Continuing to Discuss the [2020 Primary] and Not Other Stuff

Quid

38thDoe wrote: »

Is Maine going to be tough? I thought there was a large sum of money going toward getting rid of Collins.

This election cycle is probably going to be... weird. I'd be super hesitant to say anything is tough or hard even if it looks obvious.

enlightenedbum

38thDoe wrote: »

Is Maine going to be tough? I thought there was a large sum of money going toward getting rid of Collins.

She's a 24 year incumbent. Those are always hard to beat.

RedTide

enlightenedbum wrote: »

38thDoe wrote: »

Is Maine going to be tough? I thought there was a large sum of money going toward getting rid of Collins.

She's a 24 year incumbent. Those are always hard to beat.

Yeah, those first three I listed are the easiest and most likely, but that doesn't mean they're easy

ceres

mightyspacepope wrote: »

ceres wrote: »

The right choice may not always look right to you. Sanders has said himself that he's voted in ways that many people might find really objectionable, but that those people clearly didn't read the rest and they probably wouldn't feel that way if they had. That is brave, and truly worth taking into account when you judge because you will need it to meaningfully defend him, which doesn't seem to be something you're trying to do right now. Instead you're choosing to alienate a whole bunch of people with defeatism, and that's exactly what I mean when I say I'm worried, because I'm just not sure the people who support him the most are up to the task of making the many good things about him sound inviting to voters that he will really need. His economic and foreign policies are not going to appeal to great swaths of people, but he will face some very real and serious discrimination that have nothing to do with these things in the general, that he really doesn't need to deal with now.

I really hope the people I see talking like this can step the fuck up if he makes it, because right now I just don't see it happening and that is scary to me because people I love dearly could be seriously hurt if things get out of hand. I'm willing to bet that's the case for everyone here whether they can see it or not. If it isn't him Sanders will wholeheartedly support the nominee because he isn't fucking stupid, and he is capable of making the right choice that may not look right to you. I sure hope the people who say they care about others will do the same, or they will contribute to making things actually actively worse for the whole world. But then, that's exactly how we got where we are.

I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Sanders is going to do well in IA and NH, and the media is going to portray it as a gamechanger in the Democratic primary, even though Biden is likely to have a pretty decisive win in NV two weeks later, then a dominating win in SC a week after that. On top of that, it looks like Biden and Sanders are performing roughly equally in IA at the moment. They're going to want the perception of a horse race, even if that's not the actual reality of the situation.

Then, on Super Tuesday, Biden is likely to significantly increase his lead. Sanders's donations (and the reliability of his core supporters) means that he can keep campaigning into the summer as the tertiary and secondary tier candidates are forced to drop out. I know we don't want to keep rehashing 2016, but especially with Sanders continuing to harp on taking on the Democratic establishment and his top advisers doing the same, it feels like a rehash of 2016.

I'm not sure I'd agree that anyone is going to crush NV. I think it depends on how good people's memories are here. I saw some polling for NV a while back that said he was in the lead here. I have nothing more recent so I can't say, but I can say that they are pushing hard. FWIW I don't get that in my emails; most of the stuff I get for him comes from Our Revolution and those make me feel so icky because of their tone... 100% about the rehash which.. is not what I want to hear, but wouldn't necessarily go down poorly with more than a few people here. I actually got a couple texts from Warren's people, and one from Williamson, which kind of made me laugh because like.. how did her campaign get my number.

I really want to pay attention to Warren because I feel like she's much more likely than Biden to keep her cool through the whole process.

enlightenedbum

Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll.

Qanamil

Yeah, and for all that Graham is hated down here (everywhere), he's a Republican lickspittle which I expect to be reelected. That said, there isn't really any polling soooo

Here's something from 538 on Nov. 30 2018:

Keeping it on topic, South Carolina continues to be in Biden's hands. Anecdotally everybody I talk to is for Warren or Sanders, but I'm not exactly rubbing elbows with Trump voters.

enlightenedbum

There was supposedly a poll with Harrison close, but I could never find it. Internal maybe.

RedTide

enlightenedbum wrote: »

There was supposedly a poll with Harrison close, but I could never find it. Internal maybe.

