> You know the stupid part... Do black people even care if it is a woman or not? Why isn't someone like Cory Booker even considered?
> 
> Edit: I'm not trying to be racist. But this whole "it has to be a person with trait <x>" sounds like trying to buy voters. I really don't think it is a good idea. It doesn't seem genuine.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want universal healthcare. Have you been to a hospital that caters to everyones problems? You wait for 6+ hrs if you aren't at risk, then pay a ridiculous amount of money for something like a xray and cast. We need to fix the healthcare system here, but not at the cost of overworking it or graduating underqualified doctors. I'll probably take some shit for this, but medical treatment is not a right. It is a service. I would rather someone doing good things in society gets priority healthcare over people who are broke and running around without a mask infecting half the country. If anything, this pandemic should be a great example of why universal healthcare is a terrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure this is why underprivileged minorities don't vote. Ya, they don't like Trump. But at least he is isn't promising them change and doing nothing for them. I think Obama overpromised and underdelivered on "change" which is partially why people didn't vote for Clinton (by not voting at all). The democratic party seriously needs to consider their messaging. Building consensus is a waste of time if the next adminstration can just come in and burn it all to the ground.



OK, Ayn Rand.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> OK, Ayn Rand.


Can you be more specific than that? You know how long it takes me to get a Dr appointment for a routine physical in bay area from my work provided insurance? 9 months. You know how long it takes to get a follow up appointment scheduled with a referral? 3 months. How is that system functional? How will that get any better if anyone without insurance can start going to appointments with the same doctors? When I lived in Florida, less severe situations were resolved within a week including follow up appointments and tests.

There has to be a way to make the system more efficient or limit the number of patients. Instead we value human life, even if we extend it at the cost of a person suffering. News flash, there is no shortage of people. There will just be more and more in the coming decades.

Edit: this is way off topic for this thread. Feel free to delete it or ask me to.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> I'll probably take some shit for this, but medical treatment is not a right. It is a service. I would rather someone doing good things in society gets priority healthcare



I like this idea. If you collect garbage or teach elementary school students, you get priority healthcare. If you work on wallstreet or exxon, back of the line.


----------



## fantom

narad said:


> I like this idea. If you collect garbage or teach elementary school students, you get priority healthcare. If you work on wallstreet or exxon, back of the line.



I would vote yes to that. Also more pay, more vacation time, and more funding.


----------



## diagrammatiks

fantom said:


> Can you be more specific than that? You know how long it takes me to get a Dr appointment for a routine physical in bay area from my work provided insurance? 9 months. You know how long it takes to get a follow up appointment scheduled with a referral? 3 months. How is that system functional? How will that get any better if anyone without insurance can start going to appointments with the same doctors? When I lived in Florida, less severe situations were resolved within a week including follow up appointments and tests.
> 
> There has to be a way to make the system more efficient or limit the number of patients. Instead we value human life, even if we extend it at the cost of a person suffering. News flash, there is no shortage of people. There will just be more and more in the coming decades.
> 
> Edit: this is way off topic for this thread. Feel free to delete it or ask me to.



you know how long it takes me to get prescribed all sorts of weird and wacky medical scans and procedure that would bankrupt me in the states?

like 12 minutes.
I can make appointments from my phone.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Can you be more specific than that? You know how long it takes me to get a Dr appointment for a routine physical in bay area from my work provided insurance? 9 months. You know how long it takes to get a follow up appointment scheduled with a referral? 3 months. How is that system functional? How will that get any better if anyone without insurance can start going to appointments with the same doctors?
> 
> There has to be a way to make the system more efficient or limit the number of patients. Instead we value human life, even if we extend it at the cost of a person suffering. News flash, there is no shortage of people. There will just be more and more in the coming decades.



Much of the inefficiencies come from the various middle men and different "networks" providers are compartmentilized into. Removing those barriers frees up resources and flexibility. 

The system works elsewhere, there's no reason it couldn't work here. 

Big picture, it's a net benefit.


----------



## fantom

diagrammatiks said:


> you know how long it takes me to get prescribed all sorts of weird and wacky medical scans and procedure that would bankrupt me in the states?
> 
> like 12 minutes.
> I can make appointments from my phone.



I can book an appointment on my phone in minutes... Just that appointment is several months in the future.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Much of the inefficiencies come from the various middle men and different "networks" providers are compartmentilized into. Removing those barriers frees up resources and flexibility.
> 
> The system works elsewhere, there's no reason it couldn't work here.
> 
> Big picture, it's a net benefit.



The inefficiency can and should be addressed. I think you missed the point... You can't see a doctor that is overbooked. Either fix the supply or fix the demand. The system is a bunch of cost and paperpushers that won't actually help you medically.

This is from the main San Jose newspaper.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/20/paging-more-doctors-californias-worsening-physician-shortage/

I'm all for training doctors, but to do that we need to fix a broken education or immigration system (both need to be much better)


----------



## diagrammatiks

fantom said:


> I can book an appointment on my phone in minutes... Just that appointment is several months in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> The inefficiency can and should be addressed. I think you missed the point... You can't see a doctor that is overbooked. Either fix the supply or fix the demand. The system is a bunch of cost and paperpushers that won't actually help you medically.
> 
> This is from the main San Jose newspaper.
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/20/paging-more-doctors-californias-worsening-physician-shortage/



like I understand what you're saying...
but like the entire system is broken.
other countries have successful systems. 
when the system is broken you take a look at what's wrong and you try to fix it piece by piece.
you don't just say this solution isn't going to work because there are other things that also need fixing.


----------



## fantom

I think my bigger point is that California has dominant control by Democrats and enough taxes and funding to fix it, and somehow they are doing worse at actually providing people medical care.

Ya, I agree to fix it. But I think the problem is much more difficult than assumed and Democrats don't have a good track record on it. Republicans are also getting in the way to make this happen at a federal level... And that is the reality of the situation. Dreaming for an ideal solution in this specific country will take a revolution.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> I can book an appointment on my phone in minutes... Just that appointment is several months in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> The inefficiency can and should be addressed. I think you missed the point... You can't see a doctor that is overbooked. Either fix the supply or fix the demand. The system is a bunch of cost and paperpushers that won't actually help you medically.
> 
> This is from the main San Jose newspaper.
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/20/paging-more-doctors-californias-worsening-physician-shortage/
> 
> I'm all for training doctors, but to do that we need to fix a broken education or immigration system (both need to be much better)



By consolidating the pool of providers you'll increase capacity.

Out here there are three large networks (Ascension, Freodert, and Aurora) with a few smaller independent ones sprinkled in. Most large population centers have a similar setup. When I need certain services, the availability of each service from each network varies considerably. If I was stuck with a single network, like many are, I could conceivably not be able to get to see a doctor in a timely manner even though there's plenty of availability elsewhere.

Needing more doctors seems like a great reason to fix education and immigration. 



fantom said:


> I think my bigger point is that California has dominant control by Democrats and enough taxes and funding to fix it, and somehow they are doing worse at actually providing people medical care.
> 
> Ya, I agree to fix it. But I think the problem is much more difficult than assumed and Democrats don't have a good track record on it. Republicans are also getting in the way... And that is the reality of the situation. Dreaming for an ideal solution in this specific country will take a revolution.



There's a difference between "universal healthcare won't work" and "I don't trust the current government to try and do it", which I mostly agree with.

Most corporate Dems don't want universal healthcare as it eats into thier piggybank.


----------



## possumkiller

fantom said:


> I don't want universal healthcare. Have you been to a hospital that caters to everyones problems? You wait for 6+ hrs if you aren't at risk, then pay a ridiculous amount of money for something like a xray and cast. We need to fix the healthcare system here, but not at the cost of overworking it or graduating underqualified doctors. I'll probably take some shit for this, but medical treatment is not a right. It is a service. I would rather someone doing good things in society gets priority healthcare over people who are broke and running around without a mask infecting half the country. If anything, this pandemic should be a great example of why universal healthcare is a terrible idea.
> 
> I don't want people to die, but people are not equal value in life. I don't mean this as race or gender or anything. I mean more like meritocracy. We have one, and money is the measurement of someone's value. Ya, inheritance kind of breaks it. But it is a better measurement than everyone is equal .So it makes sense that money should limit people from services... That being said, we also need to fix the broken system keeping people from improving their economic situations.


I live in a country with universal healthcare. I've been to the hospital here many times. Which country with universal healthcare did you use the hospital that you had to wait six hours for anything and were charged anything at all for an arm cast?

The only hospitals I have ever had to wait extremely long periods of time in to be charged outrageous amounts of money were in the USA. I've had to use doctors and hospitals in the UK and Poland. Never an issue with anything. When my mother in law was living with us in Texas and found out she probably had cervical cancer, she flew back to Poland. She had a thing the size of a softball removed and went through chemotherapy. She never paid a dime. She still gets checkups and rest vacations at sanitoriums for free.

My grandfather that served in the army, retired after 20 years from civil service, and retired from another 20 years of working for the school board was collection a nice pension from two retirements and had a nice savings. His prostate cancer wiped out everything he had even with his insurance. He can't afford his medication. My grandmother is now having health problems and they can't afford to treat her either. They just live under a mountain of debt they will never be able to repay.

The only arguments there are against universal healthcare are:

A. I'm filthy fucking rich and can afford anything. Universal healthcare for peasants would cost me too much so it's an evil communist satanic idea.

2. I'm a fucking moron that has no clue how universal healthcare works but I'm also too lazy to find out so I'll just agree with these filthy rich fucks because I think they're better than me. I mean they have to be better and know better right? Their filthy rich! That means they're an overall better class of people. One day if I work hard enough, I can be filthy rich just like them!


----------



## diagrammatiks

possumkiller said:


> 2. I'm a fucking moron that has no clue how (anything) works but I'm also too lazy to find out so I'll just agree with these filthy rich fucks because I think they're better than me. I mean they have to be better and know better right? Their filthy rich! That means they're an overall better class of people. One day if I work hard enough, I can be filthy rich just like them!



MURICA


----------



## Randy

Revisiting my point about entrenched Democrats pretending they care

"Engel’s biggest sin: He almost never went home. Even during the COVID-19 crisis, when his district in the Bronx and Westchester County, New York, was hardest hit, Engel stayed locked down in his home in suburban Maryland. The final straw may have come earlier this month, when he showed up at a news conference about police brutality and was heard, on a hot mic, asking the MC, Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, if he could speak. When Diaz told him there was a long list of speakers, Engel said, “If I didn’t have a primary, I wouldn’t care.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/eliot-engel-jamaal-bowman-foreign-policy.html

The article oversimplifies it as Engel over focusing on life in Washington, but overall point is dinosaurs in senior leadership delivering little, to the point that they barely try or fake like they're trying.


----------



## fantom

possumkiller said:


> The only arguments there are against universal healthcare are:
> 
> A. I'm filthy fucking rich and can afford anything. Universal healthcare for peasants would cost me too much so it's an evil communist satanic idea.
> 
> 2. I'm a fucking moron that has no clue how universal healthcare works but I'm also too lazy to find out so I'll just agree with these filthy rich fucks because I think they're better than me. I mean they have to be better and know better right? Their filthy rich! That means they're an overall better class of people. One day if I work hard enough, I can be filthy rich just like them!


 3. You are talking about an ideal and not grounded in reality. Yes, the system works in other countries, but also failed in other countries such as USSR. Independent of that, when you factor in the reality of the USA, it will not work without a significant change to the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries as well as political cultural. There also needs to be legal reform to protect doctors and nurses. Those won't self regulate and definitely can't be addressed within 8 years of a single administration (see Obama). You are preaching and ideal that universal healthcare works without factoring in that it needs to be implemented in a broken system by corrupt rich people (McConnell as an example). As I said, the only realistic way this will ever work is a revolution. I agree with the ideal. I want it to work, but I don't have any trust in our government, leaders, or a large chunk of Americans. That's just reality of it. Think MaxOfMetal nailed it:



MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a difference between "universal healthcare won't work" and "I don't trust the current government to try and do it", which I mostly agree with


----------



## diagrammatiks

fantom said:


> 3. You are talking about an ideal and not grounded in reality. Yes, the system works in other countries, but also failed in other countries such as USSR. Independent of that, when you factor in the reality of the USA, it will not work without a significant change to the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries as well as political cultural. There also needs to be legal reform protect doctors and nurses. Those won't self regulate and definitely can't be addressed within 8 years of a single administration (see Obama). You are preaching and ideal that universal healthcare works without factoring in that it needs to be implemented in a broken system by corrupt rich people. As I said, the only realistic way this will ever work is a revolution. I agree with the ideal. I want it to work, but I don't have any trust in our government, leaders, or a large chunk of Americans. That's just reality of it. Think MaxOfMetal nailed it:



so just do nothing when you don't have the perfect solution.

that makes sense.

and yes the ussr. where everything was working perfectly except the healthcare system.


----------



## fantom

diagrammatiks said:


> so just do nothing when you don't have the perfect solution.
> 
> that makes sense.
> 
> and yes the ussr. where everything was working perfectly except the healthcare system.



I didn't say to do nothing. There needs to be a long-term incremental plan that factors in the existing situation and can adapt as needed without necessarily getting to your version of universal health are, but can get closer. Asking for large scale reform isn't going to work without backlash. The timescale needs to have milestones, and people should be asking for smaller changes, such as fixing the pharmaceutical prices or getting rid of HMO/PPO networks. Once people can see that helps them, take another step. It is great to have a long term vision (that I agree with at an ideal level), but when communicating to accomplish anything, it has to take into account the current status quo whether you like it or not. Otherwise you just end up with something the like the tech industry that has no stability and replaces their existing services every 3 years (which ironically is about the same length of time and average employee works at each company)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I get what you're saying, but I think this is worth a big disruption. Outside of lives saved, almost half of all bankruptcies stem from medical bills. There are huge implications outside just living or dying.


----------



## fantom

I agree it bankrupts people. My family has been through the crap several times. The problem is that politicians are paid by people taking our money. And we seem to be really bad at replacing politicians with people who give a shit about common folk.


----------



## vilk

Hard to take someone talking about health care systems seriously when they mistakenly conflate _universal_ with _single payer_.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> I don't want people to die, but people are not equal value in life. I don't mean this as race or gender or anything. I mean more like meritocracy. We have one, and money is the measurement of someone's value.


As a guy who does rather well for himself, I can assure you, money is NOT a measure of a person's value.


----------



## possumkiller

Drew said:


> As a guy who does rather well for himself, I can assure you, money is NOT a measure of a person's value.


It reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad about why American conservative Christians love Israel so much. The Israelites are God's chosen people. Apparently even in heaven there will be a class system of people who are better than other people. He said according to the Bible, certain people will get better gold trinkets and better seats closer to God. Everyone will know their place and everyone will be happy on their knees singing God's praises for all eternity.

I'm honestly sometimes torn between wanting to help people become free from all the class bullshit because we are being used and abused and it isn't right and just saying fuck it and using these idiots to make money for me because they seem to love being ignorant servants.


----------



## spudmunkey

possumkiller said:


> It reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad about why American conservative Christians love Israel so much. The Israelites are God's chosen people. Apparently even in heaven there will be a class system of people who are better than other people. He said according to the Bible, certain people will get better gold trinkets and better seats closer to God. Everyone will know their place and everyone will be happy on their knees singing God's praises for all eternity.
> 
> I'm honestly sometimes torn between wanting to help people become free from all the class bullshit because we are being used and abused and it isn't right and just saying fuck it and using these idiots to make money for me because they seem to love being ignorant servants.



The funny thing to me is how "pro Isreal" some people can be, and then from the other side of their mouth, complain about the "jew-run media", and how Hollywood is run by "the jews", and meant as a derrogetory statement (not congratulatory, like, "Good job, Jews!").


----------



## fantom

vilk said:


> Hard to take someone talking about health care systems seriously when they mistakenly conflate _universal_ with _single payer_.



Writing off someone's concerns by generalizing their entire point of view based on one piece of the conversation is a fallacy. Just saying.

At least have the courtesy to point out where I made the mistake.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> As a guy who does rather well for himself, I can assure you, money is NOT a measure of a person's value.



You know $200k is the new $50k, right? Or is it $400k... I can never remember.


----------



## vilk

fantom said:


> Writing off someone's concerns by generalizing their entire point of view based on one piece of the conversation is a fallacy. Just saying.
> 
> At least have the courtesy to point out where I made the mistake.


USSR was single payer. Universal healthcare refers to the system they have in Japan and Poland where there is a private insurance industry but it has to compete with a not for profit public option. What makes it "universal" is that you're required by law to have some kind of health insurance. Technically the short period where the ACA required this could have been called universal health care, except for that it failed miserably because there was no public option created to force private insurers to compete. 

Also, in Japan, there is not for profit public banking through the post office, which I think is a good idea.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> The funny thing to me is how "pro Isreal" some people can be, and then from the other side of their mouth, complain about the "jew-run media", and how Hollywood is run by "the jews", and meant as a derrogetory statement (not congratulatory, like, "Good job, Jews!").



Make no mistake, they don't care at all for the people. It's all able location and wacky Bible stories (evangelical support).


----------



## fantom

vilk said:


> USSR was single payer



Oof. My mistake. Thanks


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> Also, in Japan, there is not for profit public banking through the post office, which I think is a good idea.



Though when you use the web interface to sign up for online banking, it's abundantly clear that it is a not-for-profit organization.


----------



## vilk

fantom said:


> Oof. My mistake. Thanks


Happy to educate you on the difference. Now is your issue still with universal healthcare, or is it with single payer?


----------



## possumkiller

fantom said:


> Writing off someone's concerns by generalizing their entire point of view based on one piece of the conversation is a fallacy. Just saying.
> 
> At least have the courtesy to point out where I made the mistake.


https://imgur.com/gallery/99a0Btm


----------



## zappatton2

possumkiller said:


> https://imgur.com/gallery/99a0Btm


As a Canadian who has had to rely on the healthcare system a very good deal, and to a life-saving capacity, with not a trace of subsequent debt or procedural delay, I always found the mischaracterization of Canadian healthcare in the States to be a bizarre spectacle.

Likewise, the constant insistence that it would be impossible to change the American system. Lobbyists have really done a number on people's understanding of what is possible.


----------



## JSanta

zappatton2 said:


> As a Canadian who has had to rely on the healthcare system a very good deal, and to a life-saving capacity, with not a trace of subsequent debt or procedural delay, I always found the mischaracterization of Canadian healthcare in the States to be a bizarre spectacle.
> 
> Likewise, the constant insistence that it would be impossible to change the American system. Lobbyists have really done a number on people's understanding of what is possible.



I have dual US/Canadian citizenship, but live in the States (mostly grew up here as well). My family and friends in Canada are well taken care of. Healthcare is not viewed as this privilege, it is seen as a fundamental human right.

That's the problem I see in the States. People think that because they make more money, or had a job with a good company, they are somehow more entitled to care than other people. No one should ever have to choose between medication or their basic necessities. No one should ever go bankrupt because they have cancer. So as a more moderate leaning democrat, I really like seeing the progressive wing push for equity. We have got to work towards a system like those in other developed countries.

The Trump administration continues their effort to kill what's left of the ACA. As a country, the continued politicization of healthcare is quite literally killing people. It's shameful.


----------



## vilk

Too many Americans need to look down on someone else in order to feel self worth. Frankly I was surprised to see someone lacking awareness enough to admit to having such a low-brow philosophy. Money as a measure of human worth? Jesus, I'm surprised people with such a medieval outlook don't also believe that evil spirits make them sick.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Writing off someone's concerns by generalizing their entire point of view based on one piece of the conversation is a fallacy. Just saying.
> 
> At least have the courtesy to point out where I made the mistake.


Deciding you're right because someone who disagrees with you says you're wrong is _also_ a fallacy. Just saying.



jaxadam said:


> You know $200k is the new $50k, right? Or is it $400k... I can never remember.


I can one up you. I honestly don't remember what I make. I'd have to check a paystub and back into it. Not knowing your income is the new $400k. :crooks: EDIT - we don't have the Crooks emoji here? Dammit. Pretend that's a GOP elephant taking a shit.


----------



## budda

No :crooks: no care. Peasant forum.


----------



## spudmunkey

:I am elite:
:fois gras:
:whites only country club:

Ugh...this place is the poster child of virtue signalling.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> :I am elite:
> :fois gras:
> :whites only country club:
> 
> Ugh...this place is the poster child of virtue signalling.


Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> I can one up you. I honestly don't remember what I make. I'd have to check a paystub and back into it. Not knowing your income is the new $400k. :crooks: EDIT - we don't have the Crooks emoji here? Dammit. Pretend that's a GOP elephant taking a shit.



holy shit daddy that is bigtime playa


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> As a guy who does rather well for himself, I can assure you, money is NOT a measure of a person's value.



Are you saying you're a worthless person?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Are you saying you're a worthless person?


At times.  

More that if I had to describe my worth as a person, my banking account wouldn't even cross my mind. How I treat my friends, how I treat strangers, my hobbies and how I've been able to help people with them even in small ways, stuff like that. I'm sure there's a financial component TO that, but it's more what you choose to do with the money you have than how much you have in the first place. Seem to recall something in the Bible about that, which a lot of these "gospel of success" folks could maybe do well to remember...


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> At times.
> 
> More that if I had to describe my worth as a person, my banking account wouldn't even cross my mind. How I treat my friends, how I treat strangers, my hobbies and how I've been able to help people with them even in small ways, stuff like that. I'm sure there's a financial component TO that, but it's more what you choose to do with the money you have than how much you have in the first place. Seem to recall something in the Bible about that, which a lot of these "gospel of success" folks could maybe do well to remember...



You're really coming up short on NGDs though.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> You're really coming up short on NGDs though.


 My GAS has been pretty modest of late, honestly. I'd like a decent Tele one of these days, but there aren't too many "gaps" in my arsenal, really.


----------



## budda

Drew said:


> My GAS has been pretty modest of late, honestly. I'd like a decent Tele one of these days, but there aren't too many "gaps" in my arsenal, really.



At least it's just the one tele!


----------



## fantom

vilk said:


> Happy to educate you on the difference. Now is your issue still with universal healthcare, or is it with single payer?



If all you got was which ideal reform do I oppose, you missed the part that I think blanket reform will lead to government thrashing and we need to make ironclad incremental improvements. Feel free to disagree with it. Not sure it is productive to argue. I will say I want reform to fix issues longterm, but not at the cost of Republicans coming in 4 years later and erasing any progress.



Drew said:


> Deciding you're right because someone who disagrees with you says you're wrong is _also_ a fallacy. Just saying.



Did I decide I'm right because what he said? I appreciate him pointing out where I made a mistake.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> At times.
> 
> More that if I had to describe my worth as a person, my banking account wouldn't even cross my mind. How I treat my friends, how I treat strangers, my hobbies and how I've been able to help people with them even in small ways, stuff like that. I'm sure there's a financial component TO that, but it's more what you choose to do with the money you have than how much you have in the first place. Seem to recall something in the Bible about that, which a lot of these "gospel of success" folks could maybe do well to remember...



So I agree money is a terrible measurement. But let's look at 95% of people. Keeping a job or getting a middle class job means you are more productive on the grand scheme of things, even if you are not the best person ( I mean hypothetically, I don't mean you personally). The problem is lower class people need a way to advance in society if they are determined and crappy people should lose customers or employers. Unfortunately, "good people" tend to pass problematic people horizontally instead if downward. Which means there is no societal incentive to not be a jerk.

This assuming we don't fix wealth inequality, which is grossly necessary.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> So I agree money is a terrible measurement. But let's look at 95% of people. Keeping a job or getting a middle class job means you are more productive on the grand scheme of things, even if you are not the best person ( I mean hypothetically, I don't mean you personally). The problem is lower class people need a way to advance in society if they are determined and crappy people should lose customers or employers. Unfortunately, "good people" tend to pass problematic people horizontally instead if downward. Which means there is no societal incentive to not be a jerk.
> 
> This assuming we don't fix wealth inequality, which is grossly necessary.


WHOLE bunch of privilege bundled up in this that I don't have it in me to unpack these days, but for starters your implicit assumptions that everyone is working _one_ job rather than juggling three, that there are no family crises or logistical challenges of the sort that can usually be easily solved with money (child care for example, which is fucking expensive, or buying a car vs being stuck on intermittent public transportation to get to work, living in extended stay motels even though they're more expensive than renting an apartment, because you can't afford first and last month's rent and a deposit, etc) that could potentially cause someone to be forced to take unplanned absences or make it far harder for them to save, etc. 

The problem is, being poor in America is REALLY fucking expensive, and for a lot of people it's not that they aren't willing to work hard to claw their way out of poverty, it's that they can't afford to.


----------



## zappatton2

Further, I often see the argument that a social democratic model is a disincentive to productivity, but I would argue the opposite. I don't think anyone in this day and age argues for the elimination of wealth inequality, but the sheer extremity of wealth disparity in the US (and many other Western nations) does not reward productivity or the entrepreneurial spirit. It represents a systemic effort by moneyed lobbyists to calcify wealth in the hands of a tiny cohort (not always of the most productive members of society) by targeting and gutting the sorts of public investments that could foster greater opportunities for social mobility. This state of crony capitalism literally creates roadblocks to the success and well-being of its citizens.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> WHOLE bunch of privilege bundled up in this that I don't have it in me to unpack these days, but for starters your implicit assumptions that everyone is working _one_ job rather than juggling three, that there are no family crises or logistical challenges of the sort that can usually be easily solved with money (child care for example, which is fucking expensive, or buying a car vs being stuck on intermittent public transportation to get to work, living in extended stay motels even though they're more expensive than renting an apartment, because you can't afford first and last month's rent and a deposit, etc) that could potentially cause someone to be forced to take unplanned absences or make it far harder for them to save, etc.
> 
> The problem is, being poor in America is REALLY fucking expensive, and for a lot of people it's not that they aren't willing to work hard to claw their way out of poverty, it's that they can't afford to.



I'll just say you are making far more assumptions about me than you realize. I agree with what you said aside from that. And I've seen a lot of it first hand.


----------



## Flappydoodle

So... on topic of Democratic primaries...

Is anybody actually excited about the prospect of Biden being POTUS?

Seeing all the shit going down, I’ve never once thought, ‘wow, I really wish Joe Biden was in charge right now’. But I’m not American, so maybe things are different on the ground. 

Seems to me like he’s basically an ‘establishment’ Trump in some ways. All the rambling and gaffes. Challenging factory workers to fist fights. The clearly inappropriate touching. He’s also ancient and he looks like shit, despite the facelift, Botox, dental veneer and facial fillers he’s had to try and look younger for the election. 

His party is also being strongly pulled left, and he’s just doing whatever he can to pander to them and hoping they forget he’s an ancient rich white guy with his own history of scandals, corruption and creepiness. His promise of choosing a non-white, female VP also seems like another appeal for the ‘woke’ vote.

At best, he’s a one term president. He’ll be 78 at inauguration. 

It’s all pretty shitty, and the media coddling him is also very disturbing. There’s endless speculation about Trumps weight, his cholesterol levels, his IQ, his mental stability, whether he sleeps in the same bed as Melania etc. But Biden has these very blatant episodes of incoherent rambling, and I haven’t seen any MSM speculating about whether he’s actually FIT to be POTUS. 

The whole thing just seems such a disaster. I don’t envy you guys having to vote for any of these people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> Is anybody actually excited about the prospect of Biden being POTUS?



Not really.



> The whole thing just seems such a disaster. I don’t envy you guys having to vote for any of these people.



Pretty much.


