Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Time to take Biden out back... guy is done lmfao.

"Front-runner" can't even win a state for the candidacy ffs. I'm pretty sure he was leading in Nevada just a couple weeks back?

Also, this isn't helping:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1231415994440175616?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Around the Network
DraconianAC said:
uran10 said:

Its over, lol Its pretty much over lol. Bernie winning the the first 3 states and if he goes on to win SC over Biden its over. We're so close to a Bernie Nomination. Sooo close!

Its NOT over. The corporate media establishment is not going to give him an inch; these attack dogs are going to push any narrative that will frame Sanders in a bad light. Behind the curtains, the DNC is going to work any trick possible to take national delegates from him and insure that he does not have the majority of them (a total of 1991) and push a brokered convention. If Bernie Sanders is going to win, he needs the largest possible turn out in every State to insure they can't fiddle around with the numbers.

If he manages to win the Democratic nomination, phase two will commence. Like George Magovern, Sanders will be repeatedly red-baited by the corporate media who will go into overdrive to show socialist programs will destroy the economy. The DNC will now drop the unity message and many "insiders" will come out in droves to tie the stock market to the economy, and how a Bernie Sanders presidency will destroy the currently bloated stock market that is currently in life support--courtesy of the FED. Again, he will need the largest possible voter turn out to insure that the GOP's vote suppression tactics (gerrymandering, hack-able voting machines, etc) can not steal it away from him.

I thank you all who are posting Bernie's Progress, but you can't go to sleep after feeling Bernie is winning, this is not like Obama's run (he is not bought and paid for). Bernie isn't just asking for your vote, he needs a political revolution that will help put pressure on congress to address the issues of the majority of Americans. So remember, It will never be over. IT is just beginning.

Heh, I think news coverage is more likely it'll go from, "socialism isn't so bad" stories, to "Bernie's the real moderate" by the convention, to "Bernie's the REAL conservative" by around early-October.



DraconianAC said:

I thank you all who are posting Bernie's Progress, but you can't go to sleep after feeling Bernie is winning, this is not like Obama's run (he is not bought and paid for). Bernie isn't just asking for your vote, he needs a political revolution that will help put pressure on congress to address the issues of the majority of Americans. So remember, It will never be over. IT is just beginning.

Fore sure, everyone needs to stay vigilant.
I only think of this as positive encouragement after the earlier 'electability' talk, which may have discouraged some people from voting for Bernie because they didn't think he could beat Trump. But people are starting to believe more and more now. And it's all about perception. If most people think he has the best chance, he probably will.



Biden did better than expected in Nevada. Hopefully he wins South Carolina and can retake the frontrunner tittle at Super Tuesday.



NightlyPoe said:

It's a talking point.  Doesn't particularly mean much in the end.  I mean, Nevada's only been an early state since 2008, so it's not like this is some historic achievement.

I'm not sure they meant those three states specifically? Just that they added specifications of everything in the tweet by name.
I'm hearing first time for the first three states. But someone correct it if it's wrong.

barneystinson69 said:

Time to take Biden out back... guy is done lmfao.

"Front-runner" can't even win a state for the candidacy ffs. I'm pretty sure he was leading in Nevada just a couple weeks back?

Also, this isn't helping:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1231415994440175616?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I heard they were going to use an app again like in Iowa (which is great for seniors, as they are good with technology), but I'm not sure if they went through with it.

Hopefully some of the other candidates drop out in time for the good of the party, but obviously a substantial portion of the party is not on board with reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest, reducing big pharma's influence, etc.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
Russia is allegedly trying to help Bernie win the primary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html
This could explain some of the toxic Bernie Bros on Twitter. They could be Russian bots.

Baseless propaganda meant to tarnish Bernie just before the pivotal Nevada primary. Clearly it wasn't even close to working lol. Much of the corporate media is losing the plot, and losing their influence on the populace, and this is their last-ditch effort to lash out by fearmongering and smearing. The internet exists. Baseless, anti-intellectual smears like this no longer work. There are simply too many outlets to obtain information from and too many means of communication nowadays - and on a convenient, instantaneous, global scale.

