2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Btw, wth is wrong with Chris Matthews?
At one point after Bernie won, Chris Matthews apparently compared it to the takeover of Germany by the Nazis. There are now calls for his resignation.

Bernie won Nevada with 46.6% to Biden's 19.2%. Buttitgieg got 15% and Warren barely got to 10%.

I think it's time for Warren to drop out. Between her and Sander's supporters, the progressives just took a commanding majority at that contest.

If the centrists want to win, they'd all coalesce around Buttigieg or Biden but I can't see either of those two stepping aside for the other.
 
Last edited:
Even if he has the Senate he doesn't have enough to break a filibuster...and there won't be a solid block of Democrat senators or house members looking to work on things that are death in their next re-election bid anyway. So he either risks being labeled a <gasp> compromiser, or he gets nothing done. I'm guessing that a President Bernie doesn't accomplish much and leaves a legacy of a "Progress Caucus" that is functionally the same as the "Freedom Caucus." About fifty members who hold the majority of the party hostage to their unworkable demands and lead it out into untenable weeds to die.

This would be a marked improvement from what we have so that the roots of an actual worker/middle class party is put down and can grow, his control of the DNC would change the future for the better.

I did want to ask you though, what do you think he should compromise on to retain centrist democrats (ie 80s and 90s republicans)? I'm open to the idea but if the medicare for all is the central topic then its just doa.
 
I hope he at least has contingency plans on Medicare for all. This is why the attacks on Warren for 'backtracking' on M4A baffle me. Recognizing that the plan as written likely won't get through Congress and coming up with alternative implementation schedules should not be seen as a weakness. Or maybe it's good politics to continue pushing for the pie in the sky instead of settling. Either way, I am worried not so much that he doesn't advertise alternative plans, but that he hasn't given any indication that he's capable of producing and/or supporting alternative plans.
 
I think it's time for Warren to drop out. Between her and Sander's supporters, the progressives just took a commanding majority at that contest.

I think that it's better that the stays. It's another voice attacking the most nefarious candidates, like Bloomberg.
 
@innonimatu - Bloomberg's campaign died at his first debate IMO. His campaign is now being investigated by twitter for abuse of policy and use of bots. The NDA issue is continuing to hurt him and make him look like a creep. It turns out he can't buy his way out of being unlikable.


bernie.png


What was that @Kyriakos about the media keeping him down?

Throwback to when I first joined CFC:
Spoiler :

I wish I could deep-fake Sanders face on that meme. No, I don't mean recreate the meme with new footage, I want to deep-fake it for lulz. Paging @Truthy to script the necessary AI.

Edit: More juiciness from their various headline articles:
No clear Sanders alternative emerges
 
Last edited:
Bloomberg totally blew that debate so hard, and he didn’t even need to show up to it. It shows how bad a candidate he is without his half-billion dollar ad buy (which remains untested as he has yet to compete in any state.)

Right now Michael Bloomberg has the same # of delegates as me. :lol:
 
Man, CBS's Sunday morning news was going full steam to resurrect Russiagate this morning and it looks like they're already trying to steer the narrative towards "Russia favors Bernie over Trump in 2020." That's going to resonate with nobody.
 
This would be a marked improvement from what we have so that the roots of an actual worker/middle class party is put down and can grow, his control of the DNC would change the future for the better.

I did want to ask you though, what do you think he should compromise on to retain centrist democrats (ie 80s and 90s republicans)? I'm open to the idea but if the medicare for all is the central topic then its just doa.

I think medicare for all is the one thing that he could likely push through. That's pretty much universally popular and could be sold as "Obamacare obviously was never enough" to the progressives," "Congratulations the black man's solution goes in the dustbin so that dark period in the history of the nation can be forgotten" to the Republicans, and "it was a good try but the complexities left it open to sabotage by the Republicans and they of course destroyed it since they are why we can't have nice things" to the Democrats.

Of course if he refuses to compromise and stands on "Obamacare just proves that Democrats other than my chosen few are just evil Republicans in disguise" then Medicare for all never reaches the floor in either chamber.
 
Even if he has the Senate he doesn't have enough to break a filibuster...

I'm well aware of that. What I'm saying is that, as you know perfectly well, even if a moderate candidate becomes the nominee and wins the election, the Republicans in the Senate are going to filibuster anything they try to do. The only things the Republicans will allow are things that are bad, things that no Democrats should want to "get done" in any case.

things that are death in their next re-election bid anyway.

