Democrats 2020

[Elixir]

Putin was able to delay the results, but Sanders won that one anyway.

The delegates are proportionally allocated. California will essentially give about 50% of their delegates to Biden, 50% to Sanders. But Biden cleaned house in the other states. The race is over. Biden will be the democratic candidate.

It is not over until it is over. A lot can happen in the next couple of months that might change the apparent outcome.

Yeah, that's what's exciting about having two septuagenarian candidates battling the actuarial tables.

 

[Derec]

It is not over until it is over. A lot can happen in the next couple of months that might change the apparent outcome.

True. Which is why Bloomchen should have stayed in until Florida at least.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is not over until it is over. A lot can happen in the next couple of months that might change the apparent outcome.

Yeah, that's what's exciting about having two septuagenarian candidates battling the actuarial tables.

Well, Biden may say he has coronavirus before the debate. Upon Biden cancelling, Bernie may then declare himself winner and be so happy about it he has another heart attack. Let's hope there is a way we can avoid the Bloomberg Nomination option if that happens.

 

[Derec]

Let's hope there is a way we can avoid the Bloomberg Nomination option if that happens.

Maybe it would be best to nominate somebody who is at very low COVID risk.




Although Bloomchen would be far from the worst non-Biden, non-Bernie choice Democrats could make.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's hope there is a way we can avoid the Bloomberg Nomination option if that happens.

Maybe it would be best to nominate somebody who is at very low COVID risk.

View attachment 26548


Although Bloomchen would be far from the worst non-Biden, non-Bernie choice Democrats could make.

Mayor Cheat? No thanks.

Show

Before I get myself in trouble let me clarify that I was half-joking. I was also half-serious.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

WTF? I gave no personal opinion. I only showed why people say that Gore claimed to have created the internet. I have no idea what Gore was thinking or why he expressed it the way he did. I'm not a fucking mind reader.

Now, do you or do you not agree that this statement by Gore is what caused people to say that Gore claimed the creation?

No I don't think exactly that. I think that most causes of events in life are mutli-factorial. So a person would be much more likely to hear that and take it out of context or choose one interpretation over another based on ignorance about Gore, based on what they know about what policies he initiated, what their Democrat or Republican echo chamber tells them or doesn't tell them, etc. Likely, they also only heard a phrase in a commercial for politics. So, I am sure that taking a snippet of that and putting it out there context-less would definitely impact some people so that those persons would have a higher probability of thinking that. But again, it's A AND B AND C AND D ==> E, not F ==> G.

Holy Eris, you don't need to agree with an interpretation to recognize that video is indeed the source of some people interpreting it that way. Just say it is the source of the misinterpretation.

Because it is where it sprung from, even if you think the people who got that from it were wrong.

 

[skepticalbip]

Accept your fantasy and ignore reality??? I think not.

Snopes is not spin. Bye.

If you were there you should recall the laugh-riot reaction to the claim that was actually made. Snopes IS literalist 'spin' in this case - it's clearly true that he didn't intend to, nor did he exactly claim to have invented the internet. But he used words that could easily be interpreted that way, and it constituted a massive blunder.

Also, the jokes begin during the Democratic primary so more likely by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Bill Bradley. They just continued into the general election. But you are right that the phrasing he used make it easily interpreted as,"I created the internet", much more so than being interpreted to mean, "I was one of several co-sponsors of a bill that financed the development of the worldwide computer network."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Many of the most effective "Republican attack adds" were derived from Democratic primary opponents attack adds.

 

[lpetrich]

Drama llama:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Refused To Campaign More For Bernie Sanders | HuffPost

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) turned down repeated requests from Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign to appear at events promoting the Vermont senator’s candidacy in recent weeks, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

...
“It was like pulling teeth to get her to New Hampshire,” said a second person who knew about the discussions.

...
Ocasio-Cortez’s apparent decision to avoid stumping for Sanders stands out precisely because of her intense work on his behalf in the fall and early winter. Ocasio-Cortez spoke for Sanders at 15 major rallies, beginning with a late-October appearance in Queens that drew an estimated 26,000 people. She spoke at a number of smaller Sanders events as well.

Ocasio-Cortez’s help proved especially critical in January, when Sanders was stuck in Washington participating in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Over the weekend of Jan. 24 to Jan. 26, Ocasio-Cortez headlined seven rallies for Sanders in Iowa and spoke at a canvass kickoff for his campaign.

...
But the first source said a disagreement over Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks in Iowa seemed to cool her on helping with the campaign.

...
After that, Ocasio-Cortez ― already annoyed with the campaign’s Jan. 23 decision to publicize the endorsement of controversial podcast host Joe Rogan ― grew less interested in helping Sanders’ campaign, according to the source.

Democratic presidential primary debate (March 15, 2020) - Ballotpedia - Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, but not Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[lpetrich]

I expect this to be my last post on this subject, because the tenth debate is likely the last one where any female candidates appear. The upcoming debate omits Tulsi Gabbard, and its two participants will most likely wear business suits.

A purpose was to show what clothing women can now wear in business or businesslike occasions. They are:

• Pantsuit: shirt, pants, jacket (like men's business suits without ties)
• Skirtsuit: shirt, skirt, jacket
• Jacketed dress: dress, jacket

Skirts and dresses were all knee-length here.

Sources of pictures:

• First debate: What We Learned From the 2020 Democratic Debates - The New York Times
• Second debate: Two Debates Down. Ten to Go. - The New York Times
• Third debate: Democratic debate: the best and most substantive answers of the night - Vox
• CNN climate Town Hall
• Fourth debate: Democratic Presidential Debate: Who Won the Fourth One? | SPIN
• Fifth debate: 5 Highlights From the Fifth Democratic Presidential Debate
• Sixth debate: Watch live: Democrats debate for 6th and final time in 2019 - Chicago Tribune
• Seventh debate: Democratic debate tonight: Here's everything you need to know
• Eighth debate: Democratic debate: Buttigieg, Sanders, Biden square off before New Hampshire primary
• Ninth debate: Ninth Democratic Debate Draws Record 19.7 Million Viewers – Variety
• Tenth debate: Tenth Democratic Debate Posts Big Viewership Numbers for CBS – Variety

All the men dressed in business suits with black or dark blue pants and jackets, and white or light blue shirts. However, they did have a lot of variety of ties, and only Andrew Yang had no tie whenever he appeared. Beto O'Rourke was tieless in the climate one but not in the other ones.

Elizabeth Warren wore pantsuits in all of them, with black pants and shirts, and red, purple, dark purple, and bluish-green jackets. This is also what she wore while campaigning.

Kamala Harris wore all-black pantsuits in the first three and the town hall, a dark blue pantsuit with a white shirt in the fourth one, and an off-white pantsuit with a purple shirt in the fifth one.

Amy Klobuchar wore a skirtsuit in the first one, a jacketed dress (or skirtsuit?) in the fourth to tenth ones, and pantsuits in the others. The skirtsuit had a black skirt and jacket and a red shirt, the jacketed dresses were all dark purple, all blue, and all red, and the pantsuits had black pants and shirts, and red and blue-green jackets.

Kirsten Gillibrand wore a blue dress in the first one and a red dress in the second one.

Tulsi Gabbard wore pantsuits in the first, second, fourth, and fifth ones, where she appeared. In the first one, black pants and shirt and a red jacket, and in the second, fourth, and fifth ones, all white.

Marianne Williamson wore pantsuits in the first and second one. In the first one, light gray-cyan pants and jacket and some print shirt, and in the second one, black pants and jacket and white shirt.

 

[lpetrich]

Warren expected to refrain from endorsing Biden, Sanders during primary: report | TheHill
noting
Elizabeth Warren Is Unlikely to Endorse Bernie Sanders. Here’s Why. - The New York Times

The spirited presidential campaign caused some rifts between the two liberals, including their clash in January over whether Mr. Sanders once told her that a woman couldn’t be elected president in 2020, an episode that deeply troubled her.

Also, EW's campaigners allegedly think that BS is unlikely to win, and that supporting him is not worth the trouble.

Some of the Vermont senator’s prominent online supporters have clamored for Ms. Warren to get behind his campaign, given how closely the two politicians are aligned on policy matters.

But Mr. Sanders’s highest-profile surrogate, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, said she understood Ms. Warren’s hesitation, and suggested it was a teachable moment for the left.

“I always want to see us come together as a progressive wing,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think that’s important and where we draw strength from. But at the same time, I come from the lens of an organizer, and if someone doesn’t do what you want, you don’t blame them — you ask why. And you don’t demand that answer of that person — you reflect. And that reflection is where you can grow.”

Bernie Sanders Offers Joe Biden A Path To Party Unity : NPR

"While our campaign has won the ideological debate, we are losing the debate over electability," Sanders said. The recent underdog added that he disagrees that Biden is the stronger candidate to take on President Trump, "but that is what millions of Democrats and independents today believe."

...
Sanders has acknowledged that the movement he promised to deliver him the nomination is not showing up in big enough numbers. But he's warning Democrats not to write off the strongest parts of his coalition — young voters and Latinos, particularly emphasizing the former on Wednesday: "We are winning the generational debate."

"Today, I say to the Democratic establishment, in order to win in the future, you need to win the voters who represent the future of our country," Sanders said. "And you must speak to the issues of concern to them."

 

[southernhybrid]

I read an article in the NYT earlier today about the friendship between Bernie and Joe. I am optimistic that Bernie will unite with Joe, after this debate. I think he learned his lesson in 2016 after what appeared to many of us to be his lukewarm endorsement of Clinton. Hopefully, the party will soon unite to defeat the worst president ever. That has got to be the most important thing right now.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Warren expected to refrain from endorsing Biden, Sanders during primary: report | TheHill
noting
Elizabeth Warren Is Unlikely to Endorse Bernie Sanders. Here’s Why. - The New York Times

Also, EW's campaigners allegedly think that BS is unlikely to win, and that supporting him is not worth the trouble.


Bernie Sanders Offers Joe Biden A Path To Party Unity : NPR

"While our campaign has won the ideological debate, we are losing the debate over electability," Sanders said. The recent underdog added that he disagrees that Biden is the stronger candidate to take on President Trump, "but that is what millions of Democrats and independents today believe."

...
Sanders has acknowledged that the movement he promised to deliver him the nomination is not showing up in big enough numbers. But he's warning Democrats not to write off the strongest parts of his coalition — young voters and Latinos, particularly emphasizing the former on Wednesday: "We are winning the generational debate."

"Today, I say to the Democratic establishment, in order to win in the future, you need to win the voters who represent the future of our country," Sanders said. "And you must speak to the issues of concern to them."

Why is it that the far left's "path to party unity" always requires the moderates to compromise and take it up the tail pipe but no compromise from the far left? Every time there is a major vote, more moderates win than the far left. Biden right now has 1.5 million more votes than BS. When is the left going to start saying that maybe to unite the party and defeat Trump, that we all need to compromise.

 

[Copernicus]

...
Why is it that the far left's "path to party unity" always requires the moderates to compromise and take it up the tail pipe but no compromise from the far left? Every time there is a major vote, more moderates win than the far left. Biden right now has 1.5 million more votes than BS. When is the left going to start saying that maybe to unite the party and defeat Trump, that we all need to compromise.

There is a tendency among moderates to become complacent about the loyalty of various constituencies, for example the youth vote. The nominating process is now coming down to who Joe Biden will choose as a running mate. That is why, to the delight of the Republicans, Joe Biden fell for a reporter's gotcha question about whether he would be willing to have a Republican as a running mate. It delighted them, not because anyone really believed he would do it, but because that was a sure way to split off a huge chunk of disaffected young progressive voters, many of whom are already claiming they may not vote for Biden. It is not enough to get Bernie Sanders' endorsement.

Biden needs to pick a running mate who will appeal to the left of his own core constituency. He is probably more inclined to choose someone like Amy Klobuchar, who is more compatible with his way of thinking but won't attract any new voters. Moderates are already in his pocket. Progressives, who showed up enthusiastically to vote for Sanders or Warren, will be dragging their feet to the polls in November. It will come down to just getting rid of Donald Trump, and not much more. That is familiar turf to Donald Trump, and will give him the best hope of getting reelected.

Sanders has said that he would not run on the same ticket as Biden, and that would be a really stupid tactic for the party, if he did. Biden doesn't have many good alternatives other than Elizabeth Warren. My guess is that he will pick either Klobuchar or Harris, because Warren might push away more centrist independents and Republicans who would like to get rid of Trump but fear the kinds of changes that Warren and Sanders have been advocating. Whoever Biden chooses, there is a good chance that that person will end up in the presidency. I'm not confident that Biden is fit enough to survive a term as president.

 

[Harry Bosch]

...
Why is it that the far left's "path to party unity" always requires the moderates to compromise and take it up the tail pipe but no compromise from the far left? Every time there is a major vote, more moderates win than the far left. Biden right now has 1.5 million more votes than BS. When is the left going to start saying that maybe to unite the party and defeat Trump, that we all need to compromise.

There is a tendency among moderates to become complacent about the loyalty of various constituencies, for example the youth vote. The nominating process is now coming down to who Joe Biden will choose as a running mate. That is why, to the delight of the Republicans, Joe Biden fell for a reporter's gotcha question about whether he would be willing to have a Republican as a running mate. It delighted them, not because anyone really believed he would do it, but because that was a sure way to split off a huge chunk of disaffected young progressive voters, many of whom are already claiming they may not vote for Biden. It is not enough to get Bernie Sanders' endorsement.

Biden needs to pick a running mate who will appeal to the left of his own core constituency. He is probably more inclined to choose someone like Amy Klobuchar, who is more compatible with his way of thinking but won't attract any new voters. Moderates are already in his pocket. Progressives, who showed up enthusiastically to vote for Sanders or Warren, will be dragging their feet to the polls in November. It will come down to just getting rid of Donald Trump, and not much more. That is familiar turf to Donald Trump, and will give him the best hope of getting reelected.

Sanders has said that he would not run on the same ticket as Biden, and that would be a really stupid tactic for the party, if he did. Biden doesn't have many good alternatives other than Elizabeth Warren. My guess is that he will pick either Klobuchar or Harris, because Warren might push away more centrist independents and Republicans who would like to get rid of Trump but fear the kinds of changes that Warren and Sanders have been advocating. Whoever Biden chooses, there is a good chance that that person will end up in the presidency. I'm not confident that Biden is fit enough to survive a term as president.

I think that Biden needs to pick a VP who is younger and visionary. I really like Amy. But think that Stacey Abrams would be the bomb. She's very bright. I don't think that the far left warriors can get too bent out of shape by Abrams. While I don't think that Biden needs help nailing down the black vote; SA will unite the democratic party as much as is possible.

 

[Derec]

I think that Biden needs to pick a VP who is younger and visionary. I really like Amy. But think that Stacey Abrams would be the bomb. She's very bright. I don't think that the far left warriors can get too bent out of shape by Abrams. While I don't think that Biden needs help nailing down the black vote; SA will unite the democratic party as much as is possible.

Stacey Abrams is definitely not experienced enough. She should have run for Senate and showed that she can win a statewide election first. Or ANY contested election for that matter.

 

[Rhea]

There is a tendency among moderates to become complacent about the loyalty of various constituencies, for example the youth vote.

This statement mystifies me.
They said it in 2016, too. ""The establishment took us for granted!"


Are they kidding me, here? I'm not even a moderate, I'm a progressive. But are they kidding me, here?


You know what?
YES, I was complacent about thinking these progressives wanted some progress more than they wanted regressive.
YES, I was complacent in thinking these people could do math.
YES, I was complacent about thinking these progressives knew the difference between the party of liberal judges and the party of fascist judges.
YES, I was complacent in thinking these people knew the difference between a Democracy and a Theocracy



Yes, I took for granted that you would vote in your self interest instead of against it.
Yes, I took for granted that you were at least as smart as the people who lived in non-swing states to know that a personal visit didn't matter, what mattered were the policies.



Hoooo-boy, was I ever wrong. You shore showed me.

Progressives, who showed up enthusiastically to vote for Sanders or Warren, will be dragging their feet to the polls in November. It will come down to just getting rid of Donald Trump, and not much more.

I took for granted that this was a desireable outcome.
And now after seeing him in action, you're saying they are ready to make the same choice again.

Cutting off the baby's nose to spite the bathwater, much?


Yes, I took for granted they were wiser than that. But they cleared things up about that, I guess? I will be careful to not take that for granted again.

 

[Politesse]

There is a tendency among moderates to become complacent about the loyalty of various constituencies, for example the youth vote.

This statement mystifies me.
They said it in 2016, too. ""The establishment took us for granted!"


Are they kidding me, here? I'm not even a moderate, I'm a progressive. But are they kidding me, here?


You know what?
YES, I was complacent about thinking these progressives wanted some progress more than they wanted regressive.
YES, I was complacent in thinking these people could do math.
YES, I was complacent about thinking these progressives knew the difference between the party of liberal judges and the party of fascist judges.
YES, I was complacent in thinking these people knew the difference between a Democracy and a Theocracy



Yes, I took for granted that you would vote in your self interest instead of against it.
Yes, I took for granted that you were at least as smart as the people who lived in non-swing states to know that a personal visit didn't matter, what mattered were the policies.



Hoooo-boy, was I ever wrong. You shore showed me.

And you can continue to wag your finger and "tsk" about it, or you can face reality. Young voters lean liberal, but they don't trust the Democratic Party to advocate for them, partly because it's head honchos constantly mock them publically and scorn the idea that youth votes are even important to try for... until they are. We're smart enough to see that giving the DNC a blank check always, always results in either non-action or backwards movement, and that genuinely liberal projects are only pursued when and if the Party is facing considerable pressure, election-losing pressure, from Progressive critics.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is a tendency among moderates to become complacent about the loyalty of various constituencies, for example the youth vote.

This statement mystifies me.
They said it in 2016, too. ""The establishment took us for granted!"


Are they kidding me, here? I'm not even a moderate, I'm a progressive. But are they kidding me, here?


You know what?
YES, I was complacent about thinking these progressives wanted some progress more than they wanted regressive.
YES, I was complacent in thinking these people could do math.
YES, I was complacent about thinking these progressives knew the difference between the party of liberal judges and the party of fascist judges.
YES, I was complacent in thinking these people knew the difference between a Democracy and a Theocracy



Yes, I took for granted that you would vote in your self interest instead of against it.
Yes, I took for granted that you were at least as smart as the people who lived in non-swing states to know that a personal visit didn't matter, what mattered were the policies.



Hoooo-boy, was I ever wrong. You shore showed me.

And you can continue to wag your finger and "tsk" about it, or you can face reality. Young voters lean liberal, but they don't trust the Democratic Party to advocate for them, partly because it's head honchos constantly mock them publically and scorn the idea that youth votes are even important to try for... until they are. We're smart enough to see that giving the DNC a blank check always, always results in either non-action or backwards movement, and that genuinely liberal projects are only pursued when and if the Party is facing considerable pressure, election-losing pressure, from Progressive critics.

If 100% true, why did younger voters vote in greater numbers for a moderate, Obama, rather than Sanders? The younger voter turnout is smaller for Sanders than it was under Obama.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why is it that the far left's "path to party unity" always requires the moderates to compromise and take it up the tail pipe but no compromise from the far left? Every time there is a major vote, more moderates win than the far left. Biden right now has 1.5 million more votes than BS. When is the left going to start saying that maybe to unite the party and defeat Trump, that we all need to compromise.

I think that it is that extremists are more likely to be idiologs than moderates are. Idiologs of any stripe do not compromise, moderates do or they couldn't call themselves moderate.