----------



## Randy

Anyone is an improvement from Trump, even if Biden's brain is mush. Look at Pence, who at least had the good sense to cancel rallies in hot spots, wear a mask and recommend masks and distancing.

It would be one thing if Trump was addle brained and his handlers were stuck as the shadow decision makers a la Reagan. Instead literally all the adults in the room have been replaced with people specifically assigned to let him play with matches and sharp objects. His dementia doesn't allow him to make the right choices even by accident, nor does it allow anyone more competent to intervene. You're gonna have a hard time convincing me the bar on Biden is that low.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Anyone is an improvement from Trump, even if Biden's brain is mush. Look at Pence, who at least had the good sense to cancel rallies in hot spots, wear a mask and recommend masks and distancing.
> 
> It would be one thing if Trump was addle brained and his handlers were stuck as the shadow decision makers a la Reagan. Instead literally all the adults in the room have been replaced with people specifically assigned to let him play with matches and sharp objects. His dementia doesn't allow him to make the right choices even by accident, nor does it allow anyone more competent to intervene. You're gonna have a hard time convincing me the bar on Biden is that low.





Biden ain't my first pick, but Trump isn't even on the board.


----------



## Ralyks

Plus Biden actually seems interested in being the president of the WHOLE country, not just his base.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> The problem is, being poor in America is REALLY fucking expensive, and for a lot of people it's not that they aren't willing to work hard to claw their way out of poverty, it's that they can't afford to.



Jon Stewart just went on Rogan and made a similar point- commenting on "how much money it takes to ante up to the American way of life." The amount of cash it takes to just get into the game is too high. Thought it was a great analogy.

Can't rent a place because the upfront costs are too high and you're stuck paying high housing rates for a temporary place so you'll never get it.
Stuck buying shitty unhealthy food because a McDouble is $1 but buying the ingredients to make yourself a good meal costs more.
Trapped with public transport because buying a car requires car insurance which for a low-income earner can easily cost you 10% of your income per month- god help you if you have an accident on your record. Not to mention that if you buy a cheaper car (IE one that you can afford) you're going to be stuck with expensive repairs and barely any resale value.
Got sick? Good luck- enjoy eating those medical bills with that healthcare coverage your low-paying job definitely doesn't provide.
Did you ever screw up, make a bad decision, and land in jail? Enjoy making minimum wage for the rest of your life.
Have a kid? GOOD LUCK LMAO.

It really is like trying to go to Vegas to play tables but only bringing a hundred bucks.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Biden ain't my first pick, but Trump isn't even on the board.



So do you think that if Biden wins, things go to shit, and he does stupid stuff, the people that held their nose to pull the lever will be lumped into the “well it’s on you, own it because you voted for him” category?


----------



## Randy

That's how elections go, yeah. But the "you break it, you buy it" is magnified when your voters refuse to criticize or hold you to any standards either. I've got 8 years of posts on this site criticising Obama and probably 100+ in this thread criticising Biden. I can't find one critical post about Trump from one of his supporters. That's sycophantic.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> So do you think that if Biden wins, things go to shit, and he does stupid stuff, the people that held their nose to pull the lever will be lumped into the “well it’s on you, own it because you voted for him” category?



Depends on what that means. 

I can't really see things being handled worse than right now. 

But sure, I'm down to criticize Biden as much and more than I already have. 

I give @Drew some prodding over it already, but I don't "blame" him for anything. I don't think most would. 

The bar is so low, he'd have to really fuck something up.


----------



## Randy

Several things, actually. Every day. For all four years.


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> So do you think that if Biden wins, things go to shit, and he does stupid stuff, the people that held their nose to pull the lever will be lumped into the “well it’s on you, own it because you voted for him” category?



If Biden starts sharing videos of people chanting "White Power" on Twitter, or blatantly lies and inflames situations, you better believe I'll be on this board saying something against it.

In all honesty, I was one of those people after Trump got elected that had the attitude of giving him a chance. Within a month, I knew better. Not only is Trump a terrible human being, he's an awful president. I think that if you disagree with either of those sentiments, we don't have common ground politically. There's zero gray there for me. I can't support an elected official that denigrates women, minorities, science, basically anyone not wearing a MAGA hat. I am certainly not implying that all Trump supporters are like this, but by now, if you are, you've basically accepted this as a core tenet of your belief system. It's one thing to have voted for Trump 4 years ago, it's something else entirely to still beat the drum of support for him. 

In my opinion, he's set this country so far back that it will take years and years for the scars to heal over. Not to mention the immense scale of Covid deaths and the politicization of that virus has done to this country. It's disgusting, and Trump is at the center of blame for it.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> I'll just say you are making far more assumptions about me than you realize. I agree with what you said aside from that. And I've seen a lot of it first hand.


I'm not the one saying wealth is a good judge of character.  



jaxadam said:


> So do you think that if Biden wins, things go to shit, and he does stupid stuff, the people that held their nose to pull the lever will be lumped into the “well it’s on you, own it because you voted for him” category?


I think it really depends what goes wrong, to be fair. 

The problem with Trump is a lot of the shit yhat's happened, he's pretty much campaigned on. The president who wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop "rapists, drug dealers, and murderers... and I suppose some of them are good people, too" from entering the county, the president who wanted to ban all Muslims, the president who pushed back on whether he should reject David Duke's endorsement until it started to become a story in its own right... If you know all that and still vote for him, I don't know how much plausible deniability you have over the protests going on in the country today over police brutality to black Americans. 

The pandemic, I could ALMOST give him a pass on... except Clinton pretty explicitly ran an ad campaign questioning Trump's readiness to respond to a national disaster, that whole midnight phone call thing. Turns out she was right. 

The russian bounty scandal? Trump was so pro-Putin during the campaign that it attracted US intelligence attention, even if they eventually concluded it was extremely unlikely he was a cultivated Russian asset, knowingly, at least. 

Idunno. So many of the "scandals" of the Trump era are things he either explicitly said or strongly hinteed he wanted to do, or were concerns during the election. I think it's fair to hold Biden to the same standard - if he goes senile two years in, beyond even the end of the Reagan era, and that becomes a major scandal or national embarrassment, or if something with Burisma blows up in his administration, people who voted for him will own that. 

Though, I also think there's an element of out of the frying pan into the fire here, too - if that DOES happen, Biden goes senile, gets impeached for pulling strings in Ukraine for personal gain, etc... I mean, it's not like we're any worse off than we are today. Biden was definitely a "plan B" candidate, the candidate the least offensive to the most Democrats, but he has the chance to be a LOT better than Trump, and it's hard to see him doing any _worse_ than Trump is doing. That seems a pretty reasonable gamble.


----------



## possumkiller

It's sad that now people will accept any scumbag politicians because they aren't as bad as trump.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> Plus Biden actually seems interested in being the president of the WHOLE country, not just his base.



So Biden has the magic ingredient to make the whole country hold hands together? We will all be united once he’s in, no more division?



Randy said:


> I’ve got 8 years of posts on this site criticising Obama and probably 100+ in this thread criticising Biden. I can't find one critical post about Trump from one of his supporters. That's sycophantic.



Do you think it’s because they all get banned?


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> It's sad that now people will accept any scumbag politicians because they aren't as bad as trump.


It's sad that Trump lowered the bar so far by becoming president.

Really, it's striking just how _bad _his term has been. He started a trade war that two years later he has nothing to show for, got impeached for a crime even his defenders never seriously tried to argue he didn't do, oversaw and fought against the largest protests for racial equality in this country since the Civil Rights Era, and now is going to be remembered for the non-response to a global pandemic that at present has left us with more than 125,000 dead Americans, roughly a quarter of the total global casualties, in one of the richest countries in the world representing less than 5% of the global population, meaning dead Americans are overrepresented by a factor of 5.

I'm honestly trying to put myself into a headspace where even a conservative could argue this is a "good" term.


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> So Biden has the magic ingredient to make the whole country hold hands together? We will all be united once he’s in, no more division?



He won't purposely perpetuate the schism at least.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> He won't purposely perpetuate the schism at least.



I’ve gotta he honest, I had to run that through a Google translator and I got tabs for a Cacophony song!


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> I’ve gotta he honest, I had to run that through a Google translator and I got tabs for a Cacophony song!


tabs plz.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Do you think it’s because they all get banned?



You mean the literally two guys?


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> tabs plz.



So for some reason I can't print them to .pdf, so I'll just try to sound them out for you:

blblblblllblblbldlbldlbldbldbllldblwewewewewewewewewewelblbldbldbldlbdlbldbldlbdlbldlbdlbldldbllweweweweweweweweweeeweweeeeweweebldbldbldbldbldlbd


----------



## SpaceDock

Drew said:


> It's sad that Trump lowered the bar so far by becoming president.
> 
> Really, it's striking just how _bad _his term has been. He started a trade war that two years later he has nothing to show for, got impeached for a crime even his defenders never seriously tried to argue he didn't do, oversaw and fought against the largest protests for racial equality in this country since the Civil Rights Era, and now is going to be remembered for the non-response to a global pandemic that at present has left us with more than 125,000 dead Americans, roughly a quarter of the total global casualties, in one of the richest countries in the world representing less than 5% of the global population, meaning dead Americans are overrepresented by a factor of 5.
> 
> I'm honestly trying to put myself into a headspace where even a conservative could argue this is a "good" term.



Repubtards would say something about their 401k and how they support his tax policy. They dont care who dies if your outside the womb.


----------



## Randy

My parents are both Democrats, retirement age but both working. Both actively admit Trump is good for their retirement but won't resolve that giving him a second term just because it benefits a small % of their life and happiness is worth all the negatives that come with it. That's what being a cognizant, scrupulous adult looks like. I'm perpetually amazed by the selfishness of people and the refusal to be even 1% inconvenienced or make any concessions that benefit anyone else, but that's basically the whole Republican Party.


----------



## SpaceDock

I can recognize that my retirement fund has done extremely well during the Trump term, but it came at the cost of bankrupting our government. It’s the same idea as not wearing a mask, they don’t care about anyone but their themselves and their petty money.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Repubtards would say something about their 401k and how they support his tax policy. They dont care who dies if your outside the womb.


I have a 401(k) too, and I still think he's an idiot and an asshole. It was doing pretty well under Obama, too, even if the GOP hates to admit it.


----------



## Ralyks

My 401k and Annuity were both doing damn good during this administration, I’ve gotten a bigger refund from the tax changes, and I STILL despise the guy.


----------



## jaxadam

Without a hint of a "lifetime" stammer/stutter here, it's amazing how well this guy can eloquently and cognizantly spew lies and plagiarism.

https://texasborderbusiness.com/watch-resurfaced-video-is-devastating-to-joe-bidens-campaign/


----------



## Necris

I remember that video compilation popping up back in October around the same time Biden's lie about the driver who killed his first wife being drunk at the time of the accident was dredged back up.
Maybe this time it'll take.


----------



## jaxadam

Over 120 million dead from Covid.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/joe-biden-wrongly-says-we-have-120-million-dead-from-covid/


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> Over 120 million dead from Covid.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/joe-biden-wrongly-says-we-have-120-million-dead-from-covid/



At least he immediately corrected himself, unlike someone else we know when making innaccruate statements or outright lies...


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Over 120 million dead from Covid.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/joe-biden-wrongly-says-we-have-120-million-dead-from-covid/


He was clearly being sarcastic


----------



## jaxadam

JSanta said:


> unlike someone else we know when making innaccruate statements or outright lies...



Please see my other post above where you can see eloquent and cognizant Joe making inaccurate statements and outright lies.


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> Please see my other post above where you can see eloquent and cognizant Joe making inaccurate statements and outright lies.



So you're telling me that something that happened when Joe still had color in his hair is equal to what Trump is currently doing?

The big difference, regardless, is that the words Trump says and the things he does and doesn't do are causing direct harm to millions of people today. They're not the same thing. And if you watch that clip, Biden actually admits that he lied! I mean, at least he had the ability to admit that he did so. 

If Trump would do the same thing, admit that he is a liar, the conversation would be different.


----------



## spudmunkey

Mis-remembering where you placed in your class? Ehh...maybe...but nobody "misremembers" having 3 degrees instead of 1. 

Am I happy Joe's the nominee? No. Do I still believe he'll be a better President of the United States, and all that entails? Yes I do. Assuming he doesn't pick, like, Sarah Palin as VP, or something.


----------



## JSanta

spudmunkey said:


> Mis-remembering where you placed in your class? Ehh...maybe...but nobody "misremembers" having 3 degrees instead of 1.
> 
> Am I happy Joe's the nominee? No. Do I still believe he'll be a better President of the United States, and all that entails? Yes I do. Assuming he doesn't pick, like, Sarah Palin as VP, or something.



I've seen people do this over time, over the years the fish gets bigger. But you have to hope that someone corrects them, and that the person will come clean. I don't like it either, but it happens. Again, big difference between telling/believing the lie ,and then coming clean, versus just lying, IMO.


----------



## jaxadam

JSanta said:


> So you're telling me that something that happened when Joe still had color in his hair is equal to what Trump is currently doing?



No, I'm suggesting that it's worse. It shows the content of his character, and now, whether people want to admit it or not, I'm not so sure that a lifelong lair with a increasing case of dementia is a very good combination.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around how, after 3 1/2 years, this is where we are. Of all of the bitching and moaning, the Democratic heir apparent has a checkered past with lying, racism, sexism, and scandal. So as others have mentioned before, without using the words Trump, how are people going to be convinced that this man is the savior that is going to fix everything and bring everyone together? I feel that a one-term figurehead is poor reasoning.


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> No, I'm suggesting that it's worse. It shows the content of his character, and now, whether people want to admit it or not, I'm not so sure that a lifelong lair with a increasing case of dementia is a very good combination.
> 
> I'm just trying to wrap my head around how, after 3 1/2 years, this is where we are. Of all of the bitching and moaning, the Democratic heir apparent has a checkered past with lying, racism, sexism, and scandal. So as others have mentioned before, without using the words Trump, how are people going to be convinced that this man is the savior that is going to fix everything and bring everyone together? I feel that a one-term figurehead is poor reasoning.



