Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:17 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's the kind of talk that gets us 4 more years of trump.

No matter what you think of Biden, he's better than trump.
Everyone knows my opinion of Bernie, I’ll vote for him from my safe blue state of Illinois if he gets the nomination.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #52  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:21 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
I don't think that's true. I was a Pete supporter and if Biden gets the nomination I'm not voting in the general. He's the only candidate that I will say that about. My vote is going to Sanders.
Same here. Literally just voted for Pete yesterday. Biden's brain is melting in real time and he has no business running for president. He belongs in a nursing home, not the White House.
  #53  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:21 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
I don't think that's true. I was a Pete supporter and if Biden gets the nomination I'm not voting in the general. He's the only candidate that I will say that about. My vote is going to Sanders.
If I'm willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, you should be willing to vote for Joe Biden.
  #54  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:48 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Making it all the way to super Tuesday and then quitting two days before seems quite strange to me. It makes me wonder if there was some deal being made - Buttigieg bows out and makes Biden seem more viable (or maybe Bloomberg) and he gets paid off with something like the VP slot or an important cabinet position. It feels like party machinations at work to try to derail Bernie. I'm not saying it will work - I don't think the path from Buttigieg to Biden is necessarily that clear for his voters - but the default path right now appears to be a Bernie win and it's obvious that the party establishment is terrified of that and will work to stop it.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 03-02-2020 at 01:49 AM.
  #55  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:11 AM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,783
I held off on filling out my ballot, and now I'm glad I did because I would have voted for Buttagieg. He's a good guy, and he's articulate, intelligent, and assertive without being a jerk; the polar opposite of Trump. He'd make a good veep. I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for now. Maybe I'll see what shakes out on Tuesday first.

Re: Biden, did anyone else read the Atlantic Monthly piece on how his lifelong stuttering issue affects his speaking skills?
  #56  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:49 AM
NAF1138 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If I'm willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, you should be willing to vote for Joe Biden.
Bernie seems to be mentally capable of being president. I would vote Warren but she does not seem to have a path to the nomination without a contested convention.

If it happens that Biden is the nominee maybe I'll change my mind. But, if Biden is the nominee maybe we deserve four more years of Trump. I'm not certain. It absolutely feels to me as though the democratic party needs to be burned down and rebuilt.
  #57  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:13 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
A pretty good case for not having Iowa go first that the Iowa winner didn't even make it to Super Tuesday, no?
There are many reasons for not having Iowa go first. That’s way down the line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A better case to dump caucuses.
And this also.
  #58  
Old 03-02-2020, 07:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
That’s not what this morning consult polling suggests…(page down and then mouse over)

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
FWIW 538, aware of the Morning Consult polling, comes to a different conclusion.
Quote:
Pete Buttigieg’s decision to drop out of the race two days before Super Tuesday has hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders in our primary forecast. ...

... Overall, the model has Buttigieg’s support being divided relatively evenly between Warren, Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders and — in the places where she’s strong — Sen. Amy Klobuchar. That seems broadly in line with polls, which are somewhat inconsistent about where Buttigeg’s support will go.

Of course, neither the model nor previous polling of the race consider the context in which Buttigieg dropped out, which comes amidst an increasing effort by moderate Democratic voters and party leaders to get behind Biden. If his voters take Buttigeg’s dropout as a signal that they should switch to Biden, there’s more upside for BIden than our model implies. ...
They think it increases the chance of a brokered convention, by increasing the odds of Warren and Bloomberg getting over 15% where they are close.
  #59  
Old 03-02-2020, 07:43 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
Bernie seems to be mentally capable of being president. I would vote Warren but she does not seem to have a path to the nomination without a contested convention.

If it happens that Biden is the nominee maybe I'll change my mind. But, if Biden is the nominee maybe we deserve four more years of Trump. I'm not certain. It absolutely feels to me as though the democratic party needs to be burned down and rebuilt.
And, you're in Pennsylvania, too, where it actually matters. I'm in NJ and would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is this time around, and my vote doesn't count (either in the primary or the general). My favorite is Warren, followed by Klobuchar, then Biden, Bloomberg, then Sanders, but I will vote for Sanders for sure in the general if he's there.

I can't think of anything that would make the US "deserve four more years of Trump." Rather than burning down the Democratic party, Trump is burning down our global reputation and democratic norms. I can't stand what he's doing to this country.
  #60  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:22 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
Bernie seems to be mentally capable of being president. I would vote Warren but she does not seem to have a path to the nomination without a contested convention.

If it happens that Biden is the nominee maybe I'll change my mind. But, if Biden is the nominee maybe we deserve four more years of Trump. I'm not certain. It absolutely feels to me as though the democratic party needs to be burned down and rebuilt.
And, you're in Pennsylvania, too, where it actually matters. I'm in NJ and would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is this time around, and my vote doesn't count (either in the primary or the general). My favorite is Warren, followed by Klobuchar, then Biden, Bloomberg, then Sanders, but I will vote for Sanders for sure in the general if he's there.

I can't think of anything that would make the US "deserve four more years of Trump." Rather than burning down the Democratic party, Trump is burning down our global reputation and democratic norms. I can't stand what he's doing to this country.
Can't think of it either, except in some sort of apocalyptic "if that's what it takes for the revolution to happen" POV which is reckless considering all that's at stake.

I'll go with WHOEVER is on the ballot. Considering that in fine long-time Democrat tradition it is most likely they will not be able to get more than one or two of their signature ideas passed in an abridged mutilated form, if at all, before getting whomped in the first midterm, I'd rather hope we get also enough statehouses in 2020 to be able to draw the district maps.

And frankly it was time and there was an opportunity to reform the Democratic party top to bottom back when a young longshot took the nomination and the election. But there were other priorities, though.
  #61  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:34 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If I'm willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, you should be willing to vote for Joe Biden.
This. I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in my life* but I will be this November regardless of who he or she is. If the Bernie Bros stamp their feet and hold their collective breath because their guy does not get the party's nod, they will deserve every bit of the opprobrium that will be heaped upon their heads.

*Or, to be fair, a Republican.
  #62  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:49 AM
NAF1138 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post

I can't think of anything that would make the US "deserve four more years of Trump." Rather than burning down the Democratic party, Trump is burning down our global reputation and democratic norms. I can't stand what he's doing to this country.
I agree. Trump is probably the worst thing to happen to the world in 50 years. If we can't get out shit together enough to nominate a functioning human being to run against him, that's the government we deserve. Swinging from dictatorship to oligarchy isn't a favorable swing.

I thought Booker was the best candidate. I loved Pete. I think Warren would be a great President. I'd even vote for Bloomberg. I'm not a Bernie bro by any stretch. He's like my 5th choice.

Nominating Biden is the doubling down on the Hillary mistake and he doesn't have the capacity to do the job.

So yeah, fuck it. Burn the system and bring the revolution.
  #63  
Old 03-02-2020, 08:52 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,256
Quote:
Quoth Rittersport:

My favorite is Warren, followed by Klobuchar, then Biden, Bloomberg, then Sanders, but I will vote for Sanders for sure in the general if he's there.
If I may ask, I'm curious about this ranking. I've been considering Sanders and Warren to be basically interchangeable: Both have very similar ideological positions, both seem to be willing to fight for those positions, both are Senators, both are similar in age. But you obviously see a significant difference between them. Why the strong preference for Warren over Sanders?
  #64  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:09 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If I may ask, I'm curious about this ranking. I've been considering Sanders and Warren to be basically interchangeable: Both have very similar ideological positions, both seem to be willing to fight for those positions, both are Senators, both are similar in age. But you obviously see a significant difference between them. Why the strong preference for Warren over Sanders?
I'm not Rittersport, but I too have a strong preference for Warren over Sanders. Two things:

1) Warren has a track record of being able to work with people to get things accomplished. Sanders doesn't. He wants to be the leader of a revolution.

2) The filibuster. Sanders' 'revolution' isn't going to be able to put enough pressure on enough GOP Senators to get anywhere near 60 votes to get bills through the Senate.

IOW, they may want essentially the same things, but Warren is realistic and pragmatic enough that she has a chance of accomplishing some of them if elected. I really don't see that being true with Sanders.

Also:

3) Warren is 70, female, and clearly in great shape. Sanders is 78, male, and has recently had some sort of heart incident. (And refuses to release his medical records.)

All other things being equal, I'd consider a woman in that age range to be effectively 2-4 years younger than a man of the exact same age. So I'd consider Warren to be functionally more like 10-12 years younger than Sanders - before considering Sanders' heart problems.
  #65  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:21 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,001
What filibuster?
  #66  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:26 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If I may ask, I'm curious about this ranking. I've been considering Sanders and Warren to be basically interchangeable: Both have very similar ideological positions, both seem to be willing to fight for those positions, both are Senators, both are similar in age. But you obviously see a significant difference between them. Why the strong preference for Warren over Sanders?
For what it’s worth, I have several relatives with this ranking as well. They are older liberal women who have been Democrats their whole lives. The problem they have with Bernie is the Bernie bros. They believe Bernie’s campaign to have some sexist elements to it and don’t support him due to that. So even though they are on the left to far left end of the political spectrum, they would rather support a moderate before they would support a liberal who has (according to them) a significant element of sexist supporters among his base.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 03-02-2020 at 09:27 AM.
  #67  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:31 AM
borschevsky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
FWIW 538, aware of the Morning Consult polling, comes to a different conclusion.
They think it increases the chance of a brokered convention, by increasing the odds of Warren and Bloomberg getting over 15% where they are close.
Yeah, this seems like the largest effect. If someone like Warren goes over 15% in some places where she wouldn't have with Pete in the race, then that significantly changes the delegate math, even if she herself isn't going to get close to winning the nomination race overall.
  #68  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:35 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
What filibuster?
William Walker, what did you think?
  #69  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:39 AM
lel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 2,644
I wonder if there are any Buttigieg fans out there who will vote Trump in the general election. It seems odd, but in terms of policies how far apart are they all anyway?
  #70  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:38 AM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
I like Booty-Judge...
I've always heard his name pronounced 'Buddha-judge' -- until a couple/few weeks ago, when I was listening to a story on NPR. The woman repeatedly pronounced his name 'Buttah-gig'. Drove me nuts. (Not that it's that long a drive to nuttiness.)
  #71  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:38 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If I may ask, I'm curious about this ranking. I've been considering Sanders and Warren to be basically interchangeable: Both have very similar ideological positions, both seem to be willing to fight for those positions, both are Senators, both are similar in age. But you obviously see a significant difference between them. Why the strong preference for Warren over Sanders?
My impression is that she's much more thoughtful and much more reasonable than Sanders. And, her championing the CFPB shows she can get stuff done. When it's clear that Medicare-for-All is a non-starter, she'll have the chops to figure out other solutions, and will likely also hire others similarly capable. I don't see Sanders as being all that willing to bend and there's no way he's getting what he wants as is -- no one does. I see a higher risk with Sanders of bringing in a purity-tested cabinet (similar to Trump, but in Trump's case, the purity test is whether they will kiss his ass), and not focusing primarily on competence and skills, but whether they tow the Sanders line on policy.

Also, I think she has a better chance of beating Trump -- a woman is probably more electable than a Jewish Atheist. He has so many skeletons in his closet (his visits to the USSR, his qualified praise for some of Castro's policies), plus calling himself a socialist is an own goal -- he's not a socialist (Venezuela, Cuba), he's a Social Democrat (Sweden, Denmark) and it's stupid to give the Republicans even more ammo.

And, Krugman is a big fan of hers (although he didn't like her turn towards MfA, and neither do I), and I respect his opinion.
  #72  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:50 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I heard a fairly interesting idea about how to arrange the primaries in the future. By voter turnout.

Gauge what the voter turnout is as a percentage of registered voters, and then in the next primary season the primary will be held in order of highest to lowest turnout.

So if Oregon was 34th state to vote this primary but #1 in turnout, they are the first primary state next election cycle. If Iowa was #1 in rank but #29 in turnout they become #29 in rank next time.