"things" such as?

I'm guessing that a President Bernie doesn't accomplish much

That may well turn out to be the case, but what makes you think any other nominee would accomplish more? I don't see the Republicans losing the Senate, and if they don't lose the Senate any Democratic administration will be pretty much limited to working with House Democrats to make noise about Senate Republicans' obstructionism, and using executive action to accomplish progressive priorities. I think there is reason to believe that Sanders will take more action from the executive branch than any of the other candidates.

I'm guessing that a President Bernie doesn't accomplish much and leaves a legacy of a "Progress Caucus" that is functionally the same as the "Freedom Caucus." About fifty members who hold the majority of the party hostage to their unworkable demands and lead it out into untenable weeds to die.

Yes, the Republican Party is very dead. It has been forced to a path of ideological moderation by its crippling electoral losses. That's why it controls *checks notes* two and a half out of the three branches of the federal government and uh...*checks again* the majority of governorships and state legislatures.
 
Yes, the Republican Party is very dead. It has been forced to a path of ideological moderation by its crippling electoral losses. That's why it controls *checks notes* two and a half out of the three branches of the federal government and uh...*checks again* the majority of governorships and state legislatures.

You should probably look at the trend there instead of current status. Those majorities have fallen catastrophically since the consequences of letting the freedom caucus set their course have become apparent, and there doesn't appear to be any way to correct that. They held onto the senate majority in the one cycle in three where they should have been absolutely invulnerable since almost everyone up for re-election was a Democrat, but they did lose ground. The next two cycles, where Republicans are the larger portions of those up for re-election, should be bloodbaths of epic proportion unless the Democrats do something equally stupid with their own version of a "freedom caucus."

I know that you want revolution and instant results, and I'm less opposed to that than most myself...but the reality is that people with full bellies seldom revolt so the traditional time dragging methods of politics are what we are stuck with.
 
I think medicare for all is the one thing that he could likely push through. That's pretty much universally popular and could be sold as "Obamacare obviously was never enough" to the progressives," "Congratulations the black man's solution goes in the dustbin so that dark period in the history of the nation can be forgotten" to the Republicans, and "it was a good try but the complexities left it open to sabotage by the Republicans and they of course destroyed it since they are why we can't have nice things" to the Democrats.

Of course if he refuses to compromise and stands on "Obamacare just proves that Democrats other than my chosen few are just evil Republicans in disguise" then Medicare for all never reaches the floor in either chamber.

Ok so what on his agenda is the problem? This is what I'm trying to figure out from centrist dems and all I get is platitudes about elect-ability and socialism. His whole platform is pie in the sky, I'm for all of it that I've read, but I recognize a lot of it is troubling for people like GND. @hobbsyoyo yea the reason I stopped donating to Warren is because she backed off M4A and I think that HAS to be the starting point, otherwise by the time you negotiate we are back fighting for ACA level stuff.
 
You should probably look at the trend there instead of current status. Those majorities have fallen catastrophically since the consequences of letting the freedom caucus set their course have become apparent, and there doesn't appear to be any way to correct that. They held onto the senate majority in the one cycle in three where they should have been absolutely invulnerable since almost everyone up for re-election was a Democrat, but they did lose ground. The next two cycles, where Republicans are the larger portions of those up for re-election, should be bloodbaths of epic proportion unless the Democrats do something equally stupid with their own version of a "freedom caucus."

I know that you want revolution and instant results, and I'm less opposed to that than most myself...but the reality is that people with full bellies seldom revolt so the traditional time dragging methods of politics are what we are stuck with.

I dunno, from the data I'm looking at, I don't get that picture. I'm seeing a more gradual reduction in Republican control since Trump was elected. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the Freedom Caucus at all:

upload_2020-2-23_13-8-34.png


To my knowledge the heyday of the Freedom Caucus was 2010-2014 and Republicans appear to have expanded their control of state legislatures throughout that period.

Also, I think the much more likely thing preventing "bloodbaths of epic proportion" in the next two cycles is not Democrats doing something with their version of a "freedom caucus," it's Republican cheating and voter suppression.
 