I cannot fathom how you think it's worse compared to what's in power today. So I think my problem is that because I can't understand your reality, there's very little to discuss. Trump weaponizes words and actions. It's not just that he lies, he lies in such a way that is damaging in catastrophic ways. 

Biden is not the savior, but compared to the awful hand we've been dealt, he's a much better alternative. Trump belongs running a sleezy used car lot, not this country.


----------



## jaxadam

JSanta said:


> I cannot fathom how you think it's worse compared to what's in power today.



My apologies, let me rephrase. I'm not suggesting it's worse than what's in power today; I'm suggesting that Biden is worse now than when he had color in his hair because now there is the x-factor of his dementia, or "gaffes", or "stutters", or whatever people what to call it.

Again, I can't find any convincing arguments for Biden shy of "well, at least he's not Trump" or "he'll bring everyone together symbolically" and that really isn't going to fly when he gets off the plane to meet foreign dignitaries and doesn't remember what country he's in.



JSanta said:


> So I think my problem is that because I can't understand your reality, there's very little to discuss.



This is very telling. If I don't understand a person's reality, I'm more than happy to try to hear their perspective and to learn where they're coming from. I'm sorry that you feel that because you don't understand mine, there's very little to discuss. Ironically mine might be very different than you think.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> My apologies, let me rephrase. I'm not suggesting it's worse than what's in power today; I'm suggesting that Biden is worse now than when he had color in his hair because now there is the x-factor of his dementia, or "gaffes", or "stutters", or whatever people what to call it.
> 
> Again, I can't find any convincing arguments for Biden shy of "well, at least he's not Trump" or "he'll bring everyone together symbolically" and that really isn't going to fly when he gets off the plane to meet foreign dignitaries and doesn't remember what country he's in.


I'll start by again noting Biden is the nominee not because he was the most popular candidate - no candidate initially had majority support - but because he was the majority of voter's runner up pick. He's absolutely a Plan B nominee.

But, unless you were referring to Trump when you wrote "...a checkered past with lying, racism, sexism, and scandal," I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from. I don't think I've seen any serious attempt to label Biden a liar. As far as racism, again, if you want to use his opposition to school bussing against him, I think it also has to be noted that that was fairly mainstream policy at the time, and he's since admitted he was on the wrong side of that one. I'm less concerned with a candidate who has made mistakes but owns that, than one who denies he was ever wrong and calls any evidence to the contrary "fake news." Sexism, again, I haven't seen any serious, credible allegations against him. Scandal? What, his asshole son and Fox trying to manufacture that into a scandal? The sexual assault allegations against him that imploded pretty quickly and turns out bear a striking similarity to a scene in a novel the woman's father wrote a number of years before she alleged the assault occurred? Biden is actually fairly scandal-_free_ for a candidate who's spent that kind of time in Washington - The Econmist, writing about his rise in the polls and place as the probable Democratic nominee, noted in their coverage that the Democrats might run a rarity in Washington if he were to win - an honorable man.

I know the right is trying to make a big deal of his alleged senility - I'll believe it when I see it somewhere other than Fox News, but at a minimum if it turns out to be true, well, he won't be the only candidate for President in 2020 with clear signs of growing cognitive impairment. 

He wasn't my first choice, and I didn't vote for him when I had the opportunity... But I think he has the potential to be a decent president, and at the absolute worst should be an _unremarkable _president. And if you're worried about a US president embarrassing us on the global stage, well, it's a little late for that.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> No, I'm suggesting that it's worse. It shows the content of his character, and now, whether people want to admit it or not, I'm not so sure that a lifelong lair with a increasing case of dementia is a very good combination.
> 
> I'm just trying to wrap my head around how, after 3 1/2 years, this is where we are. Of all of the bitching and moaning, the Democratic heir apparent has a checkered past with lying, racism, sexism, and scandal. So as others have mentioned before, without using the words Trump, how are people going to be convinced that this man is the savior that is going to fix everything and bring everyone together? I feel that a one-term figurehead is poor reasoning.


Aside from no one saying that, it's because when the goal is left leaning policies a Democrat president will be more easily swayed to them by left leaning Democrat policy makers.

In a two party system, it's very hard to say anything without referencing the other side. But if you vote in a bunch of progressive congresspeople and senators, it doesn't matter if you have a president from the other party. Between a "relative" left Republican and a "relative" right Democrat whose policies might be very similar, I'll take the one whose party is likely to sway them in a direction I agree with. If someone I preferred like Warren or Sanders were somehow the Republican pick and still left of Biden there might be an interesting argument to be had on the power of the party and integrity of all those involved, but that's not the case.

Then again between Biden and the current Republican landscape, I truly believe Biden is more likely to have actual plans to accomplish things (see: Paul Ryan repeal and replace). But as Drew said Biden isn't a popular first choice, Biden and his people probably know this and are taking measures to get other candidates' staff and policy on board as a result. So while a Biden presidency won't deliver everything people want from or that a Democrat presidency could achieve, there's every reason to believe progress will be made.

I'd still take today's Biden against any of the Republican candidates this century.

All with a disclaimer that I'm not an American, but your elections do affect me probably at least as much as any election I've ever voted in locally.

As an alternative exercise, can you give me a reason to vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 without using the words "Clinton" or "Biden"?


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> My apologies, let me rephrase. I'm not suggesting it's worse than what's in power today; I'm suggesting that Biden is worse now than when he had color in his hair because now there is the x-factor of his dementia, or "gaffes", or "stutters", or whatever people what to call it.
> 
> Again, I can't find any convincing arguments for Biden shy of "well, at least he's not Trump" or "he'll bring everyone together symbolically" and that really isn't going to fly when he gets off the plane to meet foreign dignitaries and doesn't remember what country he's in.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very telling. If I don't understand a person's reality, I'm more than happy to try to hear their perspective and to learn where they're coming from. I'm sorry that you feel that because you don't understand mine, there's very little to discuss. Ironically mine might be very different than you think.



Don't get me wrong at all - I am not assuming one thing about you one way or the other. You appear to be a pragmatist and a pot-stirrer, both qualities I don't inherently dislike. What I meant by my comment is that if you can't outright say that Trump is a liar and a terrible person, I can't find middle ground with you. It's not a grey line for me because he has zero qualities I admire as a person. I didn't agree with many of the policies of either president I served under, but I respected elements of both of them. I can't say the same for Trump.

My apologies if I came across as demeaning to you, that was not my intention.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

StevenC said:


> Aside from no one saying that, it's because when the goal is left leaning policies a Democrat president will be more easily swayed to them by left leaning Democrat policy makers.
> 
> In a two party system, it's very hard to say anything without referencing the other side. But if you vote in a bunch of progressive congresspeople and senators, it doesn't matter if you have a president from the other party. Between a "relative" left Republican and a "relative" right Democrat whose policies might be very similar, I'll take the one whose party is likely to sway them in a direction I agree with. If someone I preferred like Warren or Sanders were somehow the Republican pick and still left of Biden there might be an interesting argument to be had on the power of the party and integrity of all those involved, but that's not the case.
> 
> Then again between Biden and the current Republican landscape, I truly believe Biden is more likely to have actual plans to accomplish things (see: Paul Ryan repeal and replace). But as Drew said Biden isn't a popular first choice, Biden and his people probably know this and are taking measures to get other candidates' staff and policy on board as a result. So while a Biden presidency won't deliver everything people want from or that a Democrat presidency could achieve, there's every reason to believe progress will be made.
> 
> I'd still take today's Biden against any of the Republican candidates this century.
> 
> All with a disclaimer that I'm not an American, but your elections do affect me probably at least as much as any election I've ever voted in locally.
> 
> As an alternative exercise, can you give me a reason to vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 without using the words "Clinton" or "Biden"?




Benghazi!!!! Lol i kid i kid good post


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Though, I also think there's an element of out of the frying pan into the fire here, too - if that DOES happen, Biden goes senile, gets impeached for pulling strings in Ukraine for personal gain, etc... I mean, it's not like we're any worse off than we are today. Biden was definitely a "plan B" candidate, the candidate the least offensive to the most Democrats, but he has the chance to be a LOT better than Trump, and it's hard to see him doing any _worse_ than Trump is doing. That seems a pretty reasonable gamble.



He's not a "plan B candidate".

He's far, far worse.

He's Obama's "token stereotypical dinosaur politician". And I'm not referencing his age. He looks and acts like a fictional 80s mayoral candidate for any party in any country... He's the compromise with all the factions and viewpoints we'd happily be rid of for good.

...although he HAS since gone full bumbling senior mode since then, too.


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> He's not a "plan B candidate".
> 
> He's far, far worse.
> 
> He's Obama's "token stereotypical dinosaur politician". And I'm not referencing his age. He looks and acts like a fictional 80s mayoral candidate for any party in any country... He's the compromise with all the factions and viewpoints we'd happily be rid of for good.
> 
> ...although he HAS since gone full bumbling senior mode since then, too.



There is no comparison between Stumblin' Bumblin' Uncle Joe with his gaffes... and our Dear Leader / Useful Idiot.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> There is no comparison between Stumblin' Bumblin' Uncle Joe with his gaffes... and our Dear Leader / Useful Idiot.



Indeed.

Biden looks like a politician from a Latin American soap... but Trump looks like he's one step from going full Idi Amin.


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Biden looks like a politician from a Latin American soap... but Trump looks like he's one step from going full Idi Amin.



At least Idi Amin was a delightful dinner host.


----------



## Randy

But Frank, who worked with the Massachusetts Senator on the sweeping Dodd-Frank financial reform law that turns 10 years old this week, cautioned against a Secretary Warren because of how reviled she is on Wall Street.

"The financial institutions are very negative about her, unfairly in the degree they are," Frank said. "If you have someone who is that much opposed by the people being regulated, it doesn't work smoothly."

*Frank currently sits on the board of directors at Signature Bank, a $6 billion New York-based commercial bank.*

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/19/business/elizabeth-warren-barney-frank-dodd-frank/index.html


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> He's not a "plan B candidate".
> 
> He's far, far worse.
> 
> He's Obama's "token stereotypical dinosaur politician". And I'm not referencing his age. He looks and acts like a fictional 80s mayoral candidate for any party in any country... He's the compromise with all the factions and viewpoints we'd happily be rid of for good.
> 
> ...although he HAS since gone full bumbling senior mode since then, too.


I meant that perfectly literally - Biden IS a "plan B" candidate, because once voters came to terms with the fact that their preferred Plan A candidates didn't have the support to win, and Sanders didn't have a majority, Biden was the consensus second-choice candidate for a clear majority of voters. That doesn't mean you have to LIKE him, of course, but I think it's pretty unarguable he was the majority "second pick" this time around. 



Randy said:


> *Frank currently sits on the board of directors at Signature Bank, a $6 billion New York-based commercial bank.*
> 
> https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/07/19/business/elizabeth-warren-barney-frank-dodd-frank/index.html



Token finance guy checking in - $6 billion is NOT a big bank, crazy as that sounds. Dodd-Frank defined "Systematically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) as greater than $50B, and Trump just upped that to $250B. Huge sweeping parts of Dodd-Frank don't even apply to Signature Bank, who frankly I've never even heard of. They're _tiny_. I can say with a fair degree of confidence here that Barney Frank isn't motivated by some desire to not have Warren breathing down his neck when he says this.


----------



## jaxadam

Where has Hidin’ Biden been lately?


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> Where has Hidin’ Biden been lately?



Giving speeches on actual policy yesterday unlike Tiny Hands Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/us/politics/biden-workplace-childcare.html


----------



## Mathemagician

$6billion is about how much one or two teams of advisors in Manhattan manage in assets for individuals. 

For commercial banking (banking for businesses) its even less impressive. 

The new ad that Biden & Obama released has an interesting direction and a very pointed message. Looks like the attack ads are starting. 

Also let’s remember folks, a president appoints judges, heads of departments like education and the EPA, and whose role has many knock-on effects in terms of policy focus and direction.


----------



## jaxadam

SpaceDock said:


> Giving speeches on actual policy yesterday unlike Tiny Hands Trump
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/us/politics/biden-workplace-childcare.html



You mean reading teleprompters in the largest font possible while he still can?


----------



## jaxadam

Mathemagician said:


> Also let’s remember folks, a president appoints judges, heads of departments like education and the EPA, and whose role has many knock-on effects in terms of policy focus and direction.



And their decision to only focus on picking a black female for a VP candidate is racism and sexism in it's purest form, whether anyone wants to believe it or not. It is literally pandering to his base, and tells me that his picks for judges, heads of departments like education and the EPA will follow the same trend of selecting a candidate not based on merit, but societal persuasion.


----------



## Mathemagician

Bro.

Bro.

Bro.

If my choice is someone who will elected “someone in the top 5 most qualified people to do a job”

Or what we have now with “people SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN to dismantle the public education system, weaken environmental protections, weaken the judiciary, etc”

I will vote for the guy who will pick a qualified person. And bro, I hate to break it to you, but for no job ever including the presidency itself is any ONE person the “true best choice”.

No one is “the best”. At a certain point you reach “good enough”, and then what matters is personality/fit.

So if you have two well qualified candidates for a job, and one appeals to more people and may get them to tune in and get involved in the discussion, and one is considered boring or has a poor personality then you hire the one people like more even if their technical skills aren’t there yet or the person needs more coaching to hit that next level of skill. 

It’s no different than when discussions I have been on in hiring when we select for “fit” versus who has the most degrees. At a certain point we don’t give a fuck about “qualifications” on paper because we are going to have to work with you 50+ hours a week.

The only people who in this day and age of soft skills being taught in undergrad classes, still believe that “the world is and should be a purely technical meritocracy” are people who get mad when they get passed over for something they felt they “deserved” and then get bitter.

Life isn’t fair, and politics especially is a popularity contest with legalized bribery (lobbying).

So you pick the candidates that you believe can do the most good. And then you stay informed/involved and vote every opportunity you get.

But “wah wah Biden sucks” is ridiculous at this point. And you can go back through my posts to see I supported Bernie’s policies earlier in the race.

The two leading candidates for this election cycle are not comparable in the amount of damage they can do.


----------



## jaxadam

Mathemagician said:


> Bro.
> 
> Bro.
> 
> Bro.
> 
> If my choice is someone who will elected “someone in the top 5 most qualified people to do a job”
> 
> Or what we have now with “people SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN to dismantle the public education system, weaken environmental protections, weaken the judiciary, etc”
> 
> I will vote for the guy who will pick a qualified person. And bro, I hate to break it to you, but for no job ever including the presidency itself is any ONE person the “true best choice”.
> 
> No one is “the best”. At a certain point you reach “good enough”, and then what matters is personality/fit.
> 
> So if you have two well qualified candidates for a job, and one appeals to more people and may get them to tune in and get involved in the discussion, and one is considered boring or has a poor personality then you hire the one people like more even if their technical skills aren’t there yet or the person needs more coaching to hit that next level of skill.
> 
> It’s no different than when discussions I have been on in hiring when we select for “fit” versus who has the most degrees. At a certain point we don’t give a fuck about “qualifications” on paper because we are going to have to work with you 50+ hours a week.
> 
> The only people who in this day and age of soft skills being taught in undergrad classes, still believe that “the world is and should be a purely technical meritocracy” are people who get mad when they get passed over for something they felt they “deserved” and then get bitter.
> 
> Life isn’t fair, and politics especially is a popularity contest with legalized bribery (lobbying).
> 
> So you pick the candidates that you believe can do the most good. And then you stay informed/involved and vote every opportunity you get.
> 
> But “wah wah Biden sucks” is ridiculous at this point. And you can go back through my posts to see I supported Bernie’s policies earlier in the race.
> 
> The two leading candidates for this election cycle are not comparable in the amount of damage they can do.


Bro scale of seriousness:

Bros = 1 or less ---> Serious
Bros = 1 to 3 ---> Semi-serious
Bros = 4 or greater ---> Can't take seriously


----------



## Mathemagician

jaxadam said:


> Bro scale of seriousness:
> 
> Bros = 1 or less ---> Serious
> Bros = 1 to 3 ---> Semi-serious
> Bros = 4 or greater ---> Can't take seriously



Look someone completely ignoring everything that was said on a topic because the actual content of discussion doesn’t immediately agree with your pre-established beliefs. 

I led with that as a joke/ice-breaker to show I wasn’t some angry person just yelling. 

You could have just said from the get-go that you have no interest in any nuanced discussion on what “types of appointments” a candidate may make. 

Then I wouldn’t have wasted my time.


----------



## jaxadam

Mathemagician said:


> Then I wouldn’t have wasted my time.



I'm sorry that you feel you wasted your time, but like you observed, you did, because speaking of engaging on topic, I don't really see where you explain to me why it's okay to select ONLY a black female candidate for VP and how it's not a form of sexism and racism and an appeal to societal feelings. 

There really isn't any way to have a nuanced discussion when there is a prevalent belief or acceptance that it's "cool" to hire people that are "cool" because we'll just teach 'em! Who cares about qualifications anymore, this guy will be performing your angioplasty. He's only seen youtube videos on it, but don't worry it's cool because he's awesome to have beers with and if he fucks it up we'll just keep teaching him!

The rest of your rant just conceded that Biden is basically a shitty candidate, and that you didn't support him, but you're okay with lowering your standards now and you'll turn a blind eye to the overt sexist/racist VP candidate criteria because "wah wah Trump sucks".


----------



## zappatton2

jaxadam said:


> I'm sorry that you feel you wasted your time, but like you observed, you did, because speaking of engaging on topic, I don't really see where you explain to me why it's okay to select ONLY a black female candidate for VP and how it's not a form of sexism and racism and an appeal to societal feelings.
> 
> There really isn't any way to have a nuanced discussion when there is a prevalent belief or acceptance that it's "cool" to hire people that are "cool" because we'll just teach 'em! Who cares about qualifications anymore, this guy will be performing your angioplasty. He's only seen youtube videos on it, but don't worry it's cool because he's awesome to have beers with and if he fucks it up we'll just keep teaching him!
> 
> The rest of your rant just conceded that Biden is basically a shitty candidate, and that you didn't support him, but you're okay with lowering your standards now and you'll turn a blind eye to the overt sexist/racist VP candidate criteria because "wah wah Trump sucks".


Bush Jr sucked. Trump is a cancer to democracy itself. I don't know how that could be any clearer, you've literally just had plainclothes federal agents, under the Trump administration, pulling civil rights protesters into unmarked vehicles. That's the same scenario my teachers would warn us in the 80's was indicative of Soviet autocracy.

As to the idea of a black female VP, the hysteria over that possibility reminds me a lot of people whining about SJW every time they see a black or gay lead in a movie these days. Somehow, it's pandering if you want to bring more people into the fold and make thing reflective of demographic realities (and yes, there are issues that affect black or women voters that will _only_ be properly dealt with when a government can reflect that reality and those unique concerns). Yet somehow, it's _not _pandering that every politician, like almost every lead in every movie since forever prior to very recently, be the same friggin' white dude forever? Axel Foley notwithstanding.


----------



## Mathemagician

I gave you my reasons for supporting one candidate over another - that Biden’s nominations for a significant number of positions cannot be worse than the current candidate ACTIVELY trying to dismantle systems and regulations we have in place to protect citizens. 

IE - if he is handed a list of the 20 most qualified people in the country for a role, then he likely to choose one of them. 

The current administration throws anyone with a pulse into a position willing to ruin it for money like Betsy Devos who has a financial interest in dismantling public schools to siphon money to for-profit education.

Or Andrew Wheeler current head of the EPA who was a coal industry lobbyist. 

So Biden or literally anyone will appoint better qualified people. 

You have been straw-manning from the start because this isn’t surgery. 

The only way to become a surgeon is based on qualifications. And within that bubble, first-year surgeons out of med school are only “good enough” to be allowed to work on patients. When they get out there they will spend years in hands-on training by better and more experienced doctors. Quite often your surgeon isn’t “the best one in the world” it’s “whoever is available that can do it”. 

Meanwhile Cabinet positions can be filled by anyone. So candidate 1 will pick from a list of highly qualified people, and candidate 2 will assign someone actively focused on dismantling the laws we have in place to make things better for all stakeholders. 

The goal was never to “convince you” that candidate 1 was better than candidate 2. It was to shine light on the less obvious effects of voting for others reading this but not participating in the discussion.


----------



## jaxadam

Mathemagician said:


> I gave you my reasons for supporting one candidate over another - that Biden’s nominations for a significant number of positions cannot be worse than the current candidate ACTIVELY trying to dismantle systems and regulations we have in place to protect citizens.
> 
> IE - if he is handed a list of the 20 most qualified people in the country for a role, then he likely to choose one of them.
> 
> The current administration throws anyone with a pulse into a position willing to ruin it for money like Betsy Devos who has a financial interest in dismantling public schools to siphon money to for-profit education.
> 
> Or Andrew Wheeler current head of the EPA who was a coal industry lobbyist.
> 
> So Biden or literally anyone will appoint better qualified people.
> 
> You have been straw-manning from the start because this isn’t surgery.
> 
> The only way to become a surgeon is based on qualifications. And within that bubble, first-year surgeons out of med school are only “good enough” to be allowed to work on patients. When they get out there they will spend years in hands-on training by better and more experienced doctors. Quite often your surgeon isn’t “the best one in the world” it’s “whoever is available that can do it”.
> 
> Meanwhile Cabinet positions can be filled by anyone. So candidate 1 will pick from a list of highly qualified people, and candidate 2 will assign someone actively focused on dismantling the laws we have in place to make things better for all stakeholders.
> 
> The goal was never to “convince you” that candidate 1 was better than candidate 2. It was to shine light on the less obvious effects of voting for others reading this but not participating in the discussion.



You're having a very hard time answering my question. Your continuous long-winded rants indicate you either don't have an answer, or you want to avoid it. I'll try one more time: How is deciding that you ONLY want to be handed resumes from black females not racist/sexist? At least zappatton2 above gave it a shot. Try not to plagiarize him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Won't somebody _please_ think of the white men.


----------



## jaxadam

^This post, although exhibiting avoidance and antagonism, will garner and incredible number of likes, most notably from the heavy hitters in here i.e. SpaceDock, sleewell, Steven C, et al.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> ^This post, although exhibiting avoidance and antagonism, will garner and incredible number of likes, most notably from the heavy hitters in here i.e. SpaceDock, sleewell, Steven C, et al.



I upvote everything Simpsons or affirmative action.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I upvote everything Simpsons or affirmative action.



Yeah, but you get a free pass because your didactic intellect laced with eloquence is unmatched.


----------



## BigViolin

I just learned a new word.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Yeah, but you get a free pass because your didactic intellect laced with eloquence is unmatched.



Ah the ol' "flatter him back into the 'Gear and Equipment' subforum" strategy.


----------



## possumkiller

BigViolin said:


> I just learned a new word.


What was that?


----------



## Mathemagician

If you are running a popularity contest and are trying to appeal to a wide group of people, finding a teammate with a different set of experience and skill than you is a good move.

If Person A is an engineer/designer and They are starting founding a business they are going to hire a finance/operations person and or a marketing person. Not another engineer.

Diversity of opinion and experience in a board room is a GOOD thing. The same can be said for politics.

The “most qualified VP” is the person who can bring in the most numbers at the voting box.

Because again “politician” isn’t a real job. (It doesn’t even pretend to be a meritocracy)

Each and every politician makes it up as they along, focusing on whatever pet projects or issues they or their area have a focus on.

A candidate from a rust belt state will have different ideals and experience from someone from a coastal state. (Similarly within a state, etc).

So one won’t be objectively “better”. You decide what you’re looking for, then decide how to fill that.


The knife cuts both ways-
1) If Joe Biden feels he can carry the moderate white male vote, and wants a minority or whatever else he can do that.
2) If Trump feels that the best person for every single position is a white person, who ALSO has conflicts of interest with the body they are chosen to oversee then he can do that.

Now in November voters are picking which they would rather have.

Hopefully you’ve noticed I am not trying to “justify” how unfair it may feel to you. I am just laying out what the options are.

You’re free to continue insulting me.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Ah the ol' "flatter him back into the 'Gear and Equipment' subforum" strategy.



I was standing in the kitchen in front of the refrigerator getting some ice water the other day. Right as my wife walks in, an ice cube hit the ground. She looked at me and said "Are you going to do anything about that?" I just kicked it and said "Now it's just water under the fridge."


----------



## BigViolin

possumkiller said:


> What was that?



Didactic. Hope my hat will still fit.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> You're having a very hard time answering my question. Your continuous long-winded rants indicate you either don't have an answer, or you want to avoid it. I'll try one more time: How is deciding that you ONLY want to be handed resumes from black females not racist/sexist? At least zappatton2 above gave it a shot. Try not to plagiarize him.


Wait, you think Biden wanting to chose a minority woman is a running mate is somehow racist and sexist? 

Ok, I'll bite. White Men are, per google, 31% of the US population. That number has declined with time, but I suspect from 1776 onwards it never really breached 40-45% of the US population. To date, white men have been roughly 99% of the population of sitting presidents and vice presidents in the United States, and roughly 98% of major-party presidential or vice-presidential nominees. We nominate white men at a rate roughly triple their actual representation in American society, for the highest and second highest political office in the country and, arguably, the world. 

The fact that in the history of this country we have gone 1-for-45 in electing people who are not white, and 0-for-45 in electing people who are not men, to the presidency, and 0-for-45 in nominating people who are not white, or not men, to the vice presidency, is so statistically improbable, that it becomes very hard to conclude that the process by which we select a vast sea of white men, plus one black dude and three women to head the top two elected positions in this country, is not _itself_ both racist and sexist. Vowing to run counter to that racism and sexism is, viewed in it's full context, therefore a strongly _anti-_racist and -sexist stance. 

If running in opposition to racist and sexist power structures is being interpreted as itself racist and sexist, then we as a country have to spend some time giving ourselves a long, hard look in the mirror.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Wait, you think Biden wanting to chose a minority woman is a running mate is somehow racist and sexist?



When pressure is put on someone to be forced to pick a person of only one race and only one sex, barring all other facts and statistics about our country's past history or current demographic in a certain field, I think it sends a negative message regarding a merit-based approach for candidacy. The guy could pick a transgender native america for all I care, but when articles like this suggest strong pressure to only pick certain races or sexes, in a position of power nominating and appointing people that was brought up earlier I find it difficult to believe that the right person for the job will be selected meritoriously, and will probably be either excluded or overlooked to satisfy more social criterias. And look, I in no way think that Trump is any better at this, and in most cases much worse.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/8750...den-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> When pressure is put on someone to be forced to pick a person of only one race and only one sex, barring all other facts and statistics about our country's past history or current demographic in a certain field, I think it sends a negative message regarding a merit-based approach for candidacy. The guy could pick a transgender native america for all I care, but when articles like this suggest strong pressure to only pick certain races or sexes, in a position of power nominating and appointing people that was brought up earlier I find it difficult to believe that the right person for the job will be selected meritoriously, and will probably be either excluded or overlooked to satisfy more social criterias. And look, I in no way think that Trump is any better at this, and in most cases much worse.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/8750...den-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate


Personally, I disagree. 

First, of course, Biden indicated a LONG time ago that he plans to pick a woman as his running mate. The headline is a little misleading, then, because right off the bat the pressure isn't to pick someone who's both black and a woman - he's already planning on running with a woman so it's just to pick one who's black. That choice may have been strategic - it certainly painted Sanders in a corner - but it also may have been entirely principle-driven.

Second, the staggering underrepresentation of minorities and women in US politics is something that I'm not going to flatter myself and pretend I was the first person to notice. A LOT of people want to see Biden run with a person of color precisely because they HAVE been disenfranchised to an astonishing degree in the US political system. You talk about a merit-based candidacy, but the odds of only one black American ever making it to the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate level of a major US political party in a race-blind system that chooses candidates on merit alone are low enough to stretch credulity. The argument that Biden should choose a person of color as his running mate is an implicit recognition that the system we have been using isn't merit-based, and worthy female, Black, Hispanic, Asian, you name it candidates have been under-represented because the system prioritizes white men over anyone else. 

The fact that in one of the most diverse fields in modern history the eventual winner was a white man should be reason enough to at least consider the possibility that our selection process is _not _race-blind and merit based, for starters.


----------



## Mathemagician

jaxadam said:


> When pressure is put on someone to be forced to pick a person of only one race and only one sex, barring all other facts and statistics about our country's past history or current demographic in a certain field, I think it sends a negative message regarding a merit-based approach for candidacy. The guy could pick a transgender native america for all I care, but when articles like this suggest strong pressure to only pick certain races or sexes, in a position of power nominating and appointing people that was brought up earlier I find it difficult to believe that the right person for the job will be selected meritoriously, and will probably be either excluded or overlooked to satisfy more social criterias. And look, I in no way think that Trump is any better at this, and in most cases much worse.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/8750...den-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate



The right person has likely never been selected meritoriously. The only options were “white guy or white guy” to represent the entire population.

For over 250 years.

But now that one candidate openly states “I’m looking for someone different” instead of “I’m looking for the same thing we usually do” - now people want to cry foul about “merit”.

You even lead with a hypothetical scenario - “barring everything we know to be true about this country and how it operates, I just don’t like it”.

You also never listed out criteria about what constitutes “merit”. This is a KEY point your argument falls apart on.

You refer to nebulous “‘merit” but never explain how he can’t possibly find a minority woman who meets those criteria?

Edit: Drew is saying what I’m saying but more chill.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Edit: Drew is saying what I’m saying but more chill.


I had the single most frustrating conference call of my life today, I'm already raged out.


----------



## jaxadam

Mathemagician said:


> You refer to nebulous “‘merit” but never explain how he can’t possibly find a minority woman who meets those criteria?



I'm not saying he can't, and I'm sure there are plenty, and actually probably more qualified than him for Presidency! It's clear my point won't make its way to you, so here's my final though in regard to responding to you: It is strange and hypocritical to tow the line of "We want equality for everyone, but for now only black females apply to this position".


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> I'm not saying he can't, and I'm sure there are plenty, and actually probably more qualified than him for Presidency! It's clear my point won't make its way to you, so here's my final though in regard to responding to you: It is strange and hypocritical to tow the line of "We want equality for everyone, but for now only black females apply to this position".



I see your point. But if the Presidency was based on merit/most qualified, we probably wouldn't have who's in office today (or probably many/most of our past presidents).

And I think the message is that representation matters. I'm a Veteran, and I teach at a university. I've had several students take my classes after they've done their time on active duty tell me that it was great to see someone like them teaching their class. They saw themselves in me. I never in a million years thought that what I was doing went beyond teaching until they started telling me differently. 

That's the same thing for every black/brown/white/technicolor little kid in this country. Seeing someone that looks like them as President or Vice President matters. If the rules for being in a position of power/authority/success were based on who was best, the world would look much different.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> I'm not saying he can't, and I'm sure there are plenty, and actually probably more qualified than him for Presidency! It's clear my point won't make its way to you, so here's my final though in regard to responding to you: It is strange and hypocritical to tow the line of "We want equality for everyone, but for now only black females apply to this position".


If black candidates and female candidates have historically been excluded, then yes, there's a higher probability that this untapped pool of black and female candidates who have historically been written off based on their race and sex will result in a highly qualified candidate than if we continue to draw from the same narrow subset we've always drawn from, _if we assume that the distribution of qualified candidates is approximately even across sex and race_. 

Now, if you want to question that final assumption, that's on you, bro.


----------



## jaxadam

Well, it's hard for me to keep up with all of these quotes, misquotes, likes, dislikes, PM's, DM's, IM's, and fanmail, so I'll leave you with this final thought: Should a President have full capability of their mental faculties?

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...of-his-cognitive-decline-tests-voters-need-to


----------



## Mathemagician

jaxadam said:


> I'm not saying he can't, and I'm sure there are plenty, and actually probably more qualified than him for Presidency! It's clear my point won't make its way to you, so here's my final though in regard to responding to you: It is strange and hypocritical to tow the line of "We want equality for everyone, but for now only black females apply to this position".



It’s not hypocritical. I’m a POC. If a firm is actively looking for a woman to fill a role then good for whoever gets that job. There will be more jobs. And if she crushes it then the team may grow and then I’ll have an at-bat.

I teach (Volunteer) financial literacy, and the average person in the class has told me they asked more questions and felt more comfortable because I went in open and lead with that and they said I didn’t come off as “a teacher” read: someone not like them. 

Being a POC or woman opens doors with people that are only open to them. And Biden seems to be trying to acknowledge that and bring in more representation.

In the exact same way that some people refer to “a good neighborhood” as one that is predominantly white, a lot of business owners and voters want to work with and are more open to people who share cultural experiences with them.

There is no shortage of white people in positions of power. The reverse cannot be said, and money and opportunity is left on the table trying to pretend “there is no color”.

So society can either embrace the positives of more representation, or try to continue to pretend that “meritocracy” is a real thing when it has never been the case.

It’s about building lots of little wins. In the current political climate I’ll take someone trying to build little wins, instead of actively breaking things.

And that was my original point from several posts ago - one candidate is trying to work some good stuff in, the other is actively breaking things. And those are the options we have going into November.


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> Well, it's hard for me to keep up with all of these quotes, misquotes, likes, dislikes, PM's, DM's, IM's, and fanmail, so I'll leave you with this final thought: Should a President have full capability of their mental faculties?
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...of-his-cognitive-decline-tests-voters-need-to



I don't see why not - should also require disclosure of tax returns. Maybe our current President can set an example and do just that and release both!


----------



## Ralyks

I for one more than welcome a female person of a non-white ethnicity for VP.
Signed, a pasty faced moderate peckerwood.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Well, it's hard for me to keep up with all of these quotes, misquotes, likes, dislikes, PM's, DM's, IM's, and fanmail, so I'll leave you with this final thought: Should a President have full capability of their mental faculties?
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...of-his-cognitive-decline-tests-voters-need-to


So you're abstaining from the election this November and presumably went for Clinton last time?


----------



## Ralyks

Polls from Fox, fresh out of the oven:

MI - Biden +9

PA - Biden +11

MN - Biden +13


----------



## Mathemagician

That’s promising, but as always polls don’t really mean much. People get complacent. It’s not over until everyone eligible to vote has had a chance to vote. And voter suppression started early this year.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> So you're abstaining from the election this November and presumably went for Clinton last time?



I’m making the only sensible choice there is at this point... I’m voting for Obama!


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Well, it's hard for me to keep up with all of these quotes, misquotes, likes, dislikes, PM's, DM's, IM's, and fanmail, so I'll leave you with this final thought: Should a President have full capability of their mental faculties?
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...of-his-cognitive-decline-tests-voters-need-to


Bait and switch, but I'll do you a solid and dignify it with a response - the whole Republican party still circle-jerks every time Ronald Reagan's name comes up and we now know he was deep into Alzheimer's by the end of his second term, sooo....? 

Serious question, though. Do you honestly think it's "racist and sexist" for a major party political candidate to say "hey, us white men have had a pretty good run, maybe we should invite someone else to the party here and try sharing for a change"?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

The funniest thing about all this is VP has largely always been a non factor of a job and generally chosen for being somewhat opposite the candidate to broaden appeal of the ticket.

This strategy was viewed as good when chosing a "different" white male but now when they look to actually balance ticket with diversity its all "but the merits of the vp!!!!" Lol


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> The funniest thing about all this is VP has largely always been a non factor of a job and generally chosen for being somewhat opposite the candidate to broaden appeal of the ticket.
> 
> This strategy was viewed as good when chosing a "different" white male but now when they look to actually balance ticket with diversity its all "but the merits of the vp!!!!" Lol



Well, Biden should know all about token VP candidates for broader appeal, given his own political resume...

But, then again, nobody gave much thought to Obama possibly becoming ill or dying on the job, while a victorious Biden's VP pick might well end up having to take the wheel at some point. So there's that....


----------



## Mathemagician

Adieu said:


> Well, Biden should know all about token VP candidates for broader appeal, given his own political resume...
> 
> But, then again, nobody gave much thought to Obama possibly becoming ill or dying on the job, while a victorious Biden's VP pick might well end up having to take the wheel at some point. So there's that....



An interesting take. You’re saying that politics should have not only term limits but age limits to prevent a candidate from building a “fortress” around themselves and working until eternity/well past what would be retirement age in other industries. 

It’s certainly a simple way to propose leadership from people who could potentially still have children/young grand children and a greater interest in how the country is run and not just lining their pockets.


----------



## Adieu

Mathemagician said:


> An interesting take. You’re saying that politics should have not only term limits but age limits to prevent a candidate from building a “fortress” around themselves and working until eternity/well past what would be retirement age in other industries.
> 
> It’s certainly a simple way to propose leadership from people who could potentially still have children/young grand children and a greater interest in how the country is run and not just lining their pockets.



No

I'm just saying Biden looks a lot more likely to keel over someday in the foreseeable future (...but so does Trump). This makes their VP picks a lot more important than, say, Bill's, Dubya's, or Obama's.


----------



## Mathemagician

Which right now is

1) A religious fundamentalist, science denier, who believes in LGBT conversion therapy - someone who only appeals to single-issue voters

2) A yet to be disclosed (likely/rumored) POC of some sort - we don’t know but can within reason be expected to have broader appeal


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Which right now is
> 
> 1) A religious fundamentalist, science denier, who believes in LGBT conversion therapy - someone who only appeals to single-issue voters
> 
> 2) A yet to be disclosed (likely/rumored) POC of some sort - we don’t know but can within reason be expected to have broader appeal


That is an _excellent_ fucking point.


----------



## SpaceDock

I saw this article about Biden writing notes about Kamala Harris for a VP pick

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/biden-notes-kamala-harris-grudges-385665

The first note was “Do not hold grudges.” While the article goes on about Kamala in the debate and whatnot, I really feel like this is a astounding thing for Biden to write. He is actually trying to better himself by acknowledging how he might begrudge her but that he should forgive and move on if she is a worthy VP. Could you imagine Trump being reflective or even a good person like this? As much as Biden isn’t perfect and I can doubt the future, having someone who isn’t a self centered piece of crap as President would be so great. Trump using the Frontline Doctors Alien Vaccine Demon Sperm trash video to reinforce his views on hydroxychloroquine just so he can say he was right was the clear opposite of what Biden is doing. Trump doesn’t give a shit about 150k dead Americans, he just wants to be right. 

Sorry for the rant, but let’s all get together to vote for decency and defeat this troll. Less than 100 days!


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> I saw this article about Biden writing notes about Kamala Harris for a VP pick
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/biden-notes-kamala-harris-grudges-385665
> 
> The first note was “Do not hold grudges.” While the article goes on about Kamala in the debate and whatnot, I really feel like this is a astounding thing for Biden to write. He is actually trying to better himself by acknowledging how he might begrudge her but that he should forgive and move on if she is a worthy VP. Could you imagine Trump being reflective or even a good person like this? As much as Biden isn’t perfect and I can doubt the future, having someone who isn’t a self centered piece of crap as President would be so great. Trump using the Frontline Doctors Alien Vaccine Demon Sperm trash video to reinforce his views on hydroxychloroquine just so he can say he was right was the clear opposite of what Biden is doing. Trump doesn’t give a shit about 150k dead Americans, he just wants to be right.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but let’s all get together to vote for decency and defeat this troll. Less than 100 days!



Trump's the kind of guy that would like... add Chris Christie as a running mate just so he could grind him down and make him grovel everyday.


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-desegregation-would-create-a-racial-jungle-2019-7

https://themilsource.com/2020/06/05/what-you-should-know-about-joe-bidens-1994-crime-bill/


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-desegregation-would-create-a-racial-jungle-2019-7
> 
> https://themilsource.com/2020/06/05/what-you-should-know-about-joe-bidens-1994-crime-bill/




It’s not settling if I greatly prefer him over Trump. Can’t wait to vote.


----------



## Mathemagician

SpaceDock said:


> It’s not settling if I greatly prefer him over Trump. Can’t wait to vote.



Yeah I don’t quite get what Jaxadam is selling anymore. The options are the options. 

So what, he wants people to write in a 3rd party candidate? He’s truly trying to convince potential voters that “ThEy’Re tHe SaMe!” Even though it couldn’t be further from the truth? 

Seems like he just really wants Trump to win and that’s fine to be his prerogative. Just don’t understand all this dirt kicking and tantrum throwing. 

Especially as history shows that there is a very real “Conservatives fall in line & Progressives fall in love” thing when it comes to voting and this is not the time to whine about “what could have been” when there is plenty of policy to be written and worked on now. 

Even Bernie has been involved in the early non-binding platform positions.


----------



## Ralyks

It’s sad how this is a good selling point


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> Yeah I don’t quite get what Jaxadam is selling anymore. The options are the options.
> 
> So what, he wants people to write in a 3rd party candidate? He’s truly trying to convince potential voters that “ThEy’Re tHe SaMe!” Even though it couldn’t be further from the truth?
> 
> Seems like he just really wants Trump to win and that’s fine to be his prerogative. Just don’t understand all this dirt kicking and tantrum throwing.
> 
> Especially as history shows that there is a very real “Conservatives fall in line & Progressives fall in love” thing when it comes to voting and this is not the time to whine about “what could have been” when there is plenty of policy to be written and worked on now.
> 
> Even Bernie has been involved in the early non-binding platform positions.



Couple articles from places previously very much maligned against Sanders saying now that his team and he himself have been huge allies in fundraising and behind the scenes generating support for Biden among progressive groups. The narrative of a divided house in 2020 is false. There's a handful of loudmouths on either side that want to make it sound like Democrats are split on this race but 99% would say otherwise.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Couple articles from places previously very much maligned against Sanders saying now that his team and he himself have been huge allies in fundraising and behind the scenes generating support for Biden among progressive groups. The narrative of a divided house in 2020 is false. There's a handful of loudmouths on either side that want to make it sound like Democrats are split on this race but 99% would say otherwise.



I was going to say, it feels like the Democrats united more once we accepted Biden was the pick and Bernies people were helping him to going the trust of his base.


----------



## Randy

It's a totally different environment than 2016. Like I've said several times in here and going back to 2008, Biden is malleable and its more good than bad. Yeah, ideally you have a thought leader but in lieu of that, someone that's receptive to consensus (rather than resistant to it) and capable of compromise is the next best thing. I'm very happy with the way the platform has developed as of now.


----------



## diagrammatiks

settling for Biden is like ... (I can't even think of a fucking analogy that would make sense in terms of expressing the rift between good and bad here)

compared to another 4 years of this current clusterfuck.

ok it's like on one side you have a huge fresh steaming pile of shit. and on the other side you have your least favorite food in the entire world.


----------



## Randy

My analogy in 2016 (which was also a food analogy), was that people wanted Trump because he was something "different". And, you know, chicken nuggets are "different" than a cheese burger, but a handful of broken glass is ALSO "different" than a cheeseburger. I think Trump turned out to be a lot more akin to the broken glass.


----------



## SpaceDock

diagrammatiks said:


> settling for Biden is like ... (I can't even think of a fucking analogy that would make sense in terms of expressing the rift between good and bad here)
> 
> compared to another 4 years of this current clusterfuck.
> 
> ok it's like on one side you have a huge fresh steaming pile of shit. and on the other side you have your least favorite food in the entire world.



more like a steaming pile of shit or a piece of dry toast. yeah maybe given the choice I’d have a donut or some jam on the toast but I am not going to bitch about eating that toast if the other option is biting into a turd.


----------



## Ralyks

diagrammatiks said:


> settling for Biden is like ... (I can't even think of a fucking analogy that would make sense in terms of expressing the rift between good and bad here)
> 
> compared to another 4 years of this current clusterfuck.
> 
> ok it's like on one side you have a huge fresh steaming pile of shit. and on the other side you have your least favorite food in the entire world.



I believe what you guys are looking for is “Turd Sandwhich” vs “Giant Douche”


----------



## SpaceDock

Nah, I think one is clearly better than the other, turd sandwich vs ham sandwich


----------



## Necris

If Biden wins the Democratic Party the party takes it as a mandate to keep doing what they've been doing and not change. They could win with a garbage candidate, why even bother paying lip-service to the growing progressive wing of the party?

Trump wins. His belief in the "silent majority" is (at least in his mind) proven correct and as such Trump takes his victory as a mandate to continue to embrace his despotic instincts.

I feel like given those two possibilities a good portion of people would be happy to settle for Biden. At least when framed in that manner.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


>




Wow if you think it’s embarrassing to forget a campaign stop location, must be brutal to forget the name of one of the largest tragedies in the last century:


----------



## jaxadam

Wow if you think that’s embarrassing, Biden doesn’t even know who his VP is!


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Wow if you think that’s embarrassing, Biden doesn’t even know who his VP is!



Trump doesn't even like his. Also, Pence wasn't selected until July 15th. So it's not even much of a time difference.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> Trump doesn't even like his. Also, Pence wasn't selected until July 15th. So it's not even much of a time difference.



Holy shit buddy my jokes fly completely over your head.


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Holy shit buddy my jokes fly completely over your head.



It's honestly hard to tell sometimes.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> It's honestly hard to tell sometimes.



Then it's working!


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Flappydoodle

Dineley said:


> The funniest thing about all this is VP has largely always been a non factor of a job and generally chosen for being somewhat opposite the candidate to broaden appeal of the ticket.
> 
> This strategy was viewed as good when chosing a "different" white male but now when they look to actually balance ticket with diversity its all "but the merits of the vp!!!!" Lol



Hmm, I think it's more to do with Biden being really old, frail, and possibly losing his mental abilities. 

As a 78 year old, his raw statistical chance of dying within 5 years is around 25%. I'm not sure how the stress of the job and the extra attention (security, healthcare etc) would factor in. Either way, he's old and there's a VERY real chance that his VP becomes president.

His VP choice is a hell of a lot more important than most (e.g. Obama's 5yr risk of dying in 2012 was less than 2%). It was extremely unlikely that his VP would become president.

Trump's VP pick was also important, which is why he picked a much younger, very reliable conservative who Republicans would be extremely comfortable with.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Other than it being, likely, a black woman it's not like the prospective VP pick is going to be significantly different in political ideology from where Biden currently sits. The short list pretty much ranges from left of center to more left of center with a couple progressive outliers. 

If Biden croaks on the day after inauguration day and we're left with President Harris or Demings or Bass, I don't think we're going to see a massive shift in meaningful policy goals. 

So it's definitely important, but I don't think it's any more or less so than in previous elections. 

I also don't think the choice is going to change anyone's vote, which is probably the most important metric. It's hard to imagine someone all in for Biden choose Trump, or not to vote in general, because it's Harris vs. Bass or Warren vs. Deming. I'm sure folks like that exist, but I don't see it being enough to affect the outcome. 

I will say it's getting quite tiring that the pick hasn't been announced yet.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I also don't think the choice is going to change anyone's vote, which is probably the most important metric. It's hard to imagine someone all in for Biden choose Trump, or not to vote in general, because it's Harris vs. Bass or Warren vs. Deming. I'm sure folks like that exist, but I don't see it being enough to affect the outcome.



Agreed in the general sense. I do think there's a number of 'fed up with Trump' right-leaning Biden voters who are waiting for their excuse to stay home or vote Trump again, who won't like ANYBODY Biden picks for VP. I know a number of single-issue or moderate conservatives who can't stand Trump and literally any headline about Biden or a Democrat that rubs them the wrong way is a "that's it, I'm just not voting this year".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Agreed in the general sense. I do think there's a number of 'fed up with Trump' right-leaning Biden voters who are waiting for their excuse to stay home or vote Trump again, who won't like ANYBODY Biden picks for VP. I know a number of single-issue or moderate conservatives who can't stand Trump and literally any headline about Biden or a Democrat that rubs them the wrong way is a "that's it, I'm just not voting this year".



Yeah, I have an acquaintance who is waiting for the Gabbard VP announcement. Ain't happening, but they know that. Like you said, it's just going to be another excuse for those folks who really weren't going to vote Biden anyway in all likelihood.


----------



## Randy

Yep, the bar is that low for them. 

Trump is racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, puppet of hostile foreign actors, watching disease ravage his country now by the hundreds of thousands, etc. for 5 years and they're like "I can't stand this guy, he's gotta go." Joe Biden stutters once "Ugh, they're both terrible, I'm not voting for either of 'em!"


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> "that's it, I'm just not voting this year".



No one’s voting this year... it’s getting postponed!


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> No one’s voting this year... it’s getting postponed!


No, it's being posted in.


----------



## Randy

Moar liek postpown't


----------



## Drew

I guess this is kind of the consensus here, but I think for the most part Biden's VP pick isn't going to move the needle one way or another - as long as the candidate is a woman (and only that because he's already publicly indicated he's picking a woman), could credibly step in on day 1, and is anywhere remotely near party orthodoxy, I don't see it moving the needle much. I think his pick is only going to matter if it's unexpectedly extremely moderate, or extremely progressive. Gabbard, for example, might be problematic as she's furtherst right of anyone in the DNC primary outside of Bloomberg (and maybe not even then), while Sanders would raise some eyebrows (aside from, you know, being a man) in ways even Warren wouldn't. 



Randy said:


> Yep, the bar is that low for them.
> 
> Trump is racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, puppet of hostile foreign actors, watching disease ravage his country now by the hundreds of thousands, etc. for 5 years and they're like "I can't stand this guy, he's gotta go." Joe Biden stutters once "Ugh, they're both terrible, I'm not voting for either of 'em!"


This, pretty much. Still, I think a lot more former Republicans are going to hold their nose this year than Trump expects, and a lot more are going to be turned off and stay home on the right than they will the left.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> No, it's being posted in.



Which means EITHER Trump wins OR Trump "wins" OR it's getting postponed/invalidated


...at least that's the obvious plan. 


And Pelosi and Biden really don't look prepared to counter something that brazen and blatant effectively.


----------



## Viginez

jaxadam said:


> Where has Hidin’ Biden been lately?


hes still around
https://twitter.com/i/status/1282539585579503616


----------



## vilk

Viginez said:


> hes still around
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1282539585579503616


I know this video is supposed to be mocking Biden but this is actually one of the most relatable things I've heard him say because I do this all the time. I don't think there's anything wrong with my vision, but sometimes I swear I can see a very fine rain falling and I think I hear it too because of the reverberating sound of window air conditioner units in the alley. It's especially hard to tell when the ground is wet but there aren't any puddles to look for ripples in. Are Joe and I the only ones?


----------



## jaxadam

Whoops!

*Biden again praises Latino diversity as being 'unlike the African American community'*
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-latino-diversity-african-american-community

Nevermind.

*Biden walks back African American 'diversity' remarks, lauds community's 'diversity of thought'*
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-walks-back-african-american-diversity-remark


----------



## diagrammatiks

unless Biden kills and eats a baby he's still better then trump.


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> Whoops!
> 
> *Biden again praises Latino diversity as being 'unlike the African American community'*
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-latino-diversity-african-american-community
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> *Biden walks back African American 'diversity' remarks, lauds community's 'diversity of thought'*
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-walks-back-african-american-diversity-remark



as already shared by Max in another thread, this quote is taken out of context. Love the straw man bro


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> unless Biden kills and eats a baby he's still better then trump.



It would certainly help with the pro-choice vote.

I kid.


----------



## MFB

MaxOfMetal said:


> It would certainly help with the pro-choice vote.



I see what you did there



> I kid.


----------



## jaxadam

SpaceDock said:


> as already shared by Max in another thread, this quote is taken out of context. Love the straw man bro



It is an honor to have fans and followers such as yourself who still continue to quote almost every post. In this day and age it's pretty rare now for influencers to engage their followers directly, and as a token of my appreciation, I'd like to offer you 50% off at my t-shirt shop:

jaxadam's awesome t-shirt shop


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> It is an honor to have fans and followers such as yourself who still continue to quote almost every post. In this day and age it's pretty rare now for influencers to engage their followers directly, and as a token of my appreciation, I'd like to offer you 50% off at my t-shirt shop:
> 
> jaxadam's awesome t-shirt shop



I actually don’t follow you, but I do find it necessary to call out misinformation and you are a endless supply.


----------



## jaxadam

SpaceDock said:


> I actually don’t follow you, but I do find it necessary to call out misinformation and you are a endless supply.



“an” endless supply.

I have to admit, you have some tenacity, but I feel like every time I turn around, there you are! Keep up the good fight comrade.


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> “an” endless supply.
> 
> I have to admit, you have some tenacity, but I feel like every time I turn around, there you are! Keep up the good fight comrade.



You know, I hope someday we can be friends. I am very good friends with many strong Trump supporters but I call out their nonsense as well. Plus, if Biden wins just think of all the good material you will have!


----------



## jaxadam

SpaceDock said:


> You know, I hope someday we can be friends. I am very good friends with many strong Trump supporters but I call out their nonsense as well. Plus, if Biden wins just think of all the good material you will have!



I don’t know why everyone thinks I’m a trump supporter... the only thing I support is a wife and two kids!


----------



## Viginez

diagrammatiks said:


> unless Biden kills and eats a baby he's still better then trump.


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> I'd like to offer you 50% off at my t-shirt shop:
> 
> jaxadam's awesome t-shirt shop



I thought all your tees were just Monster energy logo mesh tank tops?


----------



## SpaceDock

Well you sure do carry his water!


----------



## jaxadam

MFB said:


> I thought all your tees were just Monster energy logo mesh tank tops?



Those are VIP only


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> Those are VIP only



Thanks Obama!


----------



## jaxadam

Hidin’ Biden/Kurrupt Kamala 2020


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Hidin’ Biden/Kurrupt Kamala 2020


Vs Dementia Don? I'll take that.


----------



## Randy

I dunno if I said it in this thread but there was no VP pick that was going to be celebrated or gain any new voters, it was always going to be nose holding. Rice was my first place practical choice, but lots of bad press the last few days, not sure if that changed the decision or if it was leaked to stem any fallout when it turned out to be someone else.

One thing I will say, Rice's 'pluses' were mainly her experience in diplomacy and foreign relations but those are also Biden's strengths so there would've been a lot of overlap there. I'm sure they're gonna play Harris as a social justice, equal rights, criminal justice reform pick but I think that's ill fitted next to her record. But tough as nails prosecutorial, and while I don't know how it will match up with voters, will be a good and probably necessary trait against Trump.


----------



## SpaceDock

No one would have made Republicans happy. I think choosing Kamala shows that Biden can make a friend out of someone who attacked him directly and be a good person who doesn’t live by grudges, I want any example of Trump doing that. Kamala is an absolute pit bull and is going to shred Pence in the debate.


----------



## budda

SpaceDock said:


> No one would have made Republicans happy. I think choosing Kamala shows that Biden can make a friend out of someone who attacked him directly and be a good person who doesn’t live by grudges, I want any example of Trump doing that. Kamala is an absolute pit bull and is going to shred Pence in the debate.



Mrs worldwide.


----------



## jaxadam

SpaceDock said:


> can make a friend out of someone who attacked him directly and be a good person who doesn’t live by grudges



Now, do you know anyone else who could use this advice?


----------



## SpaceDock

jaxadam said:


> Now, do you know anyone else who could use this advice?


----------



## MFB

budda said:


> Mrs worldwide.



Calling her this might make me vote Republican


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> “an” endless supply.
> 
> I have to admit, you have some tenacity, but I feel like every time I turn around, there you are! Keep up the good fight comrade.



For what it's worth, I also noticed the same quote was already posted elsewhere, remembered there was the out-of-context clarification in that discussion, went back to look for it, and saw your name there, too.

There's an ice cream truck that drives down my street every day. He plays the same damn song every day, and it's a terrible rendition of the song. I don't have to _follow _him to know it's him, or be reminded of his out-of-tune/tempo song.


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> For what it's worth



If it has anything to do with me, it ain't worth much!


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> Kamala is an absolute pit bull and is going to shred Pence in the debate.



So my initial response was “Fuck yeah she will”, but two things:

1. Is Pence ALLOWED to debate Harris? Is mother ok with that?

2. I’m surprised Trump hasn’t swapped Pence out for Nikki Haley yet, and until I see an actually Pence/Harris debate, I’m still thinking its a possibility.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> So my initial response was “Fuck yeah she will”, but two things:
> 
> 1. Is Pence ALLOWED to debate Harris? Is mother ok with that?
> 
> 2. I’m surprised Trump hasn’t swapped Pence out for Nikki Haley yet, and until I see an actually Pence/Harris debate, I’m still thinking its a possibility.



1: Burn! That’s was good

2: Nikki actually called Trump out a while back, so I think she was a good option before. Please let it be Palin!!!


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> 1: Burn! That’s was good
> 
> 2: Nikki actually called Trump out a while back, so I think she was a good option before. Please let it be Palin!!!



Ain’t nobody gonna touch Palin.... politically speaking at least.


----------



## budda

MFB said:


> Calling her this might make me vote Republican



It sprang to mind and I felt it post-worthy


----------



## possumkiller

SpaceDock said:


> I think choosing Kamala shows that Biden can make a friend out of someone who attacked him directly and be a good person who doesn’t live by grudges, I want any example of Trump doing that.


You do know they aren't actually friends right? These are politicians not people. They will do or say anything they think they need to in order to get elected.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> You do know they aren't actually friends right? These are politicians not people. They will do or say anything they think they need to in order to get elected.



I don't know -- they're friends on facebook. And he said they should meetup for coffee soon, and she said, yea, totally. What else do you want?


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> I don't know -- they're friends on facebook. And he said they should meetup for coffee soon, and she said, yea, totally. What else do you want?



Paparazzi pics of this sweet Netflix n chill scandal?

I mean that IS what "meetup for coffee" meant in his generation, right???


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Paparazzi pics of this sweet Netflix n chill scandal?
> 
> I mean that IS what "meetup for coffee" meant in his generation, right???



No, that's "come up for a nightcap"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> No, that's "come up for a nightcap"



Hit with rudimentary club and take to cave?


----------



## possumkiller

The sniffening


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ayaan-hirsi-ali-biden-sharia-law-muslim

FoxNews talking about Muslims be like...


----------



## thraxil

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ayaan-hirsi-ali-biden-sharia-law-muslim
> 
> FoxNews talking about Muslims be like...



And from the article: "The Somali-born Ali, who has left the Muslim faith and is now an atheist [...]"

Fox will only agree with an athiest if they are speaking out against Islam. Where are all the articles like this quoting athiests criticising right-wing politicians supporting homophobia, xenophobia, and misogyny in the name of Christianity?


----------



## SpaceDock

Fox “News” is mostly opinion and lifestyle articles on their webpage and circular logic pundits on their channel. I read Fox daily to glimpse into the mind of madness, the comments section is worse than twitter.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ayaan-hirsi-ali-biden-sharia-law-muslim
> 
> FoxNews talking about Muslims be like...
> 
> View attachment 83697



Call me shallow and childish but that bitch is goofy looking.


----------



## Randy

Speaking of Democrat primaries and Muslims, MSM were working overtime to push a narrative of Talib and Omar losing to moderate candidates in the days leading up and they both won handily.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> You do know they aren't actually friends right? These are politicians not people. They will do or say anything they think they need to in order to get elected.


I wouldn't rule it out, actually. Harris became friends with Beau Biden when Biden was the AG of Delaware and she was the AG of California. They worked closely together while they were in office and used each other as sounding boards. 

Could be a simple convenient media narrative, Harris reconciling with her dead friend's father in part because of the admiration the younger had for the other, but it's also extremely plausible. And, it's not like the elder Biden didn't develop a close friendship with the President he worked with - their bromance is the stuff of legends.


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> Speaking of Democrat primaries and Muslims, MSM were working overtime to push a narrative of Talib and Omar losing to moderate candidates in the days leading up and they both won handily.



I think MSNBC and CNN should be playing “Trump will win” nonstop until November so people vote and we don’t let the 2016 complacency take hold.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Kristin Urquiza, who’s father passed away after 5 days alone on a respirator from Covid-19, which he contracted at a karaoke bar in Arizona, a State that re-opened early, speaking on the DNC broadcast:

“My father was a healthy 65 year old, who’s only pre-existing condition was trusting Donald Trump”


----------



## Viginez

trump tells old people to go party?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Viginez said:


> trump tells old people to go party?



Well yes- He recommended the early re-opening of the country saying we don’t need masks and it’s ok to go out as usual, which this gentlemen trusted to be true, which obviously wasn’t the case.

Many people opposed to lockdown or masks just wanted a haircut, or go out to eat and drink and yes party!


----------



## Viginez

Wuuthrad said:


> Many people opposed to lockdown or masks just wanted a haircut, or go out to eat and drink and yes party!


i guess karaoke is deadly, but protests of thousands, encouraged by dems, isn't.


----------



## Ralyks

This whole "Oh this causes spreading but not protests?" thing went out the window the moment Sturgis decided to still happen.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Viginez said:


> i guess karaoke is deadly, but protests of thousands, encouraged by dems, isn't.



I understand both sides of this and all the "variables" in terms of people's needs/ wants. While individuals should indeed be held accountable for their actions and for utilizing common sense, a country in the midst of a growing pandemic requires decisive and responsible leadership... especially in a country like the US where so many citizens take their cue from their governors and their president. Elected officials trivializing this pandemic has only served to create an even more volatile/ hazardous environment. Had local/ state/ federal representatives come together in their leadership roles and not downplayed the seriousness of this situation then there absolutely would have been fewer infections and subsequent deaths.


----------



## vilk

Viginez said:


> i guess karaoke is deadly, but protests of thousands, encouraged by dems, isn't.


In debate, an appeal to hypocrisy is considered a logical fallacy. Not that I believe you were attempting to be logical lol, just letting any poor fool who thought it was an intelligent comment to make know otherwise. The police are to blame for protests, and Trump is to blame for the spread via his low IQ support base.

Also, in case you didn't know, no research has found any significant increase due to protests, on account of everyone wearing masks.


----------



## Ralyks

vilk said:


> Also, in case you didn't know, no research has found any significant increase due to protests, on account of everyone wearing masks.



Unlike Sturgis. Which has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of bikers there who don't give a fuck about masks of social distancing.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Unlike Sturgis. Which has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of bikers there who don't give a fuck about masks of social distancing.


I've lurked this thread for a bit, and don't post here much at all, but actually being a resident of South Dakota that rides motorcycle all but the coldest months of the year pretty regularly, let me just toss out my opinion on the whole Sturgis phenomenon.

Take a regular year for Sturgis. 250k-300k "bikers," a HUGE portion of which don't ride at all during the course of the year, come together in South Dakota. Some ride in, but a shocking number drive or fly to a place lower in the hills, rent a bike they've never ridden before, without practice on several bikes through the year so they're used to differences in torque, shifting, cornering ability, etc. Then they go up into the hills towards Sturgis. And having ridden those roads several times when they're empty (relatives live on that end of the state so I'm there every few months outside rally time), I can honestly say they are some of the more challenging roads to ride even when empty that I've ever experienced. Fun? Absolutely. Toss several hundred thousand other people out there and that fun would disappear right quick. Add on how many of them are completely inexperienced and it's a wonder there aren't more deaths each year up in those hills.

Now, 2020. All that same shit applies. Plus global pandemic. And the type of folks headed to Sturgis for the rally are EXACTLY the types that don't want to wear a mask and will openly mock social distancing as a commie, liberal myth.

You couldn't get me near Sturgis for a month either side of the rally during a normal year. This year? No. Absolute no. I'll ride around my empty end of the state, and be bored with my piddle hills and barely ever corners, thanks.

To be on topic: Fuck everybody in the running. While I'll gladly toss a vote Biden's way, he's probably the last one I wanted in top billing. And that vote is not a vote FOR someone, as I would imagine a lot of people would feel. Kamala's acceptable, though I'm not a fan of most of her policy decisions based on what I've seen. But she does talk a good game, which is really all that seems to matter these days.

2020 is depressing if you pay attention to it. So I've been burying myself in theoretical sciences about the end of the universe. A much more light-hearted topic than politics in 2020.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Viginez said:


> i guess karaoke is deadly, but protests of thousands, encouraged by dems, isn't.



Protests have been encouraged by all political parties, even the president himself. It’s part of the Constitution, you know the 1st Amendment? Ever heard of that? It’s number 1 for a reason! 

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Making fun of the dead? Are you an adult or just trolling?

The point was her father trusted the presidents “advice” (by that I mean non-scientific b.s., made up b.s. and lies,) and went out figuring that the virus was no big deal.

Are you saying maybe he should have injected bleach or shined light in his ass?

How’s that working for you?

Life is deadly isn’t it! Enjoy the ride...


----------



## spudmunkey

Viginez said:


> i guess karaoke is deadly, but protests of thousands, encouraged by dems, isn't.


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> I've lurked this thread for a bit, and don't post here much at all, but actually being a resident of South Dakota that rides motorcycle all but the coldest months of the year pretty regularly, let me just toss out my opinion on the whole Sturgis phenomenon.
> 
> Take a regular year for Sturgis. 250k-300k "bikers," a HUGE portion of which don't ride at all during the course of the year, come together in South Dakota. Some ride in, but a shocking number drive or fly to a place lower in the hills, rent a bike they've never ridden before, without practice on several bikes through the year so they're used to differences in torque, shifting, cornering ability, etc. Then they go up into the hills towards Sturgis. And having ridden those roads several times when they're empty (relatives live on that end of the state so I'm there every few months outside rally time), I can honestly say they are some of the more challenging roads to ride even when empty that I've ever experienced. Fun? Absolutely. Toss several hundred thousand other people out there and that fun would disappear right quick. Add on how many of them are completely inexperienced and it's a wonder there aren't more deaths each year up in those hills.
> 
> Now, 2020. All that same shit applies. Plus global pandemic. And the type of folks headed to Sturgis for the rally are EXACTLY the types that don't want to wear a mask and will openly mock social distancing as a commie, liberal myth.
> 
> You couldn't get me near Sturgis for a month either side of the rally during a normal year. This year? No. Absolute no. I'll ride around my empty end of the state, and be bored with my piddle hills and barely ever corners, thanks.
> 
> To be on topic: Fuck everybody in the running. While I'll gladly toss a vote Biden's way, he's probably the last one I wanted in top billing. And that vote is not a vote FOR someone, as I would imagine a lot of people would feel. Kamala's acceptable, though I'm not a fan of most of her policy decisions based on what I've seen. But she does talk a good game, which is really all that seems to matter these days.
> 
> 2020 is depressing if you pay attention to it. So I've been burying myself in theoretical sciences about the end of the universe. A much more light-hearted topic than politics in 2020.



I should also note, I don't dislike the concept of Sturgis as it is. To each their own. During a pandemic? Fucking stupid.

Also, as a wrestling fan, those WCW PPVs mostly suuuucked.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> I should also note, I don't dislike the concept of Sturgis as it is. To each their own. During a pandemic? Fucking stupid.
> 
> Also, as a wrestling fan, those WCW PPVs mostly suuuucked.


As a motorcycle rider, I find the whole concept of Sturgis retrograde stupid, and I even judge friends for going on normal years. I'll own it. I'm an asshole.

And as a wrestling fan, if you went into a WCW PPV expecting it to be good, well. . . .


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> And as a wrestling fan, if you went into a WCW PPV expecting it to be good, well. . . .



If we're talking after the early 90's, that's totally fair


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> I should also note, I don't dislike the concept of Sturgis as it is. To each their own. During a pandemic? Fucking stupid.



It's also worth noting that the Sturgis rally is unwanted by the residents of Sturgis. The city took a poll of their own citizens, and 60% of repondents were against it. The city knew they were going to be held hostage by it anyway and spent the money/resources to prepare for it. They aren't "holding the motorcycle rally", they are "trying not to succumb to the motorcycle rally".


----------



## Drew

Viginez said:


> i guess karaoke is deadly, but protests of thousands, encouraged by dems, isn't.


In addition to everyone else who has politely explained to you why you don't know what you're talking about... 

...I'll point out that the BML protests were/are actually impressively good at wearing masks, and the reason the medical community was open about wanting people to stay home as much as possible, but made an exception for BLM protests, was something they were perfectly transparent about - police brutality kills a fucking LOT of black Americans, and on a risk mitigation standpoint alone, protesting while wearing a mask and attempting to maintain social distancing, if it resulted in actual systemic change, would on the measure very likely result in fewer dead Americans.


----------



## SpaceDock

Painting Joe Biden as an old sleepy invalid looks like a big mistake for the right if Joe can deliver more of what he brought tonight. Such a low bar, he picked up that bar and smashed Trump in the nads with it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Well, seeing as the primary has concluded, I suppose we just use the other politics thread.

It's been fun.


----------