I'm theory, it would incentivize efforts to increase voter turnout which would benefit the party as a whole.
Does the order change every four years, based on the previous election year's turnout? If so, then it might end up locking states in their positions in the order, as there will be higher turnout for the early states, but if there is a clear leader, then later states won't have much of a turnout as the result has already been decided. Also, if there is an incumbent, turnout might end up being low throughout the country, or biased toward states with open primaries trying to unseat someone from the other party in the Senate or the Governor's mansion.
  #73  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:51 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by lel View Post
I wonder if there are any Buttigieg fans out there who will vote Trump in the general election. It seems odd, but in terms of policies how far apart are they all anyway?
Buttigieg "fans" are probably pretty rational people. I can't see many voting for Trump. (any, really. But there's always some crazy in any group)
  #74  
Old 03-02-2020, 10:54 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
We will have to see the burn rates as the numbers come in, I’m still shocked the Warren campaign opened an office in the south side of Chicago with the Illinois primary on March
I'm in Illinois and saw my first Warren ad an hour ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
All other things being equal, I'd consider a woman in that age range to be effectively 2-4 years younger than a man of the exact same age.
I live in an old folks home and it is more like 5-10 years younger.
  #75  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:03 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,929
I think Buttigieg missed an opportunity to help the party at his speech. There was a chant of "2024!"; he should have said, "I won't need to run in 2024 - that's when we will be nominating the incumbent Democrat that wins in 2020, and we need to make sure that we can do this by getting behind whoever we nominate!"
  #76  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:04 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,758
The only way some closed door agreement didn't happen is if he saw a blowout against him on super Tuesday and wanted to spare himself the embarrassment. I do think somebody tapped him for a cush appointment though.
  #77  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:14 AM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
I agree. Trump is probably the worst thing to happen to the world in 50 years. If we can't get out shit together enough to nominate a functioning human being to run against him, that's the government we deserve. Swinging from dictatorship to oligarchy isn't a favorable swing.

I thought Booker was the best candidate. I loved Pete. I think Warren would be a great President. I'd even vote for Bloomberg. I'm not a Bernie bro by any stretch. He's like my 5th choice.
I agree up to this point.

Quote:
Nominating Biden is the doubling down on the Hillary mistake and he doesn't have the capacity to do the job.

So yeah, fuck it. Burn the system and bring the revolution.
So what it is you're calling "the Hillary mistake"? It can't be running a moderate, because that's been exactly the Sanders-ist dig at Pete.

I can't say I haven't been concerned about Biden's senile-sounding gaffes, but he was well-known for gaffes when he was a couple of decades younger, too. I thought he gave an excellent speech after he won in South Carolina, which of course someone wrote for him but he still delivered it well.

I still don't know if I'm going to vote for Biden or Bloomberg (or possibly someone else) in the primary until after Super Tuesday shakes out. But I don't see what's so horrible about Biden that picking him is "burn down the party" territory when seemingly NONE of the other candidates cause that same reaction for you.

Not aimed at you particularly but a general comment: I don't understand the sheer depths of rhetorical fire and brimstone aimed at certain candidates, seemingly aimed at caricatures of them rather than their actual selves. To me, Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar all seem to have similar policy positions and all either have experience (elected mayor of the largest city in the nation, larger than some states, is experience) or demonstrated skills. I could comfortably vote for any one of them, and will decide based on who's still in the race when my primary comes up and who seems to have a real chance at winning the nomination. But to some people, Buttigieg was a phony and worse than Trump because he worked for a consulting firm, and Bloomberg is completely indistinguishable from Trump because he's a billionaire, never mind how many liberal causes (fighting the NRA, closing coal power plants) where he's put his money where his mouth is.
  #78  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:15 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
I thought Booker was the best candidate. I loved Pete. I think Warren would be a great President. I'd even vote for Bloomberg. I'm not a Bernie bro by any stretch. He's like my 5th choice.
How in the world does someone prefer Bloomberg over Biden?
  #79  
Old 03-02-2020, 11:21 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
The only way some closed door agreement didn't happen is if he saw a blowout against him on super Tuesday and wanted to spare himself the embarrassment. I do think somebody tapped him for a cush appointment though.
He hadn’t even been able to reach Biden before the announcement. Take a look at the calendar, it was the 1st of the month, I think it came down to money and no clear path ahead in ST. May as well pay the staff and not have the campaign in debt. Also, Obama did call Biden to congratulate him. No, that’s not an endorsement, but that’s not exactly being subtle either.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #80  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:38 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Mayor Pete has much to offer the Democratic party going forward. I hope his talents will be well utilized by our next Democratic administration in one capacity or another.

I'm not that surprised he suspended. I listened to him speak last night after South Carolina and half expected him to make the announcement then and there. I suspect the only reason he held off was to give Steyer the chance to do it first.

Klobuchar can't be far behind.
Right on time.
  #81  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:40 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,014
I thought she'd at least wait until Minnesota was done tomorrow.
  #82  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:41 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,393
Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg,...and Warren. Sitcom anyone?
  #83  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:48 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 518
He had breakfast yesterday with Jimmy Carter. Given Pete has modelled his campaign rise from total anonymity to front-tier status as Carter did in 1976, I wonder if the ol' man gave the polite word of wisdom that 2020 is a cycle too soon for Pete to go all the way. Carter had the support of black voters given his policies as Georgia governor whereas Pete never resonated. He has time to build trust however. I'd rather he run statewide in his next race than take some administration role like VA Sec. which while is a fine job, it takes him out of the picture as an orator which is big asset.
  #84  
Old 03-02-2020, 12:56 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I thought she'd at least wait until Minnesota was done tomorrow.
She knows Biden needs to do well there. Smart move.
  #85  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I thought she'd at least wait until Minnesota was done tomorrow.
To what end? Winning Minnesota does jackshit for her and losing it incredibly embarrassing. People seem to think scoring a couple extra delegates will get these candidates some big bargaining power for the veep slot or some other position. I see no reason to believe that for the most part.
  #86  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:11 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,078
I think for both Pete and Amy, money was a major concern. If you’re seeing the fundraising dollars in absolute free fall on top of all the Biden endorsements, what’s the point? No one wants to end their campaign in deep debt and not be able to pay the staff, especially for Pete and Amy who are likely to be out there in future years.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #87  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If I'm willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, you should be willing to vote for Joe Biden.
Yep, I pledge to vote for whoever then Nominate, even in the safe Blueness of CA.
  #88  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:09 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,929
Reportedly (by CNN), Buttigieg will be at Biden's rally in Dallas tonight, along with Klobuchar, where both will officially support him

Last edited by That Don Guy; 03-02-2020 at 02:10 PM.
  #89  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:12 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Oh yeah, that's some backroom dealing. Pete probably gets a high cabinet position, maybe even VP, and preferential treatment towards running in 24/28.

So we'll have a contested convention in which Bernie has the most voters but the nom is given to Biden or Bloomberg anyway, and you have about half the young people turnout (as a demographic) you had in 2018, and you alienate them for years to come. And Trump wins anyway.

But hey, at least it's worth the dream possibility of that Biden/Bloomberg presidency.

I had to watch the Hillary mistake happen in slow motion with disastrous results, and now I've gotta watch the Biden/Bloomberg mistake go down the same way, but actually way worse, because neither would be as good a president as Hillary, and, well, we already fucking know what happens when we do this and we have to watch it all over again.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 03-02-2020 at 02:14 PM.
  #90  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Oh yeah, that's some backroom dealing. Pete probably gets a high cabinet position, maybe even VP, and preferential treatment towards running in 24/28.

So we'll have a contested convention in which Bernie has the most voters but the nom is given to Biden or Bloomberg anyway, and you have about half the young people turnout (as a demographic) you had in 2018, and you alienate them for years to come. And Trump wins anyway.

But hey, at least it's worth the dream possibility of that Biden/Bloomberg presidency.
It's awfully soon to be making such predictions. Bernie could have a great day tomorrow -- we just don't know. At least wait until the results from tomorrow before all the gloom and doom!
  #91  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:24 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's awfully soon to be making such predictions. Bernie could have a great day tomorrow -- we just don't know. At least wait until the results from tomorrow before all the gloom and doom!
In fact, this could backfire on Biden. I can see this happening in pretty much every college dorm, not to mention the homes of quite a few high school seniors (not to mention their "how am I supposed to pay for my child's college?" parents):

"Sanders doesn't need my vote...
What's this? Buttigieg and Klobuchar are both endorsing Biden now?
Better not take any chances - I'd better make it a point to vote."

I'm surprised the Sanders campaign hasn't gone after students more aggressively with a "If You Want President Sanders That Badly, Make Sure You Vote" targeted campaign.
  #92  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:24 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's awfully soon to be making such predictions. Bernie could have a great day tomorrow -- we just don't know. At least wait until the results from tomorrow before all the gloom and doom!
Oh, it's fine to make those predictions because he has no intention of acknowledging if they don't happen. The idea is to churn the water with so much anti-Bernie conspiracy theories that anything other than a Bernie victory is prejudged as illegitimate.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-02-2020 at 02:27 PM.
  #93  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:56 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh, it's fine to make those predictions because he has no intention of acknowledging if they don't happen. The idea is to churn the water with so much anti-Bernie conspiracy theories that anything other than a Bernie victory is prejudged as illegitimate.
My goal is not to "churn the water with conspiracy theories" - conspiracy theories are a mind set in which any evidence, even disconfirming evidence, reinforces the original view. I'm not engaging in the behavior.

On the other hand, there actually are conspiracies. In fact, they're ubiqitous and happen all the time.

For instance, it's clear to you, is it not, that the democratic party does not want Bernie Sanders as their candidate, right?

If so, is it implausible to think that they'd use whatever party machinery or control over the nomination process to try to favor other candidates over him?

If so, then how is the assumption that something that looks like a back room deal for the democratic party to strengthen other candidates over Bernie a "conspiracy theory"? What disconfirming evidence have I brushed off or used to strengthen my views?

Sure, I allege a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen all the time. You would actually expect, in this very instance, that there would be such a conspiracy. In fact, I would suggest that everything being on the up and up, and the democratic party not trying to put their thumbs on the scale, is the improbable, unsupported analysis.

In fact, many of you would be angry if they weren't doing exactly that - if they were not engaging in a conspired effort to prevent Sanders from receiving the nomination.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 03-02-2020 at 02:58 PM.
  #94  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's awfully soon to be making such predictions. Bernie could have a great day tomorrow -- we just don't know. At least wait until the results from tomorrow before all the gloom and doom!
If Sanders can in fact drive turnout of younger and Hispanic voters he should have a very good day tomorrow. If he does not have a very good day then he actually cannot drive the turnout.

What does that say about him as standard bearer in the Fall?
  #95  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:57 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
My goal is not to "churn the water with conspiracy theories" - conspiracy theories are a mind set in which any evidence, even disconfirming evidence, reinforces the original view. I'm not engaging in the behavior.

On the other hand, there actually are conspiracies. In fact, they're ubiqitous and happen all the time.

For instance, it's clear to you, is it not, that the democratic party does not want Bernie Sanders as their candidate, right?

If so, is it implausible to think that they'd use whatever party machinery or control over the nomination process to try to favor other candidates over him?

If so, then how is the assumption that something that looks like a back room deal for the democratic party to strengthen other candidates over Bernie a "conspiracy theory"? What disconfirming evidence have I brushed off or used to strengthen my views?

Sure, I allege a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen all the time. You would actually expect, in this very instance, that there would be such a conspiracy. In fact, I would suggest that everything being on the up and up, and the democratic party not trying to put their thumbs on the scale, is the improbable, unsupported analysis.

In fact, many of you would be angry if they weren't doing exactly that - if they were not engaging in a conspired effort to prevent Sanders from receiving the nomination.
And that’s the Bernie Bro argument in a nutshell. There’s always some conspiracy against Bernie. I truly despise that vile bag of shit more and more every day.

So, who, pray tell, is sitting around some secret lair stroking a white cat to make sure that Bernie gets screwed?
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #96  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:08 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Okay, so which part do you think is wrong?

1) The party apparatus of the democratic party, including those who set party policy, do not want Bernie to run the nomination
2) They would exert influence, where possible, to make it less likely that Bernie will win the nomination
3) That exertion of influence would take some form of collaboration - even if it's simply talking to each other about their concerns and intent

Which of those things do you disagree with? What's so outrageous about any of those? Those are obviously true, and those constitute a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME. They're routine. This is not alleging a grand conspiracy, like that the entire world medical community is using vaccines as some sort of secret plot even though they know how harmful they are. This is just a simple, routine, and expected conspiracy.

So, when a bunch of candidates drop out before super Tuesday, is it not reasonable to wonder whether this is part of a strategic effort to consolidate their support and votes behind their non-Bernie candidate? Treating this as a WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY JUST LIKE CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is absurd. This is the sort of routine conspiracy the world sees every day.

What's even weirder than that, is that most of you want them to be doing exactly this. But then when we simply say it exists, then suddenly it's OMG CONSPIRACY THEORY BERNIE BROS I HATE BERNIE EVEN MORE!!!!

Btw, given that Bernie hasn't made comments to this effect as far as I know, and I'm just some dude on the internet that's posting something that's not implausible whatsoever, your reaction of "I truly despise that vile bag of shit more and more every day" is completely irrational.
  #97  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:23 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay, so which part do you think is wrong?

1) The party apparatus of the democratic party, including those who set party policy, do not want Bernie to run the nomination
2) They would exert influence, where possible, to make it less likely that Bernie will win the nomination
3) That exertion of influence would take some form of collaboration - even if it's simply talking to each other about their concerns and intent

Which of those things do you disagree with? What's so outrageous about any of those? Those are obviously true, and those constitute a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME. They're routine. This is not alleging a grand conspiracy, like that the entire world medical community is using vaccines as some sort of secret plot even though they know how harmful they are. This is just a simple, routine, and expected conspiracy.

So, when a bunch of candidates drop out before super Tuesday, is it not reasonable to wonder whether this is part of a strategic effort to consolidate their support and votes behind their non-Bernie candidate? Treating this as a WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY JUST LIKE CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is absurd. This is the sort of routine conspiracy the world sees every day.
I, for one, am not surprised that senior people in the Democratic Party do not want Bernie to get the nomination. I am not surprised that they are doing things to further what they want.

Yet Bernie(or his supporters) are complaining about it. (and Trump* too, which is interesting)

"Conspiracy" is a word that makes it sound illicit or sinister. It is not. It's politics. Everyone has a right to pursue their chosen strategy for victory in November.



*"In a Fox News interview Tuesday,[Feb 4] Kayleigh McEnany, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, questioned whether the results were 'being rigged against Bernie Sanders.'"
  #98  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
My goal is not to "churn the water with conspiracy theories" - conspiracy theories are a mind set in which any evidence, even disconfirming evidence, reinforces the original view. I'm not engaging in the behavior.
...

Sure, I allege a conspiracy. ...
Keep saying this over and over "we wuz robbed".

The "democratic party" does not choose the candidate- the voters do. In 2016 the voters make it very, very clear they preferred Clinton.

The voters will again make the choice this time around.

The DNC has almost no control over who gets the Nomination. It's the voters.
  #99  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:44 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I, for one, am not surprised that senior people in the Democratic Party do not want Bernie to get the nomination. I am not surprised that they are doing things to further what they want.
Cool.

Quote:

Yet Bernie(or his supporters) are complaining about it. (and Trump* too, which is interesting)
I mean, what should they do? Imagine you're supporting a candidate in an election. You're getting the most votes. But despite this, there are almost certainly party machinations that will result in your candidate not winning the nomination. In effect, it does not matter that your movement had the most votes, the people running the election say "nah... this isn't really a democratic process, it's just the illusion of one"

How do you respond to that? With contentment? Happiness? Enthusiasm?

Quote:

"Conspiracy" is a word that makes it sound illicit or sinister. It is not. It's politics. Everyone has a right to pursue their chosen strategy for victory in November.

It is illicit. If it's a secret, coordinated plan to bring about a result that's outside the rules or norms, it's a conspiracy.

What would it take to reach the level of conspiracy in your mind? Let's say, hypothetically, that there were some leaked DNC e-mails that said "we changed the debate rules so that Bloomberg could participate. If we allow Bloomberg to participate, it increases the chances of a brokered convention, so that we can install a non-Bernie candidate regardless of the votes. Also, he gave us 250m" - would that be a conspiracy in your mind?
  #100  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay, so which part do you think is wrong?

1) The party apparatus of the democratic party, including those who set party policy, do not want Bernie to run the nomination
2) They would exert influence, where possible, to make it less likely that Bernie will win the nomination
3) That exertion of influence would take some form of collaboration - even if it's simply talking to each other about their concerns and intent

....Treating this as a WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY JUST LIKE CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is absurd. ....
The party apparatus of the democratic party may or may not want Bernie. But they have no control or little influence over those that do- the voters.

Indeed, since the DNC has no control over who get the Nomination, this is "a WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY JUST LIKE CHEMTRAILS".

Last edited by DrDeth; 03-02-2020 at 04:45 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017