You'd need something catastrophically bad for Graham to come out with SCs electorate for me to think there's a real chance.

If Graham was from North Carolina I'd say we'd have an even odds chance of unseating

ceres

My in-laws... uh... meet with my disapproval, I guess. a couple Libertarians and a couple never-Democrats. None of them really care who's in the race or why and they are nearly impossible to talk to. They're in PA, in a part of PA with a lot of "get the government off my lawn" people. Because none of the Dems this time around are really talking about deregulation in any kind of serious way and my in-laws believe that UBI is monstrous and laughable right along with the ACA, they will not be voting Democrat this year.

My own parents are fairly progressive, and I think they're eyeing up Warren, but PA isn't exactly around the corner so they seem to be keeping open minds. That's probably not a bad thing.

DarkPrimus

I got served some ads on YouTube today by somebody who was running as a Republican for the 2020 Presidential ticket. Mark M-something, I think?

I mean at least somebody is opposing Trump in the most token fashion, and it was a change of pace from the non-stop Tom Steyer ads.

zepherin

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I got served some ads on YouTube today by somebody who was running as a Republican for the 2020 Presidential ticket. Mark M-something, I think?

I mean at least somebody is opposing Trump in the most token fashion, and it was a change of pace from the non-stop Tom Steyer ads.

Tom Steyer, most money spent losing a primary run.

Styrofoam Sammich

Ed O'Keefe, of CBS with some Iowa and NH numbers

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1213845442968084480?s=19

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1213846951898337286?s=19

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1213848172440801281?s=19

That delegate split is grim

Captain Carrot

enlightenedbum wrote: »

There was supposedly a poll with Harrison close, but I could never find it. Internal maybe.

There was a 47-43, but come the fuck on, Graham is not going to win by only four.

Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, Georgia again, Alabama, Kentucky, Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Montana, Arizona. Whoever wins five of those eleven races controls the Senate. I'm not sure I'd give either party the edge here, frankly. (Kansas might be in play, if Kobach does the same thing as last cycle, but that's a big if. Hey, then Kansas Republicans would be in the same club as Massachusetts Democrats, having pissed away two very winnable races.)

ahava

Michael Bloomberg has qualified for the DAGPB

https://www.democratsabroad.org/bloomberg_on_ballot

ceres

I would be really surprised if Sanders didn't make the top three in Iowa.

Javen

Warren 3rd in NH is rough.

JaysonFour

People like Biden because he's coasting on Obama's coattails (they heavily associate him with everything Obama did), but I imagine that when Barack makes his endorsement, that'll be the gamechanger.

Don't get me wrong, I like Joe, but I don't think he's the same guy we had back in '08-'16, and that's what worries me. If he's the candidate, then we absolutely HAVE to either a) take the Senate so the Republicans can't ratfuck everything that needs doing or b) invest enough time and energy into McConnell's race in Kentucky to get rid of him in addition to getting to 270. Otherwise Joe will swallow a bunch of Republican bullshit just to appeal to those racist fucks so we can get the basic shit like the budget passed, and we'll be in nearly the same place we were as we are now.

When your enemies are embracing fascism, you don't fucking try to reach out to them, because they'll take and take and take and maybe give a little bit, but boy howdy will you pay through the nose for that little bit.

ceres

I have never seen a thing about Steyer. Maybe it's because we have youtube premium?

God I love youtube premium. With no TV and no ads on youtube the coming months are going to be a lot more pleasant than usual for an election year.

shryke

zepherin wrote: »

DarkPrimus wrote: »

I got served some ads on YouTube today by somebody who was running as a Republican for the 2020 Presidential ticket. Mark M-something, I think?

I mean at least somebody is opposing Trump in the most token fashion, and it was a change of pace from the non-stop Tom Steyer ads.

Tom Steyer, most money spent losing a primary run.

He might not even win that with Bloomberg in the race.

He may literally lose at losing.

ElJeffe

JaysonFour wrote: »

People like Biden because he's coasting on Obama's coattails (they heavily associate him with everything Obama did), but I imagine that when Barack makes his endorsement, that'll be the gamechanger.

Don't get me wrong, I like Joe, but I don't think he's the same guy we had back in '08-'16, and that's what worries me. If he's the candidate, then we absolutely HAVE to either a) take the Senate so the Republicans can't ratfuck everything that needs doing or b) invest enough time and energy into McConnell's race in Kentucky to get rid of him in addition to getting to 270. Otherwise Joe will swallow a bunch of Republican bullshit just to appeal to those racist fucks so we can get the basic shit like the budget passed, and we'll be in nearly the same place we were as we are now.

When your enemies are embracing fascism, you don't fucking try to reach out to them, because they'll take and take and take and maybe give a little bit, but boy howdy will you pay through the nose for that little bit.

Obama ain't endorsing shit until after the primary.

RedTide

It would have to be an actual Democrat 1v1 vs some sort of malignant insurgence into the party a la Trump for Obama to endorse pre convention

zepherin

ceres wrote: »

I have never seen a thing about Steyer. Maybe it's because we have youtube premium?

God I love youtube premium. With no TV and no ads on youtube the coming months are going to be a lot more pleasant than usual for an election year.

I see him every time I forget to fast forward my dvr. It’ll be like me not paying attention and then Tom saying Term Limits.

Coinage

Everyone, I have some terrible news from this Washington Post reporter.

https://twitter.com/CleveWootson/status/1212813328118140928

Joe Biden has lost the War on Malarkey

MegaMan001

Probably gearing up for the next war on Maclunkey!

Captain Carrot

Whoever designed that wrap needs to take a break, because it very much looks like Biden is calling himself the soul of the nation, which . . . no.

Preacher

Castro endorsed Warren this morning. That feels like one of the first people to leave the race to endorse someone else?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Athenor

That's exactly what Biden is going for. His whole argument is based on reuniting the country, so of course he's going to call himself the Soul of the Nation - and if you look closer, he's talking about restoring such.

[Expletive deleted]

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Whoever designed that wrap needs to take a break, because it very much looks like Biden is calling himself the soul of the nation, which . . . no.

It just refers to his well-known musical abilities.

Jragghen

Preacher wrote: »

Castro endorsed Warren this morning. That feels like one of the first people to leave the race to endorse someone else?

Doubt it makes any difference, but it DOES play into a lot of people's dream teams around here.

PantsB

Jragghen wrote: »

Preacher wrote: »

Castro endorsed Warren this morning. That feels like one of the first people to leave the race to endorse someone else?

Doubt it makes any difference, but it DOES play into a lot of people's dream teams around here.

Which might make it less likely because his support is already baked in so early? Or at least that's my first instinct, that it will be old news by July so it won't play as reaching out to other parts of the party. So my contrarian view is is makes Warren-Booker more likely

ceres

Preacher wrote: »

Castro endorsed Warren this morning. That feels like one of the first people to leave the race to endorse someone else?

That was my thought too, I can't remember anyone else doing it. Ultimately I'm glad he went with Warren. I wonder who Williamson will endorse when she drops out... or.. not...

TryCatcher

Author and columnist Nathan J Robinson put up an opinion column of why Biden's "electability" is a myth on The Guardian. Going to the meat of the article, though people should read it, brutal as it is:

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.

Bucketman

Man I really really dislike Buttigieg and Biden as candidates. Like of course if its them I'll vote for them, but its like "Well this is a house fire, and these are just smoldering hot coals."

And honestly, at first I never thought Pete would have this much traction compared with personalities/policy powerhouses like Warren and Sanders on the ticket. Like Joe is weird, and creepy and offputting and far to center, but at least he has some personality. Pete looks like cardboard all the time.

AngelHedgie

TryCatcher wrote: »

Author and columnist Nathan J Robinson put up an opinion column of why Biden's "electability" is a myth on The Guardian. Going to the meat of the article, though people should read it, brutal as it is:

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.

Translation: I refuse to take responsibility for the conduct of my profession (the reason the "optics" of the email investigation were so bad was because the media continued to report on the story as if it was a scandal long after it was clear there was nothing there), and so I will blame the Democratic Party for our failures.

CelestialBadger

Bucketman wrote: »

Man I really really dislike Buttigieg and Biden as candidates. Like of course if its them I'll vote for them, but its like "Well this is a house fire, and these are just smoldering hot coals."

And honestly, at first I never thought Pete would have this much traction compared with personalities/policy powerhouses like Warren and Sanders on the ticket. Like Joe is weird, and creepy and offputting and far to center, but at least he has some personality. Pete looks like cardboard all the time.

Remember that to a lot of Democrat voters "very left wing" is a negative, not a positive. So they are grasping for someone who can defeat Trump without rocking the boat.

PantsB

TryCatcher wrote: »

Author and columnist Nathan J Robinson put up an opinion column of why Biden's "electability" is a myth on The Guardian. Going to the meat of the article, though people should read it, brutal as it is:

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.

Bold is the bias of that guy. It boils down to "Biden is establishment." It's an op-ed in "comment is free" for a reason.
edit

AngelHedgie wrote: »

Translation: I refuse to take responsibility for the conduct of my profession (the reason the "optics" of the email investigation were so bad was because the media continued to report on the story as if it was a scandal long after it was clear there was nothing there), and so I will blame the Democratic Party for our failures.

He's not a journalist, he's a PhD student with rich parents who fakes a British accent and wears a fedora.

Robinson’s persona is defined by this bookish extravagance. He favors formal clothing, but of the type that Austin Powers might if he were teaching Ivy League liberal arts. At the café, he wears a camel jacket, camel vest, paisley tie, gray suit pants, tasseled leather loafers, and thin-framed glasses, accented by a pinkie ring inscribed with the letter R — possibly from an ancestor, he doesn’t remember. His chestnut hair is in a 1970s wave with a few gray strands. It’s not just style; he’s prone to grandiose statements about Current Affairs, too: "The ambition is to supersede and discredit all other magazines."

He's the kind of douche who got a story published about how he didn't study that hard and got a perfect SAT score. "Comment is free" is usually crap for a reason.

Shorty

AngelHedgie wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

Author and columnist Nathan J Robinson put up an opinion column of why Biden's "electability" is a myth on The Guardian. Going to the meat of the article, though people should read it, brutal as it is:

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.

Translation: I refuse to take responsibility for the conduct of my profession (the reason the "optics" of the email investigation were so bad was because the media continued to report on the story as if it was a scandal long after it was clear there was nothing there), and so I will blame the Democratic Party for our failures.

seems like there's plenty of blame to go around, tbh

Styrofoam Sammich

AngelHedgie wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

Author and columnist Nathan J Robinson put up an opinion column of why Biden's "electability" is a myth on The Guardian. Going to the meat of the article, though people should read it, brutal as it is:

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.

Translation: I refuse to take responsibility for the conduct of my profession (the reason the "optics" of the email investigation were so bad was because the media continued to report on the story as if it was a scandal long after it was clear there was nothing there), and so I will blame the Democratic Party for our failures.

Dunno how one takes respnsiblity for the conduct of an entire industry, but youre mistaken if you think Current Affairs is an apologist for American news reporting.

AngelHedgie

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

Author and columnist Nathan J Robinson put up an opinion column of why Biden's "electability" is a myth on The Guardian. Going to the meat of the article, though people should read it, brutal as it is:

One reason Democrats are bad at politics is that they concern themselves too much with facts and not enough with impressions. With Clinton’s “emails scandal”, they tried to show Clinton had not technically violated the law, but having Barack Obama’s FBI actively investigating Clinton for possible criminal wrongdoing looked terrible regardless of the facts.

Left-leaning journalists and pundits love to “fact-check” Trump, as if proving that he has lied is in itself persuasive. But 2016 should have showed us how powerless “debunking” is next to “optics”. If you have a Democratic candidate who looks really corrupt, it doesn’t matter if they’re not. People don’t trust the press and they don’t trust politicians.

Translation: I refuse to take responsibility for the conduct of my profession (the reason the "optics" of the email investigation were so bad was because the media continued to report on the story as if it was a scandal long after it was clear there was nothing there), and so I will blame the Democratic Party for our failures.

Dunno how one takes respnsiblity for the conduct of an entire industry, but youre mistaken if you think Current Affairs is an apologist for American news reporting.

He's literally engaging in apologia there, by blaming Democrats for how "bad" the email server looked while saying nothing about how the media, though their conduct, shaped that appearance. So no, I don't think I'm mistaken here.