The "toxic Bernie Bros" thing always has me scratching my head. Bernie people are passionate, but that's mostly (at least from what I've seen) channeled towards pointing out blemishes, hypocrisies, or corruption in corporate and/or Neoliberal Democrat candidates. EVERY candidate has their toxic people, and of course the frontrunner Bernie, with millions of supporters, is going to have his. On the other hand, I've seen some of the most awful, disgusting attacks on, say, Tulsi Gabbard and her supporters (and even some on Bernie) from the likes of Warren and Neolib candidate supporters. Funny how I never seem to hear about how their supporters are "toxic."

When you have to resort to smears on supporters to tarnish the support of a candidate (who has zero control over this btw), you've officially conceited that you have no argument.



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Hiku said:
NightlyPoe said:

It's a talking point.  Doesn't particularly mean much in the end.  I mean, Nevada's only been an early state since 2008, so it's not like this is some historic achievement.

I'm not sure they meant those three states specifically? Just that they added specifications of everything in the tweet by name.
I'm hearing first time for the first three states. But someone correct it if it's wrong.

Naw.  Al Gore didn't lose a single primary or caucus in 2000 for example.



jason1637 said:
Biden did better than expected in Nevada. Hopefully he wins South Carolina and can retake the frontrunner tittle at Super Tuesday.

He could win SC, that's for sure. Latest polls still show him in the lead there, albeit barely now instead of a 20 points lead before Iowa.

However, among Super Tuesday states Sanders is pretty much safe in the first spot in California, Colorado, Maine, Vermont and Utah, and is very competitive in many others, including Texas, where Bernie has a small lead now. Biden probably will win one state (Alabama), just like Bloomberg (Oklahoma) and Klobuchar (Minnesota), if the numbers stay the same after the Nevada results, with the other ones being contested or the last polls being so old that I dismissed them (Tennessee for instance had it's only poll last July).

In other words, What Biden can achieve just ain't enough to make him the frontrunner again, just enough to potentially stop his drop. But as we could see with Warren today, even a standout performance isn't always enough to save your campaign from further slipping down.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 23 February 2020

I'm greatly encouraged by the Nevada caucuses so far for three reasons:

The first reason is the turnout. Though we don't yet know exactly how many people participated, it's being reported that some 75,000 people voted early in this year's Nevada caucuses, which is nearly the same number of people who voted in the same caucuses grand total in 2016! That suggests an enormous turnout (always a positive sign for the general election), and also shows the introduction of early voting in said caucuses this year to have been a tremendous success! The decision to allow early voting was one of the best ideas to be implemented, second only to using traditional reporting by phone call instead of an app like in the Iowa caucuses.

That last point brings me to my second reason for being encouraged: thanks to the use of reporting by phone calls instead of by app, the results are being released much faster than they were in the Iowa caucuses. (Although we can also see, in that connection, that by this metric as well, caucuses are inferior processes to straightforward primaries, as we had nearly all of the vote out of New Hampshire in by the analogous point there, not just half.) Let me go on record here as being in favor of low-tech elections. Phone calls and paper trails may not be the most sophisticated options, but they are the fastest and most reliable methods on offer, as applicable.

My third and final reason for being encouraged can be found in what the results indicate so far. While we don't know all the details yet, with 50% of Nevada's precincts reporting their results, so far the popular vote in the Nevada caucuses looks like this:

Sanders: 40%
Buttigieg: 18.4%
Biden: 18.1%
Warren: 12.1%
Klobuchar: 7.6%
Steyer: 3.4%
Gabbard: 0%

These numbers remain subject to the possibility of considerable change since we only have the results of half the precincts at this point. One thing, however, is clear: Bernie Sanders won the most votes, especially on the second ballot, and by a double-digit margin at that. According to the entrance polls, Sanders won the most votes among both men and (for the first time so far) women, among working class voters and union households (despite the advice of the bosses of the Culinary Workers Union), those with a college degree and those without, Latinas and Latinos (easily), voters under the age of 50 (not just under 30), and also among both those prioritizing issue alignment and those prioritizing electability in their candidate preference. Additionally, Sanders not only won the support of self-described progressive voters easily, but also achieved parity with his nearest rivals among self-described moderate voters as well. According to this same data, some 62% of voters in the Nevada caucuses support Medicare-for-all; higher than the 57% of Iowa caucus voters and the 58% of New Hampshire primary voters taking the same position. This marks the third consecutive state in which Sanders has won the most votes, and his widest margin of victory yet by far. Also, satisfyingly, he appears poised to reap a share of delegates disproportionate to his actual vote (so far, 46.6% of the delegate total), thus making up the difference from Pete Buttigieg's disproportionate delegate allocations in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and then some.

What all this suggests is that Bernie Sanders is succeeding in building a large coalition of supporters that reaches well beyond his traditional base. The rest of the campaigns are starting to look like a joke. I've never seen this strong a launch for any candidate who wasn't either a sitting president or vice president before in my life, especially in this crowded a field! At this rate, despite the remarkable stance of all his rivals favoring a brokered convention (something that has not happened since the disastrous Democratic convention of 1968), Sanders may even wind up with an outright majority of the delegates to the DNC. One has to remember, after all, that these first four contests before Super Tuesday account for just 4% of the delegates to be assigned. The momentum the Sanders campaign is building therein could well translate into full majorities beginning either on or immediately after Super Tuesday, and even possibly into Sanders winning the most votes in all 50 states. It's not an exaggeration at this point to say that those things are now real possibilities. These possibilities become especially apparent when one mentally combines the votes of the two progressive candidates in this race. The votes for Sanders and Warren combined in Nevada, for example, at least as of this count add up to a full majority, and one suspects that Warren will be pulling out of the race after probably losing in her home state of Massachusetts in nine days.

Mike Bloomberg had been emerging as the potentially the most serious challenger to Sanders before Wednesday's Democratic debate, but, to put it a certain way, according to Morning Consult polls taken before and after the debate, Bloomberg's favorability rating has gone from being 36 points above water before to 17 points above water after. Thus we can see that so far the impact of his...interesting...debate performance has been sharply negative for him (I know you're shocked), with his steepest drop-off in favorability being seen among moderate voters. He might not Get It Done after all. And the notion that Biden won by "exceeding expectations" last night seems like a joke when you look at the above numbers. Look at the margin between him and Sanders in what we know of the popular vote as yet.

Bottom line: people are showing up for these primaries and caucuses in large numbers, and right now the specific candidate they're showing up for is Bernie Sanders. If that doesn't speak to his electability, I don't know what could. If you're wondering why, I recommend checking out his victory speech from last night, which was what I'd consider among his strongest speeches so far. It's not essentially different from his normal, bullet point style of listing off his various positions on the issues, but he does so here in a particularly clear and efficient way that strikes one as both sincere and passionate. Most everything you'll hear therein are positions supported by the majority of Americans. The clarity, the sincerity, and frankly the agreeability that Bernie Sanders offers is unique in this field.

I also want to take a moment to criticize all of the other candidates for advocating a brokered Democratic convention. These candidates have all spent no shortage of time and energy voicing the danger that the current U.S. president represents to lower-case "D" democratic principles. Some of them have even advocated doing away with the Electoral College specifically on the grounds that it has repeatedly denied the winner of the popular vote the presidency (e.g. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton). It's flatly impossible to square their purported support for such principles with calls for the nomination of an unpopular candidate by a group of special electors (super delegates in this case). As much shows you their actual level of commitment to democratic principles: they are serious about such principles only when they stand to benefit and not otherwise. Apparently it takes a candidate from outside the Democratic Party to live up to the meaning of said party's name!

Last edited by Jaicee - on 23 February 2020

NightlyPoe said:
HylianSwordsman said:

It's not "based" on identity, it's just a coalition that you can measure off of such support. It will also have the support of unions, working class people, suburban and urban populations. However you want to word it. Me listing off the "identities" as you call them is just showing the breadth and depth of the coalition, not establishing a basis for it. They're demographic labels, not "identities" and the fact that you call them that shows us that YOU'RE the identity politician, not the Democrats.

Saying "I know you are, but what am I?" isn't exactly the most persuasive argument.

Re-read your own TED talk.  Every other sentence is about more Latino or black support in certain states.  I didn't say it, you did.  Furthermore, I was around during the Obama administration, it was the expressed plan of the Democrat party throughout that entire era.

Regardless, it remains fantasy that the whole country will follow only one party forever.  Especially, as you maintain, that it is a party led in a radical direction indefinitely.

Keep on projecting. Again, it's not identity, it's just a demographic description. And again, what are you doing in this thread if you think that the "expressed plan of the Democrat party" is that evil and crazy?