Democrats 2020

[Derec]

‘Not one woman got that kind of coverage’: Beto backlash begins - POLITICO: "Many Democrats see a double standard in the fanfare surrounding O’Rourke’s 2020 campaign launch."

Since announcing her 2020 run, Elizabeth Warren has dispensed three major policy proposals, held 30 campaign events and visited nearly a dozen states.

Since announcing his 2020 run, Beto O’Rourke has made one visit to Iowa, where he vaguely outlined his positions, including from atop a cafe counter.

Guess who’s getting the star treatment.

Let me guess, it's β. But I do not think it's about gender. More likely it's about his youth and charisma. He has rock star qualities, Hell, he was even in a band! Warren is more of a policy wonk.

“I feel like the media is always captivated by the person they seem to think is a phenom: Bernie. Trump. Beto. But they always seem to be white men who are phenoms. In a year where we have more choices than ever, more women and more persons of color than ever, none of them seem to be deemed a phenom,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic political consultant.

Well Obama was definitely a phenom, and he is only half white.

“It’s a replay of Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. Instead, it’s Beto O’Rourke in the Bernie Sanders role, to the detriment of every woman running. Not one woman got that kind of coverage. Not one. Not Kamala. Not Kirsten. Not Elizabeth Warren. Not Amy Klobuchar in a blizzard.”

I disagree about Kamala. She got a lot of coverage. As to the others, there are plenty of male candidates that are not getting the rock star treatment. Only they can't play the gender card as an excuse. By the way, last bit of coverage Klobuchar got was on how she (mis)treats her staff and how she once ate salad with a comb.

“So what have we learned?” Marsh continued. “Nothing.”

What does Marsh think we should learn?

Democratic pollster and strategist Celinda Lake argued that it wasn’t just O’Rourke who was getting special treatment — she says there’s a broader gender imbalance at play. When it comes to substance, she said the women running have fielded more questions on their records and have received the brunt of negative stories to date.
“I think if you look at the pattern, there is a real distinction between the way men were covered and the way the women were covered. There’s a huge double standard,” Lake said. “With women, many, many more negatives were raised and the men were treated like the second coming. I’m surprised that this is continuing in 2019, after the year of the woman.”

Is that really true? I have my doubts.

 

[ZiprHead]

Prejudice?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think you don't. You have preconceived notions about me and react in a kneejerk manner.

You're kidding, right? It's not like you don;t have a history here.

 

[southernhybrid]

And, I'm sorry, but once you're in your seventies, unless you are totally unlike anyone I've ever met, your energy span for effective work performance during the day has narrowed significantly.

Maybe we should tell that to some of the members of SCOTUS. At least one was in his 90s before he died in office. The notorious RBG is 85. I'm not saying that's a good thing but I have known people in their 70s and early 80s who were a lot sharper than most younger folks I've known. And, since the current idiot in office is also in his 70s, if it takes an old guy to take him out, so be it.

People age very differently from each other. I've cared for patients who had dementia who were in their 50s, and I've also cared for people in their 80s who were sharp as a tack, so I'm not sure whether age should be an issue in this election or not. At this point, I think experience is far more important that the age of the candidate. I once knew a man who was 96 who still grew his own vegetables, remodeled his home and took care of his dying wife, who was 20 years young than him. All, I'm saying is that not everyone in their 70s is necessarily too old to function as well as many people in their 40s or 50s. Trump is old, but he never even had experience in government and he isn't very smart, but he's never been very smart. He just has the same talent as a good sleazy used car salesman, who is able to sell shitty cars to naive people.

Despite being a feminist myself, I'm almost at the point where I want a man to clean up the mess that the idiot in the WH has created. Why should a woman be expected to clean up after a man?

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, my take is that democrats are just hungry for a new optimistic and energetic new candidate. I voted for HRC. But I just feel that the dominate democrats today like HRC, Sanders and Warren are just old, boring and completely uninspiring. All that I ever hear is what they hate or how the world is going to end. I do really like Harris. And she didn't get the fanfare that Beto got. But she's a frontrunner from day one. Everyone knew she was running. Klouber just doesn't have the national pub yet, although I think this will change. Beto offers hope. People get excited about things like that.

This kind of vacuous nonsense is what will doom the party like it always does. People who are really energized by Bernie are completely unimpressed by HRC and see Warren as a lukewarm compromise, and you putting them all in the same camp as "old, boring, and completely uninspiring" reveals that the average liberal Democrat is inspired not by the record or positions of a candidate, but by their demeanor. What they prefer isn't a candidate who gets them angry and ready to fight, but one who calms their spirits and preserves whatever level of comfort they've become accustomed to. Bernie Sanders and, say, Joe Biden are on essentially different wavelengths as far as their politics. But you look at them both and think: old white guys, they must be yesterday's news. Beto, who lost an election to one of the most vile and unlikable human beings on the planet, rides around on a skateboard and does the dabbing pose that all the cool kids are talking about these days, so: he offers hope.

If the DNC had any sense whatsoever, they would just rally behind their fucking frontrunner, the one who has consistently topped every poll on overall popularity, has accumulated millions in individual donations in record time, is filling stadiums wherever he goes, is completely uncorruptible by big money from the military or the oil companies, has been consistently on the right side of pretty much every issue decades before they were even part of the national conversation, and actually represents all the things the party has claimed to advocate for decades but failed to deliver in any lasting way. If they could just bolster this guy the way they did for a slouch like John Kerry or HRC, tap into the energy and enthusiasm--and, yes, the anger--he channels, they could be at the forefront of a political revolution instead of a return to the status quo.

Yes, Bernie Sanders is an old fart. But he's the only one in the race that cares about working people, poor people, innocent people in other countries affected by our policies, and marginalized people of any minority status, not just the ones that are popular this year. Everyone else, at some point or another, has revealed that they are in the end just another prosecutor who locks up non-violent offenders and treats prisoners like slave labor... until they are running for President. Just another oil-funded pretty boy whose rich dad named him something that sounded ethnic so he could skim votes from the Hispanic population... until they are running for President. Just another "third way", across-the-aisle, Return To Normalcy fixture of the old guard who has betrayed everything liberals stand for at some point in his long career... until they are running for President. Now that the race is on, everyone is suddenly a progressive, as if this is how they've always talked, how they naturally think, and not a calculated shift in their rhetoric meant to snatch support away from the guy who ACTUALLY has always talked and thought like this! If we go all-in for Bernie now, while he's still fucking breathing and has a genuine shot, that's the first step in galvanizing the huge base of 18-34 year-olds who are disillusioned with the Dems and American politics in general, and need to see that a person with integrity and unwavering principles can be elected to President in their lifetime. That's the long game. Establish the precedent, rally up the sentiment that everybody knows is waiting to be unleashed, that's been growing since 2015 and isn't going anywhere. Change the party to encompass the values it's supposed to be championing. When the party is marshaled against the candidate who truly champions its values, something is wrong.

 

[Terrell]

If you need to be inspired to vote for the Dems, enjoy Trump's second term.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you need to be inspired to vote for the Dems, enjoy Trump's second term.

So if I'm not inspired by the Democrat candidate the alternative is New York City Democrat masquerading as a Republican.

If you want to attract those outside your party, instead of repeating the mistake of 2016 try fielding a good candidate.

 

[Terrell]

If you need to be inspired to vote for the Dems, enjoy Trump's second term.

So if I'm not inspired by the Democrat candidate the alternative is New York City Democrat masquerading as a Republican.

If you want to attract those outside your party, instead of repeating the mistake of 2016 try fielding a good candidate.

Religious conservatives, as well as republicans in general are getting Federal Judges & so far 2 Supreme Court justices that they want. How Trump may personally feel isn't relevant if he's giving them the judges & policies they want.

You're not going to get a perfect candidate ever. Some might be inspiring some not, but one of the two parties is likely going to be closer to your overall views than the other. If you want at least some of the policies you like, or to block policies you dislike, you need to be willing to fall in line. If you won't do that, for whatever reason, don't complain when the party in power (in this case the Rs) do things you don't like. Practicality should be placed before idealism if you want to actually have policy accomplishments. Republicans figured this out decades ago.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you need to be inspired to vote for the Dems, enjoy Trump's second term.

So if I'm not inspired by the Democrat candidate the alternative is New York City Democrat masquerading as a Republican.

If you want to attract those outside your party, instead of repeating the mistake of 2016 try fielding a good candidate.

Religious conservatives, as well as republicans in general are getting Federal Judges & so far 2 Supreme Court justices that they want. How Trump may personally feel isn't relevant if he's giving them the judges & policies they want.

You're not going to get a perfect candidate ever. Some might be inspiring some not, but one of the two parties is likely going to be closer to your overall views than the other. If you want at least some of the policies you like, or to block policies you dislike, you need to be willing to fall in line. If you won't do that, for whatever reason, don't complain when the party in power (in this case the Rs) do things you don't like. Practicality should be placed before idealism if you want to actually have policy accomplishments. Republicans figured this out decades ago.

I wrote "try fielding a good candidate", you responded with "You're not going to get a perfect candidate" - where did those goalposts go? Or are you saying that the quest for a good candidate is as impossible as the quest for a perfect candidate so you won't even try? Have you given up on trying for even something good? How about mediocre? Are you going to say "we stand for bad candidates, but you have to support us because we're the lesser of two evils"?

 

[Terrell]

Religious conservatives, as well as republicans in general are getting Federal Judges & so far 2 Supreme Court justices that they want. How Trump may personally feel isn't relevant if he's giving them the judges & policies they want.

You're not going to get a perfect candidate ever. Some might be inspiring some not, but one of the two parties is likely going to be closer to your overall views than the other. If you want at least some of the policies you like, or to block policies you dislike, you need to be willing to fall in line. If you won't do that, for whatever reason, don't complain when the party in power (in this case the Rs) do things you don't like. Practicality should be placed before idealism if you want to actually have policy accomplishments. Republicans figured this out decades ago.

I wrote "try fielding a good candidate", you responded with "You're not going to get a perfect candidate" - where did those goalposts go? Or are you saying that the quest for a good candidate is as impossible as the quest for a perfect candidate so you won't even try? Have you given up on trying for even something good? How about mediocre? Are you going to say "we stand for bad candidates, but you have to support us because we're the lesser of two evils"?

What are you defining as good then? My point is that no matter who is fielded there will be at least one thing about them you don't like, probably more than that the more you know about them. I was a little OTT in saying perfect, but I think my point is valid since there will always be flaws in candidates. What's the border between a flawed D and a bad D, and why? The alternative to Democrats in power in the U.S. is Republicans in power. One of those parties is going to be in power for the foreseeable future. No 3rd party has gotten even 1 earned electoral vote since 1968 (George Wallace).

So yeah, don't expect to be inspired. Don't forget that the President needs help from Congress which will require even a Dem to compromise. The reason is simple, every state gets the same number of Senators regardless of population and many of the less populous states lean/solid Republican. WY gets the same two votes as CA, even though Los Angeles has more people than WY. In addition the election will be decided in just a few states, and those states aren't likely to be as liberal as most of the posters on this board. So if you want Trump out, you're going to have to settle.

Sometimes there is no good option, and the lesser of two evils is the best you're going to get.

 

[Rhea]

I wrote "try fielding a good candidate", you responded with "You're not going to get a perfect candidate" - where did those goalposts go? Or are you saying that the quest for a good candidate is as impossible as the quest for a perfect candidate so you won't even try?

I think a lot of progressives labor under the false notion that they are a majority. It’s been pretty clear that the not-right needs a coalition of the left and the center-left and a bit of the center to win. I felt like in the last election, a lot of the progressives forgot that, and decided that they would rather have Trump and a Republican congress than even a center-left president.

I will probably never agree with (nor even understand) those who decided to not vote against Trump - they were willing to have him. My progressive heart has been bleeding ever since that they didn’t understand we were in a coalition with the center to keep the society from going rightward. And they chose to let it go rightward. For all of their professed reasons - the farthest left chose to go rightward.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, my take is that democrats are just hungry for a new optimistic and energetic new candidate. I voted for HRC. But I just feel that the dominate democrats today like HRC, Sanders and Warren are just old, boring and completely uninspiring. All that I ever hear is what they hate or how the world is going to end. I do really like Harris. And she didn't get the fanfare that Beto got. But she's a frontrunner from day one. Everyone knew she was running. Klouber just doesn't have the national pub yet, although I think this will change. Beto offers hope. People get excited about things like that.

This kind of vacuous nonsense is what will doom the party like it always does. People who are really energized by Bernie are completely unimpressed by HRC and see Warren as a lukewarm compromise, and you putting them all in the same camp as "old, boring, and completely uninspiring" reveals that the average liberal Democrat is inspired not by the record or positions of a candidate, but by their demeanor. What they prefer isn't a candidate who gets them angry and ready to fight, but one who calms their spirits and preserves whatever level of comfort they've become accustomed to. Bernie Sanders and, say, Joe Biden are on essentially different wavelengths as far as their politics. But you look at them both and think: old white guys, they must be yesterday's news. Beto, who lost an election to one of the most vile and unlikable human beings on the planet, rides around on a skateboard and does the dabbing pose that all the cool kids are talking about these days, so: he offers hope.

If the DNC had any sense whatsoever, they would just rally behind their fucking frontrunner, the one who has consistently topped every poll on overall popularity, has accumulated millions in individual donations in record time, is filling stadiums wherever he goes, is completely uncorruptible by big money from the military or the oil companies, has been consistently on the right side of pretty much every issue decades before they were even part of the national conversation, and actually represents all the things the party has claimed to advocate for decades but failed to deliver in any lasting way. If they could just bolster this guy the way they did for a slouch like John Kerry or HRC, tap into the energy and enthusiasm--and, yes, the anger--he channels, they could be at the forefront of a political revolution instead of a return to the status quo.

Yes, Bernie Sanders is an old fart. But he's the only one in the race that cares about working people, poor people, innocent people in other countries affected by our policies, and marginalized people of any minority status, not just the ones that are popular this year. Everyone else, at some point or another, has revealed that they are in the end just another prosecutor who locks up non-violent offenders and treats prisoners like slave labor... until they are running for President. Just another oil-funded pretty boy whose rich dad named him something that sounded ethnic so he could skim votes from the Hispanic population... until they are running for President. Just another "third way", across-the-aisle, Return To Normalcy fixture of the old guard who has betrayed everything liberals stand for at some point in his long career... until they are running for President. Now that the race is on, everyone is suddenly a progressive, as if this is how they've always talked, how they naturally think, and not a calculated shift in their rhetoric meant to snatch support away from the guy who ACTUALLY has always talked and thought like this! If we go all-in for Bernie now, while he's still fucking breathing and has a genuine shot, that's the first step in galvanizing the huge base of 18-34 year-olds who are disillusioned with the Dems and American politics in general, and need to see that a person with integrity and unwavering principles can be elected to President in their lifetime. That's the long game. Establish the precedent, rally up the sentiment that everybody knows is waiting to be unleashed, that's been growing since 2015 and isn't going anywhere. Change the party to encompass the values it's supposed to be championing. When the party is marshaled against the candidate who truly champions its values, something is wrong.

??? Were you asleep during the 2016 Presidential campaign? The democrats elected a boring policy wonk with little charisma and lost big time to an asshole. We won the popular vote - but not by a large enough margin. Democratic turnout was way down in 2016. The republicans were more motivated and they won with a smaller vote. These are facts. Whenever dems run a "boring candidate" (HRC, Kerry, Dukokis, Gore) our turnout is low. Candidates who are inspiring (Clinton, Obama) get a higher turnout. Due to EC, the dems can't win without a significantly higher majority of votes than the republicans. These are facts.

Secondly, I haven't seen any polls showing that Bernie is the frontrunner. But he may be. He has the creds. He has great name recognition today. However, are you honestly suggesting that his challengers should drop out and we just coronate Sanders?! Wow have the tables been turned. In late 2016, the democratic party took heat for wanting a quick primary election for HRC since she was the frontrunner then.

Third: I really don't think that you understand joe sixpack from the flyover state. They aren't motivated by free health care and college! They are motivated by their religion, their guns, protection from immigration, and Nascar. They aren't going to vote for a socialist!

I'm sorry, but I'm a realist. 18-34 year olds who want free stuff can't carry an election. Unless there is a split in the republican party or a severe recession, Bernie would get crushed by Trump in the general.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I wrote "try fielding a good candidate", you responded with "You're not going to get a perfect candidate" - where did those goalposts go? Or are you saying that the quest for a good candidate is as impossible as the quest for a perfect candidate so you won't even try?

I think a lot of progressives labor under the false notion that they are a majority. It’s been pretty clear that the not-right needs a coalition of the left and the center-left and a bit of the center to win. I felt like in the last election, a lot of the progressives forgot that, and decided that they would rather have Trump and a Republican congress than even a center-left president.

I will probably never agree with (nor even understand) those who decided to not vote against Trump - they were willing to have him. My progressive heart has been bleeding ever since that they didn’t understand we were in a coalition with the center to keep the society from going rightward. And they chose to let it go rightward. For all of their professed reasons - the farthest left chose to go rightward.

Totally agreed with this post. I sometimes wonder if some on the left hate democratic moderates more than Trump! Democrats must have a large tent to win. The republicans have a large advantage due to the electoral college. It's easier to motivate republicans due to their desire to compromise in order to gain the supreme court. We can only win if we unite and vote.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Religious conservatives, as well as republicans in general are getting Federal Judges & so far 2 Supreme Court justices that they want. How Trump may personally feel isn't relevant if he's giving them the judges & policies they want.

You're not going to get a perfect candidate ever. Some might be inspiring some not, but one of the two parties is likely going to be closer to your overall views than the other. If you want at least some of the policies you like, or to block policies you dislike, you need to be willing to fall in line. If you won't do that, for whatever reason, don't complain when the party in power (in this case the Rs) do things you don't like. Practicality should be placed before idealism if you want to actually have policy accomplishments. Republicans figured this out decades ago.

I wrote "try fielding a good candidate", you responded with "You're not going to get a perfect candidate" - where did those goalposts go? Or are you saying that the quest for a good candidate is as impossible as the quest for a perfect candidate so you won't even try? Have you given up on trying for even something good? How about mediocre? Are you going to say "we stand for bad candidates, but you have to support us because we're the lesser of two evils"?

What are you defining as good then?

Someone who has at least some appeal outside of the Democratic Party.

My point is that no matter who is fielded there will be at least one thing about them you don't like, probably more than that the more you know about them.

See above regarding "good" versus "perfect".

Sometimes there is no good option, and the lesser of two evils is the best you're going to get.

Then don't repeat the mistake of 2016.

 

[PyramidHead]

??? Were you asleep during the 2016 Presidential campaign? The democrats elected a boring policy wonk with little charisma and lost big time to an asshole. We won the popular vote - but not by a large enough margin. Democratic turnout was way down in 2016. The republicans were more motivated and they won with a smaller vote. These are facts. Whenever dems run a "boring candidate" (HRC, Kerry, Dukokis, Gore) our turnout is low. Candidates who are inspiring (Clinton, Obama) get a higher turnout. Due to EC, the dems can't win without a significantly higher majority of votes than the republicans. These are facts.

All the more reason to favor someone who isn't a boring policy wonk. Your implication here is apparently that the socialist from Vermont is a boring policy wonk, which is a bizarre take. Call the guy whatever you want, but if anything he's overly passionate and idealistic. Policy minutiae is the domain of people like Klobuchar and Booker.

Secondly, I haven't seen any polls showing that Bernie is the frontrunner. But he may be. He has the creds. He has great name recognition today. However, are you honestly suggesting that his challengers should drop out and we just coronate Sanders?! Wow have the tables been turned. In late 2016, the democratic party took heat for wanting a quick primary election for HRC since she was the frontrunner then.

You're not wrong, at this stage it would be too much to ask and I'm not suggesting we just skip the primaries of course. But the party establishment is positively hostile to Sanders while courting (and funding) the dullest and most disingenuous automatons like Beto just so he can get as much money as Sanders got through individual donations from the working class.

Louis Susman, former U.S. ambassador to the U.K. and a lead bundler for Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, has been speaking with political financiers from across the country, including those in the financial industry, to see if they will invest in O’Rourke’s campaign, according to people with direct knowledge of the outreach.

The former Obama backer has put together a string of senior party donors who are willing to contribute to the former congressman’s presidential operation, said the people, who declined to be named due to the conversations being deemed private.

In an interview with CNBC, Susman says the people he’s talked to about donating to the campaign are “family and friends.” He added “everyone is excited to go,” while noting he’s been in touch with O’Rourke’s campaign and coordinating his efforts with them. He declined to say who these donors are or which industry they are from.

“Whatever I do, I do it in coordination with the campaign,” Susman said. He said there’s no discussion about him becoming a campaign finance chairman and he has not recently spoken with O’Rourke himself. He’s confident the former Texas Senate candidate will be successful in the fundraising circuit.

“I don’t think, whether it’s through large bundlers or small donors, that he’s going to have a tough time raising money,” Susman said.

He also did not rule out holding fundraisers for O’Rourke, noting “everything is in the planning stages.”

“The team is focused on these four days in Iowa, and everything is going to develop from there,” he added and then abruptly ended the phone call.

Meanwhile, his daughter, Pfizer executive Sally Susman, is supporting another 2020 hopeful: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. She’s hosting a fundraiser for Gillibrand in March at her home, and tickets range from $1,000 to $2,700.

This is the machinery of the party being called into action for Beto O'Rourke, who has no actual principles or experience but can give speeches while awkwardly standing on a diner countertop.

Third: I really don't think that you understand joe sixpack from the flyover state. They aren't motivated by free health care and college! They are motivated by their religion, their guns, protection from immigration, and Nascar. They aren't going to vote for a socialist!

My dear Harry, they aren't going to vote for a Democrat. To move forward as a society and as a civilization, we need to stop trying to win over people who want "protection from immigration", because those people are beyond anyone's help and don't deserve to be accommodated.

I'm sorry, but I'm a realist. 18-34 year olds who want free stuff can't carry an election. Unless there is a split in the republican party or a severe recession, Bernie would get crushed by Trump in the general.

While I disagree with your assessment, I actually think it's pretty likely that we will see both between now and election day 2020.

 

[Worldtraveller]

If you need to be inspired to vote for the Dems, enjoy Trump's second term.

So if I'm not inspired by the Democrat candidate the alternative is New York City Democrat masquerading as a Republican.

If you want to attract those outside your party, instead of repeating the mistake of 2016 try fielding a good candidate.

Are you saying Trump is a better candidate than any of the Dem contenders? Realistically, until and unless the system changes, those are your choices (and just having a third (or more) candidate won't change that until we start changing the actual voting system at the state level.

My take on the 2020 Dem field:

I don't give a shit who winds up being the DEM nomination, to be honest. I'll vote for whoever it is over the shitgibbon in the WH. I probably won't vote in the DEM primary (I usually stay registered as a republican and try to affect things more from that side).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you need to be inspired to vote for the Dems, enjoy Trump's second term.

So if I'm not inspired by the Democrat candidate the alternative is New York City Democrat masquerading as a Republican.

If you want to attract those outside your party, instead of repeating the mistake of 2016 try fielding a good candidate.

Are you saying Trump is a better candidate than any of the Dem contenders?

There were better contenders in 2016 as well, but they didn't make it through the primary process. I see a few that I actually like for the 2020 race, but as I'm not a Democrat I can only do so much about whether or not they do something smart or they do something stupid.

 

[J842P]

Well, my take is that democrats are just hungry for a new optimistic and energetic new candidate. I voted for HRC. But I just feel that the dominate democrats today like HRC, Sanders and Warren are just old, boring and completely uninspiring. All that I ever hear is what they hate or how the world is going to end. I do really like Harris. And she didn't get the fanfare that Beto got. But she's a frontrunner from day one. Everyone knew she was running. Klouber just doesn't have the national pub yet, although I think this will change. Beto offers hope. People get excited about things like that.

This kind of vacuous nonsense is what will doom the party like it always does. People who are really energized by Bernie are completely unimpressed by HRC and see Warren as a lukewarm compromise, and you putting them all in the same camp as "old, boring, and completely uninspiring" reveals that the average liberal Democrat is inspired not by the record or positions of a candidate, but by their demeanor. What they prefer isn't a candidate who gets them angry and ready to fight, but one who calms their spirits and preserves whatever level of comfort they've become accustomed to. Bernie Sanders and, say, Joe Biden are on essentially different wavelengths as far as their politics. But you look at them both and think: old white guys, they must be yesterday's news. Beto, who lost an election to one of the most vile and unlikable human beings on the planet, rides around on a skateboard and does the dabbing pose that all the cool kids are talking about these days, so: he offers hope.

If the DNC had any sense whatsoever, they would just rally behind their fucking frontrunner, the one who has consistently topped every poll on overall popularity, has accumulated millions in individual donations in record time, is filling stadiums wherever he goes, is completely uncorruptible by big money from the military or the oil companies, has been consistently on the right side of pretty much every issue decades before they were even part of the national conversation, and actually represents all the things the party has claimed to advocate for decades but failed to deliver in any lasting way. If they could just bolster this guy the way they did for a slouch like John Kerry or HRC, tap into the energy and enthusiasm--and, yes, the anger--he channels, they could be at the forefront of a political revolution instead of a return to the status quo.

Yes, Bernie Sanders is an old fart. But he's the only one in the race that cares about working people, poor people, innocent people in other countries affected by our policies, and marginalized people of any minority status, not just the ones that are popular this year. Everyone else, at some point or another, has revealed that they are in the end just another prosecutor who locks up non-violent offenders and treats prisoners like slave labor... until they are running for President. Just another oil-funded pretty boy whose rich dad named him something that sounded ethnic so he could skim votes from the Hispanic population... until they are running for President. Just another "third way", across-the-aisle, Return To Normalcy fixture of the old guard who has betrayed everything liberals stand for at some point in his long career... until they are running for President. Now that the race is on, everyone is suddenly a progressive, as if this is how they've always talked, how they naturally think, and not a calculated shift in their rhetoric meant to snatch support away from the guy who ACTUALLY has always talked and thought like this! If we go all-in for Bernie now, while he's still fucking breathing and has a genuine shot, that's the first step in galvanizing the huge base of 18-34 year-olds who are disillusioned with the Dems and American politics in general, and need to see that a person with integrity and unwavering principles can be elected to President in their lifetime. That's the long game. Establish the precedent, rally up the sentiment that everybody knows is waiting to be unleashed, that's been growing since 2015 and isn't going anywhere. Change the party to encompass the values it's supposed to be championing. When the party is marshaled against the candidate who truly champions its values, something is wrong.

??? Were you asleep during the 2016 Presidential campaign? The democrats elected a boring policy wonk with little charisma and lost big time to an asshole. We won the popular vote - but not by a large enough margin. Democratic turnout was way down in 2016. The republicans were more motivated and they won with a smaller vote. These are facts. Whenever dems run a "boring candidate" (HRC, Kerry, Dukokis, Gore) our turnout is low. Candidates who are inspiring (Clinton, Obama) get a higher turnout. Due to EC, the dems can't win without a significantly higher majority of votes than the republicans. These are facts.

Secondly, I haven't seen any polls showing that Bernie is the frontrunner. But he may be. He has the creds. He has great name recognition today. However, are you honestly suggesting that his challengers should drop out and we just coronate Sanders?! Wow have the tables been turned. In late 2016, the democratic party took heat for wanting a quick primary election for HRC since she was the frontrunner then.

Third: I really don't think that you understand joe sixpack from the flyover state. They aren't motivated by free health care and college! They are motivated by their religion, their guns, protection from immigration, and Nascar. They aren't going to vote for a socialist!

I'm sorry, but I'm a realist. 18-34 year olds who want free stuff can't carry an election. Unless there is a split in the republican party or a severe recession, Bernie would get crushed by Trump in the general.

"I'm sorry, but I'm a realist. 18-34 year olds who want free stuff can't carry an election. "

Ahhh yes. We all see you now, Harry.

 

[Harry Bosch]

All the more reason to favor someone who isn't a boring policy wonk. Your implication here is apparently that the socialist from Vermont is a boring policy wonk, which is a bizarre take. Call the guy whatever you want, but if anything he's overly passionate and idealistic. Policy minutiae is the domain of people like Klobuchar and Booker.


You're not wrong, at this stage it would be too much to ask and I'm not suggesting we just skip the primaries of course. But the party establishment is positively hostile to Sanders while courting (and funding) the dullest and most disingenuous automatons like Beto just so he can get as much money as Sanders got through individual donations from the working class.

Louis Susman, former U.S. ambassador to the U.K. and a lead bundler for Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, has been speaking with political financiers from across the country, including those in the financial industry, to see if they will invest in O’Rourke’s campaign, according to people with direct knowledge of the outreach.

The former Obama backer has put together a string of senior party donors who are willing to contribute to the former congressman’s presidential operation, said the people, who declined to be named due to the conversations being deemed private.

In an interview with CNBC, Susman says the people he’s talked to about donating to the campaign are “family and friends.” He added “everyone is excited to go,” while noting he’s been in touch with O’Rourke’s campaign and coordinating his efforts with them. He declined to say who these donors are or which industry they are from.

“Whatever I do, I do it in coordination with the campaign,” Susman said. He said there’s no discussion about him becoming a campaign finance chairman and he has not recently spoken with O’Rourke himself. He’s confident the former Texas Senate candidate will be successful in the fundraising circuit.

“I don’t think, whether it’s through large bundlers or small donors, that he’s going to have a tough time raising money,” Susman said.

He also did not rule out holding fundraisers for O’Rourke, noting “everything is in the planning stages.”

“The team is focused on these four days in Iowa, and everything is going to develop from there,” he added and then abruptly ended the phone call.

Meanwhile, his daughter, Pfizer executive Sally Susman, is supporting another 2020 hopeful: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. She’s hosting a fundraiser for Gillibrand in March at her home, and tickets range from $1,000 to $2,700.

This is the machinery of the party being called into action for Beto O'Rourke, who has no actual principles or experience but can give speeches while awkwardly standing on a diner countertop.

Third: I really don't think that you understand joe sixpack from the flyover state. They aren't motivated by free health care and college! They are motivated by their religion, their guns, protection from immigration, and Nascar. They aren't going to vote for a socialist!

My dear Harry, they aren't going to vote for a Democrat. To move forward as a society and as a civilization, we need to stop trying to win over people who want "protection from immigration", because those people are beyond anyone's help and don't deserve to be accommodated.

I'm sorry, but I'm a realist. 18-34 year olds who want free stuff can't carry an election. Unless there is a split in the republican party or a severe recession, Bernie would get crushed by Trump in the general.

While I disagree with your assessment, I actually think it's pretty likely that we will see both between now and election day 2020.

Why do you think that the democratic establishment is against Bernie? Either way, the person who wins the democratic primary will be the one who earns the most votes. There's no conspiracy against Bernie!

 

[PyramidHead]

Why do you think that the democratic establishment is against Bernie? Either way, the person who wins the democratic primary will be the one who earns the most votes. There's no conspiracy against Bernie!

Not votes, delegates.

 

[PyramidHead]

Just... why