Ok so what on his agenda is the problem? This is what I'm trying to figure out from centrist dems and all I get is platitudes about elect-ability and socialism. His whole platform is pie in the sky, I'm for all of it that I've read, but I recognize a lot of it is troubling for people like GND. @hobbsyoyo yea the reason I stopped donating to Warren is because she backed off M4A and I think that HAS to be the starting point, otherwise by the time you negotiate we are back fighting for ACA level stuff.

If he shows up at the white house thinking "I have the bully pulpit and election reform is a breeze" he is going to get creamed, and since I think election reform is actually more important than even healthcare that is really unfortunate in my opinion.

If he shows up at the white house spouting "green new deal" he is also DOA.

If he shows up at the white house saying "Trump was right about trade and the Democrats were wrong all along, tariffs means manufacturing jobs" he is DOA.

And the really bad thing is that all of these DOA options would take down Medicare for all right along with them. The only way any progress gets made is if he says "We must do one thing at a time, and that one thing right now is Medicare for all" and he somehow keeps his wild eyed fanatics from turning on him because he hasn't delivered utopia by February. If they force him into alienating both sides of the aisle in congress even though Medicare for all could be done it won't be.
 
I dunno, from the data I'm looking at, I don't get that picture. I'm seeing a more gradual reduction in Republican control since Trump was elected. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the Freedom Caucus at all:

View attachment 547008

To my knowledge the heyday of the Freedom Caucus was 2010-2014 and Republicans appear to have expanded their control of state legislatures throughout that period.

Also, I think the much more likely thing preventing "bloodbaths of epic proportion" in the next two cycles is not Democrats doing something with their version of a "freedom caucus," it's Republican cheating and voter suppression.

You are still looking with that "instantaneous results" eye. During the heyday of the freedom caucus the GOP was expanding their control, but if you look at what I said it's the consequences of the freedom caucus that are hurting them now. One of those consequences is Trump himself, and that will continue to hurt the GOP long after he leaves the White House. The high water mark for the freedom caucus is 2016, where they finally took total control of the GOP. Now "Republican" is synonymous with "right wing extremist lunatic," and that is hurting them, badly. How long it hurts them is the only remaining question, because those trend lines at the end of your graph continue for as long as the Democrats don't do anything correspondingly stupid.
 
Now "Republican" is synonymous with "right wing extremist lunatic," and that is hurting them, badly.

So W's team were not right-wing extremist lunatics? Codi? Cheney? Reichsmarschall Rumsfeld?

Ted Cruz would have won if Trump hadn't, not sure how he can be presented as non right-wing extremist lunatic either.
 
So W's team were not right-wing extremist lunatics? Codi? Cheney? Reichsmarschall Rumsfeld?

Ted Cruz would have won if Trump hadn't, not sure how he can be presented as non right-wing extremist lunatic either.
This is the republican party we're talking about, they set the bar on right-wing extremist lunacy every few years. Today's right wing extremist lunatic is tomorrows left wing Commie RINO.
 
So W's team were not right-wing extremist lunatics? Codi? Cheney? Reichsmarschall Rumsfeld?

Ted Cruz would have won if Trump hadn't, not sure how he can be presented as non right-wing extremist lunatic either.

Undoubtedly when looking from Greece it is hard to see any difference between Trump and previous Republican presidents, but please don't think that means that your input here is totally irrel...

Oh.

Wait.

Yeah, go ahead and think that.

Yes, Ted Cruz, poster child of the Freedom Caucus and well known right wing extremist lunatic, would certainly have won the GOP nomination in 2016, at the high water mark of the Freedom Caucus takeover. He would have been just as effective at destroying the GOP brand as Trump has been, though in different ways. But either way the handing over of the party to the lunatics would have costs that will be paid out over the next generation or so...unless the Democrats absolutely refuse to collect.
 
I think it's time for Warren to drop out. Between her and Sander's supporters, the progressives just took a commanding majority at that contest.
It's unclear to me that Warren dropping out would cause her supporters to coalesce around Sanders (me notwithstanding). Logically, her more progressive supporters may have already left her, and apparently she did much better with late deciding Nevada voters, probably at the expense of the centrists (it does not look like Sanders was diminished in any respect). Warren dropping out prior to Super Tuesday might instead boost Klobuchar or perhaps even Buttigieg, both of whom have a degree of demographic crossover with Warren supporters.
 
Unless all the democrats support the nominee, it won't matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom