2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

Video is about how Bloomberg's employees overreact to tweets against him, while those tweets just showcase his history (stop and frisk, having mountains of cash in tax havens, etc).

"OMG, these vicious attacks against Mister Mike, who pays our bills!!!"

Sorry bros, he is an oligarch throwing more cash into being elected than entire US city populations have.

 

[Berzerker]

I see Trump has nicknamed Bloomberg 'Mini Mike'

I dont know if that will have the desired effect, Mini Me is a popular character from the last 2 Austin Powers movies

 

[Zkribbler]

IMHO, the debates were uninformative and a great waste of time. I'm quite enjoying the town halls.

 

[Ironsided]

It’s a peculiar situation with Warren and I think Sommer is closer to the truth than Adjica but I’ll add the shift in fortunes happened when EW took onboard Hillary and Kamala staffers, made a U-turn on Sanders and went for him the same way Hillary does – with manufactured and baseless accusations. That goes down poorly with people in general and EW took a well-deserved nosedive in popularity ever since.

I imagine the practical stance against EW health proposal is that given how hard Obama had to fight to get the ACA passed, making the next reform two fights instead of one, and only three years apart is just making it harder on yourself.

My more cynical take is that Warren is just not serious on what has become the most pressing issue of the elections. M4A saves Americans money, anxiety and hassle and is only a threat to the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and those on their bribes and donations. For Warren to step back and propose something that is not only impractical but likely even harder to fight for in step two, is just a thinly veiled concession to the very corporate interests she supposedly wants to fight – and in honest, credit where credit is due, has fought with some success before now.

EW would do well to accept she made a big mistake, step back and endorse Sanders and hope for a VP position. But it’s not going to happen and in the grand scheme I think it’s a blessing to the Sanders campaign because EW also has a lot of bad baggage of practically being untruthful about her ancestry and on applications and about her children’s public schooling etc. It’s a long list of “whiteish” and ridiculous lies. Things Trump already has used against her and would further discredit her on when she argues his lies. She’s book smart and means well but too weak to be president. She shot, she missed, and that’s hopefully the end of that for her.

 

[Zardnaar]

It’s a peculiar situation with Warren and I think Sommer is closer to the truth than Adjica but I’ll add the shift in fortunes happened when EW took onboard Hillary and Kamala staffers, made a U-turn on Sanders and went for him the same way Hillary does – with manufactured and baseless accusations. That goes down poorly with people in general and EW took a well-deserved nosedive in popularity ever since.

I imagine the practical stance against EW health proposal is that given how hard Obama had to fight to get the ACA passed, making the next reform two fights instead of one, and only three years apart is just making it harder on yourself.

My more cynical take is that Warren is just not serious on what has become the most pressing issue of the elections. M4A saves Americans money, anxiety and hassle and is only a threat to the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and those on their bribes and donations. For Warren to step back and propose something that is not only impractical but likely even harder to fight for in step two, is just a thinly veiled concession to the very corporate interests she supposedly wants to fight – and in honest, credit where credit is due, has fought with some success before now.

EW would do well to accept she made a big mistake, step back and endorse Sanders and hope for a VP position. But it’s not going to happen and in the grand scheme I think it’s a blessing to the Sanders campaign because EW also has a lot of bad baggage of practically being untruthful about her ancestry and on applications and about her children’s public schooling etc. It’s a long list of “whiteish” and ridiculous lies. Things Trump already has used against her and would further discredit her on when she argues his lies. She’s book smart and means well but too weak to be president. She shot, she missed, and that’s hopefully the end of that for her.

Pretty much anyone who went negative in the debates tanked.

Warren built the best machinery for election but comes across as a low charisma technocrat.

 

[amadeus]

Buttigieg's lead in Iowa was reduced to 0.004% after a recanvasing, and now Bernie has requested a recount.

Iowa is old hat; Sanders bringing it back into the spotlight only reminds people of the confusion even if he wins.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I disagree. She is suffering a bad case of the Marco Rubio - everybody’s second choice, nobody’s first choice. Apart from a little bit of “clarification” on health care she has in many ways been the opposite of a flip flopper.

I didn't say she was a flip-flopper, I said she was labeled as one and abandoned when she started... as you say... "clarifying" her positions... as I say... in a manner more palatable to centrists.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I just saw my first Sanders ad that wasn't on Reddit. That's cool; I'm sick of seeing Bloomberg every two minutes while I watch the morning news. Steyer has ads up as well.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I just saw my first Sanders ad that wasn't on Reddit. That's cool; I'm sick of seeing Bloomberg every two minutes while I watch the morning news. Steyer has ads up as well.

I see Sanders' YouTube ads every couple of days. Its getting annoying frankly, but it shows that he's campaigning hard at least.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah and you can't scroll for more than a minute on Reddit without hitting his ads. I just hadn't seen them on TV yet.

 

[Lexicus]

I see Sanders' YouTube ads every couple of days. Its getting annoying frankly, but it shows that he's campaigning hard at least.

"I am once again asking for financial support" memes have diversified into over 10,000 distinct species!

 

[innonimatu]

What does the resident Hillary Clinton drone think of this?

 

[rah]

It's way too early to predict things based on polls like this. Maybe when we get down to the last 2 or 3 standing, these types of things might mean more.

 

[onejayhawk]

Will the race be all but decided two weeks from today? After last night's debates, I can believe it.

Warren has an organization, but her personal contribution has fallen flat. Klobuchar is taking over as the female of choice. Biden is done. Buttigieg is too young, inexperienced, plastic. Bloomburg bombed. I do not see anything keeping Bernie from sweeping Nevada on Saturday and riding the favorable coverage through Super Tuesday in twelve days. By 4 March, he may have a big lead and the momentum.

Even if the DNC wanted to take Sanders out, I am not sure they could.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Biden is still leading in SC. If he wins, he's not going anywhere. Bloomberg is going to muscle (meaning spend) his way through his debate performance. Klobuchar is going nowhere as long as Warren is in and vice-versa. Bootyjudge is the only young face so he's here to stay. I don't see anyone who matters dropping out before Super Tuesday.

The x-factor is that Sanders is now leading every poll... I'm guessing that he starts to picking up previously inaccessible demographics by virtue of being the clear frontrunner. That's his key to running away with this thing.

 

[Lexicus]

Bernie ain't gonna win unless he has a majority of delegates going into the convention and I just don't see that happening. If he lacks a majority the other candidates will close ranks against him, whether superdelegates are involved or not.

 

[Socrates99]

Bernie ain't gonna win unless he has a majority of delegates going into the convention and I just don't see that happening. If he lacks a majority the other candidates will close ranks against him, whether superdelegates are involved or not.

I watched a clip from The Hill's Rising that talked about that. Chuck Todd's question about whether or not the candidate with the most delegates should get the nomination automatically even if it wasn't a majority seemed like a harbinger of that. It's kind of gross. If the candidate with the plurality isnt the right candidate why would one with an even smaller number be better? Making a move like that would certainly depress voter turnout. It'd be a surefire way to tell people they'd rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie.

 

[IglooDame]

I watched a clip from The Hill's Rising that talked about that. Chuck Todd's question about whether or not the candidate with the most delegates should get the nomination automatically even if it wasn't a majority seemed like a harbinger of that. It's kind of gross. If the candidate with the plurality isnt the right candidate why would one with an even smaller number be better? Making a move like that would certainly depress voter turnout. It'd be a surefire way to tell people they'd rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie.

Because that candidate is everyone's second choice? Hypothetically, of course.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But this is the way it's headed, as I foreboded a while back.

The thing is, I think it's the convention rules that if no one gets a majority, then the voting is open. If Bernie has 42% and Pete has 30% and Liz has 13%, Pete could agree to take Liz as his running mate; she tells her voters to vote for him in the second round of voting, and viola.

Because that's the rules, it will feel simultaneously fair (by the rules) and unfair (biggest initial vote-getter doesn't get the nod). Bernie-Bros will be particularly resentful. And that bodes ill for uniting the party around one candidate. Which is the only thing that Dems need in order to beat Trump.

It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck, when the train is carrying the fate of one's nation.

 

[Lexicus]

I watched a clip from The Hill's Rising that talked about that. Chuck Todd's question about whether or not the candidate with the most delegates should get the nomination automatically even if it wasn't a majority seemed like a harbinger of that. It's kind of gross. If the candidate with the plurality isnt the right candidate why would one with an even smaller number be better? Making a move like that would certainly depress voter turnout. It'd be a surefire way to tell people they'd rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie.

It was clearly a harbinger of that, but the common interpretation i'm seeing of that question in pro-Bernie circles is that they want superdelegates to steal the nomination! This isn't necessarily the case; they won't need superdelegates if they all consolidate their delegates behind one non-Sanders candidate (this is what @Timsup2nothin has been alluding to by saying a plurality of delegates does not entitle a candidate to the nomination).

Ultimately i think this would have the same effect of just destroying youth enthusiasm and it might well ensure Trump's reelection. But my saying that should in no way be interpreted as a belief that Bernie will definitely beat Trump, because I do not thing that at all. I'm very worried that Trump will win no matter what. Outright rigging of the election cannot be ruled out either.