2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
He never does that. He is a perpetual "oh Sanders is their most dangerous choice" spewing machine. And if you think he is that consistent about saying something that is remotely true I'm curious as to why. The GOP machinery would LOVE to attack a ballot with Bernie at the top, guaranteed.

I agree with you premise that the RNC looks forward to this but disagree with your prediction of the outcome. I can easily see this being the reverse of 2016. Hillary wanted Trump as her foul and it blew up in her and the DNCs face.
 
I just wanna note that all the people now claiming Sanders would definitely totally lose to the Republicans were pretty much all claiming that Hillary Clinton's victory in 2016 was a certainty.

Anyone telling you they know how this is gonna turn out is lying. This is a leap of faith regardless of who is the nominee.
 
There are two broad categories of motivation. Careerist and ideological.

Ideologically, a Bernie victory would be a much greater blow to the Democratic establishment than a second Trump term. Bernie Sanders winning the Presidency would show, conclusively, that all the people who have spent decades claiming that the Democrats need to be conservative, that they must appeal to the "middle" and so on, were completely wrong. There will be no reason to continue to listen to such people in the future. Since most of these people have careers and thus income that depends on people considering them Very Wise Sages Who Know How Politics Works, this would be very bad for them. The prospect of a Bernie Sanders victory also terrifies the donor class (and mollifying the donor class with such assurances as "we're capitalists, and that's just the way it is" is a fair description of the career of someone like Nancy Pelosi, who is openly touted as one of the greatest House Speakers of all time in part due to her ability to fundraise...). Bernie Sanders isn't a "real" socialist in the sense that his policies do not really challenge the power of capital in any significant way, but this is a variation on the "no good example" imperative in US foreign policy. Bernie winning the Presidency would open up space for a politics that really does challenge the capitalists, and this terrifies them. They know they've been living on borrowed time since 2008.

Now, I realize I blended the careerism into that paragraph, but this also makes a lot more sense when you consider that the real purpose of the Democratic Party is not to win elections in order to exercise power on behalf of their constituents. Democrats (except Bernie, who is only vaguely a Democrat, and to some extent Warren) never describe what they do in these terms. The real purpose of the Democratic Party is to funnel money from donors to a network of "in" consultants and "wonks." Again, Bernie threatens these arrangements in a way that Trump simply does not. Indeed, a Trump victory allows the Democrats to continue playing the "good cop", demanding that leftists and working-class movements fall in line because otherwise the bad cop (Republicans) will come and start roughing them up.

Which it very well might be.

you know considering Tim’s recent job offer I’m beginning to wonder if he might be part of that group of people invested in this status quo of capital funneling
 
I agree with you premise that the RNC looks forward to this but disagree with your prediction of the outcome. I can easily see this being the reverse of 2016. Hillary wanted Trump as her foul and it blew up in her and the DNCs face.

I'm not making a prediction about the outcome, I'm just not blind to the possibilities.

Clinton made the mistake of believing "the horror show on the other side is sufficient to drive turnout." The Democratic congressional candidate in my district made the same mistake and managed to lose despite Hillary carrying the district. It was a pretty easy mistake to make and frankly I still don't understand why it didn't work. How in the ____ did ANYONE not see this coming and sit home thinking "well, Trump is gonna be okay"?
 
you know considering Tim’s recent job offer I’m beginning to wonder if he might be part of that group of people invested in this status quo of capital funneling

Nah. I'm just a thug. If I really needed employment there are a hundred avenues available outside of politics. That's why the guy trying to hire me had to come with that convoluted "this is how it helps the Democrats" logic. The only reason I hire out in the political arena is preferences, not lack of alternatives.
 
But I have it on good authority this entire primary is rigged and we know Bidenberg will come out on top no matter what. :p

Actually in a brokered convention I have an instinct that Klobigieg is more likely...but we'll see. If Klobigieg can't make any inroads with non-white voters they will come to the convention with too few delegates to make a credible case that they can be the standard-bearers.
 
I just wanna note that all the people now claiming Sanders would definitely totally lose to the Republicans were pretty much all claiming that Hillary Clinton's victory in 2016 was a certainty.

Anyone telling you they know how this is gonna turn out is lying. This is a leap of faith regardless of who is the nominee.
Well in the 2016 cycle I was 100% sure that Trump was going to get the nomination but also pretty certain that he would lose in the general.

This time around I can freely admit that I have no idea who is going to win... either the Democratic nomination or the general... but I certainly regard Trump as having a pretty distinct advantage regardless of who the Democrats nominate, given the current likely nominees. I will add that I find it far more likely that a Bernie loss will again deny a non-negligible share of Bernie voters to the Democrats nominee than some last minute conspiracy to keep the nomination from Bernie if he has a clear lead approaching the convention.

Frankly... as I always say regarding sports... what Bernie needs to do is just win the damn thing outright... if you don't let it get too close, you don't have to worry about relying on the refs to win in for you in the end, or whining about being robbed.
Actually in a brokered convention I have an instinct that Klobigieg is more likely
Again... I will eat my hat... with barbecue sauce and boston lettuce
 
Again... I will eat my hat... with barbecue sauce and boston lettuce

What are the scenarios you're envisioning? Bernie gets a majority of delegates? I find that unlikely. But I find it even more unlikely that someone else gets a majority of delegates.
 
What are the scenarios you're envisioning? Bernie gets a majority of delegates? I find that unlikely. But I find it even more unlikely that someone else gets a majority of delegates.
Well besides the best case scenario I already described for Bernie, where Biden drops out after losing SC and Bernie gets a 10 point bump from that...

A more middle of the road scenario I can see is Bernie wins Nevada as expected, but then places 2nd or 3rd in SC. He remains the frontrunner going into Super Tuesday but no one drops out. After Super Tuesday I think Gabbard, Steyer, Klobuchar and hopefully Bootyjudge will finally get out freeing up about 20% of the voters.

At that point, if Biden has also shown poorly enough, particularly in the Southern states to drop out, then that frees up another 18% of the vote. I can see Bernie reasonably claiming half of that based purely on perceived frontrunner status. So a 19 point boost puts Bernie at 47%, in a 3-way race between Bernie, Bloomberg and Warren. In that scenario, Warren isn't dropping out, but the narrative becomes that if Warren would just drop out, she would put either of them over the top.

Incidentally, I think it works similarly if it is Bloomberg, rather than Biden who drops out after Super Tuesday, but with the non-stop ads Bloomberg is running I don't see that happening. In any case, if Bernie has over 45% of the delegates going into the convention and at least a 5% lead on whoever is in second place, Warren will play "kingmaker" for Bernie in exchange for some kind of high position in his administration. Bloomberg may try to do so as well... in fact, I am thinking that may have been his game all along.

All wild speculation I admit, but that's my feeling about how things are shaping up. What I don't see happening is Bloomberg, Warren or Bootyjudge going into the convention losing in the delegate count and trying to get the nomination on the convention floor. If Bernie is winning, they will all endorse him.
 
I think Bootigieg will stay in unless he places consistently at 3rd or 4th in all of the Super Tuesday states.
I agree but I don't think that's too hard to imagine happening. He's currently polling behind Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren. He dramatically overperformed in Iowa, but that was a function of the crazed structure of the caucus system. Plus Iowa was a fiasco anyway.

I think Warren is trying to wait out Klobuchar, because she surmises, correctly IMO, that Klobuchar's voters are with her because they fairly straightforwardly all want 1)a woman; and 2)a moderate. Once Klobuchar is out, they can't have a moderate woman anymore so they will have to come over to her so they can at least get a woman. Once Warren absorbs Klobuchar, she will be around 20%, which again makes her a viable alternative to Bernie for the folks who don't care for Bloomberg or Biden, but aren't willing to commit to Bernie.

That's her path to victory, but she has to wait out Klobuchar first to see if she can unify the "want a woman" voters. Until then she has to stay in a holding pattern. Klobuchar has the same problem and is trying to wait out Warren for the same reason.
 
If this happens I will eat my hat.
Again... I will eat my hat... with barbecue sauce and boston lettuce
But you don't have a hat… is this some trick to give yourself the mandate of eating things in barbecue sauce?
When Trump hints that he's keen to face Sanders, is that anything more than just parroting what he hears on TV? I don't think he's particularly likely to be forming independent, insightful thoughts. He could be right, he could be wrong, but that's a matter of coincidence.
At this point there's nothing he says which I take seriously by its own intrinsec value, given his obvious imbecility, his increasing difficulty with speaking (I said this a couple of years ago, read up on Thomas Mann's character ‘Mynheer Peeperkorn’ and you'll be dumbfounded) and his straight-out disregard for truth, trust or honour.
But I do take seriously the fact that he's spouting the views of a highly ideological minority (e.g. gaoling the rich is bad because the rich deserve privileges, lower taxes on the rich if national security, human life, especially that of the poor, is of no value except as a tradeable commodity, ditto for human dignity and self-respect) and it's a view that tens of millions of voters in the U.S. of A. alone follow to some degree or another, not passively but actively voting for and campaigning for them.
 
I think Warren is trying to wait out Klobuchar (…)

That's her path to victory, but she has to wait out Klobuchar first to see if she can unify the "want a woman" voters. Until then she has to stay in a holding pattern. Klobuchar has the same problem and is trying to wait out Warren for the same reason.
Could Warren and Klobuchar be trying to wait each other out in order to snag a VP nomination? It's a thought I've had from over here.
 
You've just gone out and bought yourself a giant corn tortilla hat, haven't you?
 
The judge in the Stone trial gave him 40 months with 85% required (34 months)

The 4 prosecutors who wanted 7-9 years quit outraged by the DoJ (and Barr?) suggesting 40-46 months would be appropriate
 
Could Warren and Klobuchar be trying to wait each other out in order to snag a VP nomination? It's a thought I've had from over here.

Warren deserves a better role then VP, or she could Cheney it. Idk, VP just feels so ceremonial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom